wiesiek wrote:how deep and broad you have to dig in someone life history to evaluate his personality for such position ? ,for ex.
I mean - it is not right to kick off somebody, `cause he was drunk 30 y.a., during his school days, and his behavior wasn`t quite right in that time.
From the 2nd hand - If such character is present in his mature personality - quite different story.
so how to really well evaluate the candidate?
we all know the story where lookin`crystal camin` out dirty...
If Kavanaugh would have said "I just don't remember", it would have been better because then he could say that it would have been wrong to do. Rather, he --and especially his supporters-- say that the woman is lying. I.e., he might have been drunk at the party with her in a room, but she's lying if she says he did anything; and, if he did, it wasn't as bad as she says.
Anyway, the second issue was how a past event reflects on a person's character today. How do we judge a judge? Well, the prez said that "they'd even investigate George Washington." Back in the day, school kids in the US were taught the story of Washington cutting down a cherry tree. When his father asked him, Washington replied "I cannot tell a lie." This story meant to show how trustworthy Washington was. The same test can/will be applied to a judge, or anyone. If it's found that Kavanaugh lied, he can't be trusted.
Ford was certainly convincing. Good liars usually are. Kav was certainly upset. As someone accused whose career is at stake usually is.
Her testimony, she has lied number of times they call them inconsistencies.
WASHINGTON - An examination taken by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was released Wednesday, showing she passed a polygraph test over the sexual assault allegations she's lodged against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
The August 7 examination, held in a Maryland Hilton Hotel, consisted of a one-page, handwritten statement by Ford, an interview and two questions: Is any part of your statement false? And, Did you make up any part of your statement?
She answered both with a no. The Virginia-based examiner, Jeremiah Hanafin, noted both answers were deemed "not indicative of deception," according to the report obtained by USA TODAY.
I have taking polygraphs before for some jobs that I worked at. In either case they are not admissible in a court of law for a number of reasons.
Steve James wrote:I have taking polygraphs before for some jobs that I worked at. In either case they are not admissible in a court of law for a number of reasons.
You've done lots of things, but that's not the point. The issue is whether Ford can/should be believed. You called her a liar.
what I posted "Her testimony, she has lied number of times they call them inconsistencies. " I did not call her a liar,
I did say she has lied...made statements that are untrue and can be proven as such. They have chosen not to challenge them yet but acknowledge them as "inconsistent" .
Lying under oath is perjury, a crime.
yes it is, they didn't seem to concerned about it nor did they pursue it,,,
To support her statement and version of the events, she took a polygraph exam.
She passed. If she had failed, you'd use it as evidence that she was lying.
you don't know what I would use it for..
You don't seem to understand what a polygraph shows or is used for dispite having taken one.
As I said, that's the problem. She's not going to be believed no matter what she does.
not true...she would be believed if she had evidence supporting her allegations.
The problem is she has unsupported allegations, the burden of proof is on her to prove them,,,
it's not on him to disprove them
He has the presumption of innocence until its disproved.
Afa the number of questions on a polygraph exam, anytime I've taken one, the last question was always "have all your statements been truthful?"
In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.
For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
·In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
·In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
·Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
·A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
·Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
·While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year.
Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
·She maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
o The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and ... work.” She flies to the mid- Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.
o Note too that her attorneys refused a private hearing or interview. Dr. Ford testified that she was not “clear” on whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her. It therefore is not clear that her attorneys ever communicated Chairman Grassley’s offer to send investigators to meet her in
California or wherever she wanted to meet to conduct the interview.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 73 guests