Dr. Ford's Lie-Detector Test a Fraud

[Town Heretic]

He was accused of a crime, and answered under penalty of perjury. That particular talking point does not hole water.

You're wrong and it absolutely does. When you sign your name to a legally binding document you open yourself to criminal charges if you're signing in an attempt to defraud. It doesn't make the signing part of a criminal proceeding.

The presumption has a place for reasons I've set out. The Kavanaugh hearing wasn't that place.

 

[rocketman]

The presumption has a place for reasons I've set out. The Kavanaugh hearing wasn't that place.

Well thankfully you don't get to decide where presumption exists and does not exist, though you are free to muse as others at how you "think" it should be (in your opinion of course). It actually does apply and all the kicking and screaming from liberal lawyers like yourself does not change 200+ years of precedent of due process. Accusing someone of a crime under oath in any official hearing puts the onus on the accuser to substantiate their claim and that just did not happen. I am aware that there are sects of lawyers such as yourself that are floating this bogus notion including certain law institutions which intend to undermine due process, seems to be all the rage to turn the law on it's head these days, and violate the civil liberties of those you deem unworthy of them but, the precedent stands in spite of these disturbing notions to upend due process.

 

[glorydaz]

You're wrong and it absolutely does. When you sign your name to a legally binding document you open yourself to criminal charges if you're signing in an attempt to defraud. It doesn't make the signing part of a criminal proceeding.

The presumption has a place for reasons I've set out. The Kavanaugh hearing wasn't that place.

Nonsense. The presumption of innocence predates all your lawyerly scams. It's a basic human right, and that you don't see that tells me something about you.

So, when your neighbor comes storming over and claims your son broke his window while he was at work, do you presume he's guilty and expect him to prove his innocence? Do you bother to ask, what proof your neighbor has that it was your son and not some other kid?

Fess up, Mr. Lawyer. There is no court of law to give him his rights.

Or, do you not give him even his basic human right to presumption of innocence? :chew:

 

[Jonahdog]

Nonsense. The presumption of innocence predates all your lawyerly scams. It's a basic human right, and that you don't see that tells me something about you.

So, when your neighbor comes storming over and claims your son broke his window while he was at work, do you presume he's guilty and expect him to prove his innocence? Do you bother to ask, what proof your neighbor has that it was your son and not some other kid?

Fess up, Mr. Lawyer. There is no court of law to give him his rights.

Or, do you not give him even his basic human right to presumption of innocence? :chew:

Not worth the effort

 

[Town Heretic]

Well thankfully you don't get to decide where presumption exists and does not exist, though you are free to muse as others at how you "think" it should be (in your opinion of course).

Rather, I'm a lawyer telling you something that is objectively true. It isn't an op-ed and I'm not making the decision. I'm explaining why that decision was already made. Why it was a good one.

Accusing someone of a crime under oath in any official hearing puts the onus on the accuser to substantiate their claim and that just did not happen.

I get "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" as a principle of argument and of course if you're saying another person did X you'll have to make the case to the third party that what you're saying is true, but if the presumption actually lay with Kavanaugh he wouldn't have had to and shouldn't have been required to speak at all. Because if and when you're presumed innocent (which, again, is a criminal presumption that isn't applicable here) you may remain silent and put the onus on the charging party entirely (which is always the state, not a private individual).

The truth is that we had two people making sworn statements about a thing and that's all we had. Of course the person laying the charge is going to have to convince the people deciding on the competing narratives that hers is the more believable one. That's not the same as overcoming a presumption of innocence, a thing only presumed to be in play by mistaken laymen and those who seek for one reason or another to mislead them.

Any number of legal actions that are not criminal in nature carry with them the possibility/potential of a related criminal charge being laid at some point even while the event isn't that animal at all in the signing. I noted that in an illustration for glory.

For the rest...your presumption isn't one of innocence. It's beneath you to write it and beneath me to worry after it. Believe I'm an elf it it suits what ails you to produce the need.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nonsense. The presumption of innocence predates all your lawyerly scams.

This isn't an argument of equals about a matter of faith.

It's a basic human right, and that you don't see that tells me something about you.

That I'm rational and understand that if you have two children and they both give you two different narratives on a party allegedly being thrown while you were gone you don't presume which narrative is true before the full facts are in. You listen and decide. Mary may tell you she believes there was a party at some point and put on by someone, but that she didn't throw it and wasn't there. John may tell you he watched Mary plan and throw it. You'll probably look for evidence. You might ask the neighbors. You'll also listen to your children and try to determine who is more believable.

Neither of those children should begin, from the outset, with a presumption that they are telling the truth or that their sibling is lying. That would be unjust and they stand, essentially, as equals before you, offering whatever evidence they have on the matter and subject to whatever evidence you may ultimately discover beyond their testimony.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

After looking at this video we can understand that the lie-detector test which Dr. Ford took was a complete fraud. If she was really telling the truth the test would have been done the right way:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5840709120001/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

Just the fact that it wasn't done correctly can only lead to one conclusion--she couldn't pass a real lie-detector test!

Anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence knows that Ford is a liar and this whole sham to block Kavanaugh was a fraud. Thank God America was saved from the filthy evil leftist mobs.

 

[Town Heretic]

Anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence know that Ford was a liar and this whole sham to block Kavanaugh was a fraud. Thank God America was saved from the filthy evil leftist mobs.

I agree that only someone with the slightest bit intelligence would know that Ford was a liar.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence knows that Ford is a liar and this whole sham to block Kavanaugh was a fraud. Thank God America was saved from the filthy evil leftist mobs.

I agree that only someone with the slightest bit intelligence would know that Ford was a liar.

As usual, you think you are more clever than you actually are. I shall re-state: Only an IDIOT would believe Ford, and only a PIG would assume Kavanaugh's guilt.

Assuming guilt instead of presuming innocence is Fascist. True to form, the Left are the real fascists in America, not the right.

 

[lifeisgood]

Except that they are clueless about history, civics, and common sense. :chuckle:

I can attest to this as I asked my granddaughter the other day if she is taught history and she said no, they do not teach her about history. I almost fell off my chair. I didn't tell her anything, but I did talk to my son about it.

Now, I am looking for truthful, non-leaning one way or another, historical books.
Any suggestions greatly appreciated.

I got a three-volume history of the Civil Rights Movement (excellent). I much appreciate the copious notes.
Parting the Waters, Pillar of Fire, At Canaan's Edge by Taylor Branch.

Black Yellow-Dogs by Ben Kinchlow where I learned from the Court of Northampton: Eight Mar, Anno 1654...

Whereas complaint was this day made it to the court by the humble petition of Anthony Johnson, Negro, against Mr. Robert Parker that he detains one John Casor, a Negro, the plaintiff’s servant under pretense that the said John Casor is a freeman. The court seriously considering and maturely weighing the premises do find that the said Mr. Robert Parker most un-rightly keeps the said Negro John Casor from his rightful master Anthony Johnson, as it appears by the Deposition of Capt. Samuel Goldsmith and many probable circumstances. Be it therefore the Judgment of the court and ordered that said John Casor Negro, shall forthwith be turned into the service of his set master, Anthony Johnson, and that the said Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit and execution. (Eighth March, Year 1654) --- Original MS. Reocrds of the County Court of Northhamtpn. Orders, Deeds, and Wills, 1651-1654, p. 10​

So, Anthony Johnson, a black man, went to court to recover John Casor, a black man. This was a wow moment for me.

This is apparently the first legal sanction of slavery (not for a crime) in the New World.


From a 1795 court document from Henrico County, Virginia:

Know all men by these presents that I, James Radford of the County of Henrico for and in consideration of the sum of thirty-three pounds current money of Virginia to me in hand paid by George Radford a black freeman of the city of Richmond hath bargained and sold onto George Radford one negro woman [A]ggy, to have and to hold the said negro slave [A]ggy under the said George Radford his heirs and assigns forever. (Emphasis added) MS. Deeds of Henrico County, No. 5, p.585.​

Also, America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations by William J. Federer.

 

[ok doser]

Anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence knows that Ford is a liar and this whole sham to block Kavanaugh was a fraud. Thank God America was saved from the filthy evil leftist mobs.

The dems overplayed their hand and will pay the price next month

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I agree that only someone with the slightest bit intelligence would know that Ford was a liar.

If she was telling the truth then why didn't she take a legitimate lie-detector test?

Anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence can figure that out. Can you?

 

[lifeisgood]

The dems overplayed their hand and will pay the price next month

I agree that the Democrats overplayed their hand this time as they were so used to the Republicans just laying there and taking it. I believe Democrats are scratching their heads as to why it didn't work this time. No wonder some of them (NOT ALL) are losing their minds.

As to the point if the Democrats are going to pay the price next month, that we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The dems overplayed their hand and will pay the price next month

Let us hope you are correct. At this point 8 years ago Obama and the Dems lost the House.

 

[fool]

Let us hope you are correct. At this point 8 years ago Obama and the Dems lost the House.

That's what would normally happen, the pendulum swings the other way. So if the Dems make gains in the midterms then balance is restored. We all sit around and stare at each other for two years and nothing much happens and that's how it sorta supposed to work.
If the Repubs hold the line or make gains in Congress then the greatest era in our history has begun.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

That's what would normally happen, the pendulum swings the other way. So if the Dems make gains in the midterms then balance is restored. We all sit around and stare at each other for two years and nothing much happens and that's how it sorta supposed to work.
If the Repubs hold the line or make gains in Congress then the greatest era in our history has begun.

If the Dems take the House they will do much more than stare. They have gone insane. They will impeach everyone from Trump to his dog and screw up all the good he has done as much as they can

 

[Right Divider]

If the Dems take the House they will do much more than stare. They have gone insane. They will impeach everyone from Trump to his dog and screw up all the good he has done as much as they can

Two-thirds of the Senate is required to convict the impeached and that isn't going to happen.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Two-thirds of the Senate is required to convict the impeached and that isn't going to happen.

I understand that, but impeachment can be politically crippling, even without a Senate guilty sentence.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Greg Gutfeld's recent Twitter feed is priceless: https://twitter.com/greggutfeld

 

[fool]

If the Dems take the House they will do much more than stare. They have gone insane. They will impeach everyone from Trump to his dog and screw up all the good he has done as much as they can

Right, the pendulum swings.
But just like Trump and a Repub Congress couldn't un-do Obamacare The Dems will never repeal the tax breaks or un-seat Brett.