Tara Reade is a person who exists

[laughing dog]

Koyaanisqatsi has established that his claim is correct. "Prior consistent statements" are a well established component of corroborative evidence. Christine Blasey Ford's prior consistent statements are genuine, admissible-in-a-court-of-law evidence, no matter how much you wish they weren't. So let's just acknowledge Koy's point and move on.

Whether they would be admissible or not is not the issue. I think such hearsay should not be admissible because it can be easily faked, especially when vouched for by somebody like the accuser's husband or close friend, but again, that is not the issue. The issue is whether such weak evidence could ever establish that the accused was guilty.

Koy mentioned case law. What case law does he have where somebody was convicted of a 30 year old rape based on "prior consistent statements".

Well, time lapse doesn't invalidate application of the rule. But in Ford's case, her alleged prior consistent statement is only relevant as to "federal judge." It is not corroborating evidence against Kavanaugh. Seriously doubt this would be admitted at a trial. The reported cases always have the victim identifying the actual defendant in the prior statement. I mean, if Ford had said a human-life form had assaulted her in high school, would that be corroborating evidence against Kavanaugh?

Well, there is doubt whether Kavanaugh is a human life form.

 

[Derec]

You are the only one suggesting that prior consistent statements are all that's needed to justify a conviction in cases where it exists.

Since her alleged statements to her husband (which did not even name Kav) are the only thing CBF has, it would have to be enough. Which is my point.

I'm glad you finally recognize that it's evidence, but you are jumping to ridiculous conclusions.

I do not recognize it as evidence. I recognize it as something that may be admitted into evidence by virtue of a judicial rule. I still do not accept that it provides any support to the claim.

 

[Arctish]

You are the only one suggesting that prior consistent statements are all that's needed to justify a conviction in cases where it exists.

Since her alleged statements to her husband (which did not even name Kav) are the only thing CBF has, it would have to be enough. Which is my point.

You didn't bother to review your own posts on this subject, much less look at anything else, did you?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is a fallacy. You won't get any traction here with that horsecrap.

I'm glad you finally recognize that it's evidence, but you are jumping to ridiculous conclusions.

I do not recognize it as evidence. I recognize it as something that may be admitted into evidence by virtue of a judicial rule. I still do not accept that it provides any support to the claim.

So now someone has to explain the difference between evidence and irrefutable proof to you? Or are you just employing a particularly obtuse bit of rhetoric because it sounds like it might possibly be a valid point of you ignore most of it?

 

[Rhea]

Derec, it must be exhausting to work so hard to carve out excuses for all of the legal precedent and procedural expectations that were violated in order to get Kavanagh off the hook.

It's clear that you don't believe her, and that you aren't swayed by the evidence and that you don't think an investigation was needed to discard all of it.

But what's amazing to behold is how hard you have to work to try to support your claim that the legal system was not violated in this case.
You have to pretend you haven't heard things.
You have to pretend that case law doesn't exist
You have to pretend that investigations should be stopped before checking the evidence
You have to pretend that people mean something other than what they clearly say, and write
You have to pretend that private school jocks are teetotalers
You have to pretend that a lifetime appointment to the highest court shouldn't be subject to even the bare minimum of procedure.


That's a lot of hard work. You must be exhausted. Wouldn't it just be easier to say, "I don't care what the law says, I say he didn't do anything, and if he did do it, it wasn't wrong, and if it was wrong, you can't convince me he should be accountable for it."

 

[Jarhyn]

Derec, it must be exhausting to work so hard to carve out excuses for all of the legal precedent and procedural expectations that were violated in order to get Kavanagh off the hook.

It's clear that you don't believe her, and that you aren't swayed by the evidence and that you don't think an investigation was needed to discard all of it.

But what's amazing to behold is how hard you have to work to try to support your claim that the legal system was not violated in this case.
You have to pretend you haven't heard things.
You have to pretend that case law doesn't exist
You have to pretend that investigations should be stopped before checking the evidence
You have to pretend that people mean something other than what they clearly say, and write
You have to pretend that private school jocks are teetotalers
You have to pretend that a lifetime appointment to the highest court shouldn't be subject to even the bare minimum of procedure.


That's a lot of hard work. You must be exhausted. Wouldn't it just be easier to say, "I don't care what the law says, I say he didn't do anything, and if he did do it, it wasn't wrong, and if it was wrong, you can't convince me he should be accountable for it."

I mean shit, how hard is it to go to a house, look how it is laid out, and say "yes, based on the account and description of this fairly unique place, this person has in fact seen the inside of this building", and "yes, based on the date range on which the person claims to have potentially been here, and the recorded document which states this person was here for an event on this date, that both the written account and testimony line up to say that there WAS a party and that she was likely there, which conflicts with sworn testimony that there was no party and they never met."

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'd rather doubt that Evidence Rule 801 would allow the alleged prior consistent statement by Ford as she did not name Kavanaugh. She purportedly said "federal judge."

To some of her friends. To another friend, Keith Koegler, she named Kavanaugh specifically (in an email chain no less):

Keith Koegler said in a sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday that Ford told him in 2016 that a federal court judge in Washington, D.C,. sexually assaulted her in high school. He said Ford identified the alleged assailant in an email as Kavanaugh.
...
Koegler said in the letter that he had the copy of an email thread with Ford from June 29, 2018, in which she identified Kavanaugh as the man she previously said sexually assaulted her.

Kavanaugh was not even nominated by Trump until July 9th, 2018. He was merely on a "short list" of possible nominees at the time Ford sent that email to Koegler confirming that it was Kavanaugh that had been the judge she had told him had raped her.

And, of course, her husband (and, presumably, their couples therapist), was explicitly told it was Brett Kavanaugh and the details of her assault were discussed repeatedly in their sessions, over several years but starting in 2012:

In his declaration, Russell Ford says his wife first shared the details of a sexual assault during a couple’s therapy session in 2012.

“I remember her saying that the attacker’s name was Brett Kavanaugh, that he was a successful lawyer who had grown up in Christine’s home town, and that he was well-known in the Washington, D.C. community,” Russell Ford says. “In the years following the therapy session, we spoke a number of times about how the assault affected her.”

 

[angelo]

Toni has done a very good job answering, but allow me to pile on...

First off, receptionist, not secretary. Second, she was not being threatening. She was a little drunk, and honestly if I were not married I would have been more than happy to reciprocate. All she did was made me feel a little awkward.

The guy who cornered her in the garage was a solid-gold asshole. Not long after he moved to town, he hooked up with a married woman, had his own divorce lawyer help her extricate herself from the marriage, and then cheated on her within weeks of their own wedding. I was in the studio once when another employee (the married sister in law of another co-worker) walked in and he began aggressively hitting on her. I went back to her office after the incident and apologized on behalf of all men.

And again, it's a pattern of behavior. The receptionist was young and tipsy at a party once. The asshole was sober, aggressive, and clearly felt entitled to whatever he wanted from her because that behavior had worked for him in the past.

Note the difference. That's what seems to be at work here. We've got one so far unconfirmed account of sexual assault from a Presidential candidate who has admittedly been a little too "hands on" at times vs two dozen accounts of sexual harassment/assault from a Presidential candidate who has literally bragged about his actions on tape. Repeatedly.

Let's take this one carefully, but keep it in context.

Honestly, even if Biden had a laundry list of allegations and behavior, sexually speaking, as long as Trump (he doesnt), he doesn't come with the baggage of mafia ties, fucking over contractors, bad loans, money laundering, fraud, and foreign money.

We are, yet again, artificially stuck between a douche and a turd. I don't like the fact that we had a chance to have the choice between a real human being who cares about everything a real human SHOULD care about and the aforementioned turd. We got the fucking douche instead and I fucking blame all of the complete fucking cunts that would deign to argue about how old or "electable" people are as if they are t creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in saying that. But again, here we are.

Hopefully, we can leverage a prog VP and hope this creepy old guy gets impeached or just plain goes toes up. At the very least we get a Supreme Court nomination remotely worthy of following up The Notorious RBG.

Elections have consequences. Yes, Biden is a drooling dementia patient who has and probably will continue to creep on women. Is that worse somehow than a drooling dementia patient who raped a 14 year old girl dressed up to look like his daughter and who is beholden entirely to Russia?

So yeah, I'm voting for Biden.

Still pushing the discredited Russian hoax I see. So, you don't mind having a pedophile, hair sniffer, digital female diddler as POTUS as long as it's not the Trump! That figures! Tell me, have you ever approved of a conservative President, or are they all shite unless they're Democrats?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Still pushing the discredited Russian hoax I see.

Still desperately pushing the "hoax" hoax we all see.

So, you don't mind...

You evidently don't mind that Trump is a confirmed rapist, confessed sexual predator and serial adulterer who has publicly indicated several times that he would gladly fuck his own daughter. And that is on top of being a traitor and the most incompetent POTUS in US history.

It's funny how Trump supporters just stop at "they hate him" and never ask why he is hated. Not funny "ha-ha;" funny they're-all-easily-manipulated-idiots.

But let's take your whataboutism to its logical conclusion. Even if you're right that some Democrats would trade someone who was merely accused of sexual assault for someone who has publicly bragged about sexual assault, all that ultimately would mean is that those Dems are as bad as you are.

You haven't exonerated Trump in any way. He's still a confirmed rapist and confessed sexual predator. So what have you achieved, other than the lowering of some Democrats to your deplorable level?

Tell me, have you ever approved of a conservative President, or are they all shite

Aside from Eisenhower, they've all proven themselves to be shite, none more blatantly and openly than Trump. I know you don't understand what that means because in your world evidently things just are certain ways without a tiny thought as to how or why they are that way.

But at least you agree that Trump should not be POTUS, since you are so vehemently against sexual predators being in the WH.

 

[Toni]

Still desperately pushing the "hoax" hoax we all see.



You evidently don't mind that Trump is a confirmed rapist, confessed sexual predator and serial adulterer who has publicly indicated several times that he would gladly fuck his own daughter. And that is on top of being a traitor and the most incompetent POTUS in US history.

It's funny how Trump supporters just stop at "they hate him" and never ask why he is hated. Not funny "ha-ha;" funny they're-all-easily-manipulated-idiots.

But let's take your whataboutism to its logical conclusion. Even if you're right that some Democrats would trade someone who was merely accused of sexual assault for someone who has publicly bragged about sexual assault, all that ultimately would mean is that those Dems are as bad as you are.

You haven't exonerated Trump in any way. He's still a confirmed rapist and confessed sexual predator. So what have you achieved, other than the lowering of some Democrats to your deplorable level?

Tell me, have you ever approved of a conservative President, or are they all shite

Aside from Eisenhower, they've all proven themselves to be shite, none more blatantly and openly than Trump. I know you don't understand what that means because in your world evidently things just are certain ways without a tiny thought as to how or why they are that way.

But at least you agree that Trump should not be POTUS, since you are so vehemently against sexual predators being in the WH.

One tiny quibble: Dating is not necessarily the same thing as fucking. Donald Trump has publicly stated he'd date his daughter. With Trump, dating would almost certainly include fucking but he certainly fucks plenty of people he doesn't and has never dated and by fuck, I mean has sexual relationships with, not what he's doing to our country.

But we can easily generalize to understand that while it is definitely possible to have sex with people you are not dating, and that for many people, dating is synonymous with fucking plus some kind of romantic relationship, we also must realize that people do date people they are not fucking, often to determine if they like them well enough to consider swapping body fluids while naked and risk STIs and for the hetero and fertile, risk a pregnancy. It's been a million years but when a guy used to ask me if I wanted to go to the movies, it was understood that it would be a date and we would see a movie.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

One tiny quibble: Dating is not necessarily the same thing as fucking. Donald Trump has publicly stated he'd date his daughter.

Tiny quibble back at you: I qualified it with "indicated." He has "publicly indicated several times that he would gladly fuck his own daughter."

 

[TSwizzle]

Good grief, Reade in an interview with Megyn Kelly says Biden told her “I want to fuck you”.

I don’t know what to make of that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Good grief, Reade in an interview with Megyn Kelly says Biden told her “I want to fuck you”.

I don’t know what to make of that.

Probably less than you should make of "grab em by the pussy" that came straight from the horse's ass's mouth

 

[TSwizzle]

Who knew creepy Joe had such a potty mouth ?!!

Or is it sleepy Joe ?

 

[Jarhyn]

Who knew creepy Joe had such a potty mouth ?!!

Or is it sleepy Joe ?

Let me reiterate: "grab em by the pussy"

 

[Ford]

Who knew creepy Joe had such a potty mouth ?!!

Or is it sleepy Joe ?

Let me reiterate: "grab em by the pussy"

Also, "I moved on her like a bitch." A married man trying to impose himself upon a married woman against her will.

But hey..."party of family values" am I right?

Then of course there's the whole cheating on his wife with a porn star, paying her hush money, and then not even denying it when caught.

"Party of family values" right there.

Add onto that 25 accusations of sexual harassment/assault/rape, and you've got yourself a "True Christian" who embodies "family values" better than any of those darned libruls!


But hey...let's pretend Biden is more "creepy" than a guy who fondles his own daughter, shall we?

 

[TSwizzle]

Oooh, look over there !! A squirrel!!

 

[Ford]

Oh look! A small furry creature that lives under a bridge!

 

[TSwizzle]

Oh look! A small furry creature that lives under a bridge!

It’s a fair cop.

 

[Derec]

Good grief, Reade in an interview with Megyn Kelly says Biden told her “I want to fuck you”.

... like an animal?

I mean it was in the 90s?

I don’t know what to make of that.

Maybe he was just singing some NIN and she misunderstood.

 

[Derec]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is a fallacy. You won't get any traction here with that horsecrap.

Take your own advice then.

So now someone has to explain the difference between evidence and irrefutable proof to you?

Nobody is saying anything about "irrefutable proof".
But there is a huge difference between something being allowed into evidence, and that piece of evidence actually being useful to make a case either for prosecution or for defense.
I do not see CBF's prior statements as useful, and rules of evidence do not establish their usefulness either. Hence me asking about case law.

Or are you just employing a particularly obtuse bit of rhetoric because it sounds like it might possibly be a valid point of you ignore most of it?

Pretending that being allowed to introduce X into evidence in federal courts is the same as showing that X would actually be useful evidence in this case is not even obtuse any more, it's crossed into being concave!