Merged Kavanaugh/Ford OpinionComment threads for Oct 1

[Weatherman2020]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

I understand why she doesn’t want them made public. Look, this woman has serious mental/emotional issues, she is admitted to being unstable. The things she told her shrink are very personal and probably very embarrassing, she never wanted her name made public ( thanks Feinstein). She just wanted somebody in the government to know.

What’s her mental health history?
Does she have fantasies of being raped? Making false allegations against those around her?

 

[The Original Tree]

Three Words:

Sub

Peen

Ahhh

Which Republicans won’t do. They don’t want people to know the truth. Look at all the classmates of Kavanaugh. Republicans want desperately to keep them quiet.

The FBI doesn't have subpoena power when conducting background checks.

This is no longer a back ground check now is it?

 

[OldLady]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

You're suggesting she's mentally ill now? Good one.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

She put herself out there and now we need to challenge her credibility as well. Sucks but true.

FBI needs a full investigation on her.

 

[jc456]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

how?

Fourth Amendment on the Constitutional level.

Once you give up any right, it is no longer a violation of that right.

and she gave up that right by coming forward. She is now fair game for all questioning. She can pull back her allegation and go back to her life, that is all her options are now.

 

[OldLady]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

Then her allegations are meaningless.

They are meaningful only to the person or persons sitting in judgment The judge or judges have subjective opinions in regards witness testimony.

who is that? there is no evidence kavanaugh did anything. I call ford a victim who is quite confused. obviously you don't think she is a victim. she was exploited by demolosers, released her letter she asked for anonymity to. Only, and I say it louder ONLY a Demoloser had her letter. therefore, ONLY a demoloser could have leaked it. ONLY! When a party really doesn't care about women, that's what a party would do. trrible.

Her attorneys had her letter, too.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

You're suggesting she's mentally ill now? Good one.

She may be.

 

[Geaux4it]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

You can't violate your own rights.

Sure you can. Ever been forced to take a Breathalyzer?

Have you ever been required to take a drug test for a job?

Ever hear of a secret court called FISA?

You can't be forced to take a breathalyzer.
You can't be forced to take a drug test.
FISA is not relevant to this.

BUT.... you must face the consequence of that decision

-Geaux

 

[jc456]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

Then her allegations are meaningless.

They are meaningful only to the person or persons sitting in judgment The judge or judges have subjective opinions in regards witness testimony.

who is that? there is no evidence kavanaugh did anything. I call ford a victim who is quite confused. obviously you don't think she is a victim. she was exploited by demolosers, released her letter she asked for anonymity to. Only, and I say it louder ONLY a Demoloser had her letter. therefore, ONLY a demoloser could have leaked it. ONLY! When a party really doesn't care about women, that's what a party would do. trrible.

Her attorneys had her letter, too.

whose lawyers? the ones Feinstein provided? they still tie back to feinstein. she paid ford's bill.

 

[The Original Tree]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

You can't violate your own rights.

Sure you can. Ever been forced to take a Breathalyzer?

Have you ever been required to take a drug test for a job?

Ever hear of a secret court called FISA?

You can't be forced to take a breathalyzer.
You can't be forced to take a drug test.
FISA is not relevant to this.

So when you refuse a Breathalyzer then why are you immediately handcuffed and taken to jail?

Why can they then after you are in custody, take your blood for a blood alcohol test?

FISA is relevant because it represents a GROSS violation of your Constitutional Rights when it is used AGAINST American Citizens. Secret Courts are Unconstitutional. So are Secret Indictments. So are Secret Surveillance Warrants.

 

[jc456]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

You're suggesting she's mentally ill now? Good one.

of course she is. she was seeing a shrink. Right?

 

[The Original Tree]

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

You can't violate your own rights.

Sure you can. Ever been forced to take a Breathalyzer?

Have you ever been required to take a drug test for a job?

Ever hear of a secret court called FISA?

You can't be forced to take a breathalyzer.
You can't be forced to take a drug test.
FISA is not relevant to this.

And when you Refuse there are severe penalties.

it's called a court order for a blood test.

They confiscate your license and impound your care upon refusal of a Breathalizer.

Where is the Due Process in that?

And why are their DUI Checkpoints in a lot of states?

That also is a violation of your rights.

 

[Defiant1]

Three Words:

Sub

Peen

Ahhh

Which Republicans won’t do. They don’t want people to know the truth. Look at all the classmates of Kavanaugh. Republicans want desperately to keep them quiet.

The FBI doesn't have subpoena power when conducting background checks.

This is no longer a back ground check now is it?

Yes it is. A supplemental background check.
The FBI only does 2 things.
Background checks and investigations of federal crimes.
There have been no charges filed in this case and if they were it wouldn't be federal.

 

[Votto]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

All she has to do is turn over those documents to Feinstein so they can be illegally leaked to the media.

 

[iceberg]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

You're suggesting she's mentally ill now? Good one.

yea, how dare anyone seeing a psychiatrist be accused of having mental issues. the reach is beyond fathoming.

 

[jc456]

Three Words:

Sub

Peen

Ahhh

Which Republicans won’t do. They don’t want people to know the truth. Look at all the classmates of Kavanaugh. Republicans want desperately to keep them quiet.

The FBI doesn't have subpoena power when conducting background checks.

This is no longer a back ground check now is it?

Yes it is. A supplemental background check.
The FBI only does 2 things.
Background checks and investigations of federal crimes.
There have been no charges filed in this case and if they were it wouldn't be federal.

so you're of the opinion that a seventeen year old boy loses all credibility cause you said so?

 

[Defiant1]

You can't violate your own rights.

Sure you can. Ever been forced to take a Breathalyzer?

Have you ever been required to take a drug test for a job?

Ever hear of a secret court called FISA?

You can't be forced to take a breathalyzer.
You can't be forced to take a drug test.
FISA is not relevant to this.

And when you Refuse there are severe penalties.

it's called a court order for a blood test.

They confiscate your license and impound your care upon refusal of a Breathalizer.

Where is the Due Process in that?

And why are their DUI Checkpoints in a lot of states?

That also is a violation of your rights.

Driving is not a right.

 

[OldLady]

Three Words:

Sub

Peen

Ahhh

I don't know that psychological records can be subpoenaed. Aren't they almost as sacrosanct as confessions to a priest?

 

[jc456]

Sure you can. Ever been forced to take a Breathalyzer?

Have you ever been required to take a drug test for a job?

Ever hear of a secret court called FISA?

You can't be forced to take a breathalyzer.
You can't be forced to take a drug test.
FISA is not relevant to this.

And when you Refuse there are severe penalties.

it's called a court order for a blood test.

They confiscate your license and impound your care upon refusal of a Breathalizer.

Where is the Due Process in that?

And why are their DUI Checkpoints in a lot of states?

That also is a violation of your rights.

Driving is not a right.

It is once you receive your license.

 

[jc456]

Three Words:

Sub

Peen

Ahhh

I don't know that psychological records can be subpoenaed. Aren't they almost as sacrosanct as confessions to a priest?

or client lawyer privilege? like that one?