The Trump Presidency – 2016

[RainMaker]

And as I've said a bunch of times, they can easily replace him with someone else that will do exactly what they want Kavanaugh to do. The legal profession is filled with Federalist Society robots that don't have a bunch of women accusing him of being at best a pervert. Gorsuch was another and he got confirmed without issue.

[JPhillips]

One thing this illustrates is that every GOP senator can be a king if they want to be. It's genuinely surprising to me that so few have used the power they have to control the agenda.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

"Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton, resulting in a 39-point advantage for Trump among this group."


"We see what we want to believe"
-Flying Spaghetti Monster

33% of his supporters are white men without a college degree. Is that a majority of his supporters?

"Oh look, its snowing outside"
- Snowflake the Snowman

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I think this is a very good representation of the problem. You seem to making your conclusion purely based on your personal experiences. You are your equating analogous, biased and incomplete experiences to all of society.

In other words, I feel your conclusions show a total lack of empathy. Your "Everyone was drunk" for example, seem to be code for "you asked for it, what happened is partially your fault for not remembering everything perfectly."

Using your personal experiences to judge another is myopic. I can't blame you, I think yesterday proved gathering facts was inferior to personal antidotes about basketball coaching and a 10 year olds prayer.

Another over-reaching analysis of my psyche (see illegal immigration debate) but okay.

re: gathering facts, not sure where you are coming from, you obviously haven't read what I think should happen to be fair to both parties.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And as I've said a bunch of times, they can easily replace him with someone else that will do exactly what they want Kavanaugh to do. The legal profession is filled with Federalist Society robots that don't have a bunch of women accusing him of being at best a pervert. Gorsuch was another and he got confirmed without issue.

This is the weird part to me. It isn't Kavanaugh or nothing. It's Kavanaugh or someone who will vote just like Kavanaugh.

The GOP might be pot-committed at this point, but had they cut bait as soon as Ford's allegations seemed to have some weight, they'd be halfway toward confirming another FedSoc shortlister by now.

[albionmoonlight]

dola.

Like, even if they can't do it before the mid-terms, I don't see why they wouldn't do it during the lame duck.

[ISiddiqui]

Looks like Murkowski is joining Flake calling for a week long FBI Investigation before a full Senate vote. That's 2 Republican Senators potentially voting no if there is no investigation.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This is the weird part to me. It isn't Kavanaugh or nothing. It's Kavanaugh or someone who will vote just like Kavanaugh.

The GOP might be pot-committed at this point, but had they cut bait as soon as Ford's allegations seemed to have some weight, they'd be halfway toward confirming another FedSoc shortlister by now.

That's exactly what's confusing to me. The only distinction that I can come up with is the fact Kavanaugh is an extreme presidential-immunity guy who has been very vocal on the subject. This one is likely coming from the top, as GOP senators have been doing all kinds of illogical nonsene in the name of Trump for 2 years.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Women flashing their breasts isn't meant to sexually humiliate or intimidate another person. Pulling your dick out in a girl's face is.

I wasn't trying to equate them as equivalent and have said that in prior posts. I brought up the flashing to point out that if you want to call Kavanaugh a "sex offender" because he showed his dick, so is flashing breasts.

Now I've seen similar activity in my life. Usually by the same privileged class of wankers who understand there are no consequences to their actions. I wouldn't want those people on the Supreme Court either.

The folks I saw do this were the jocks (I think they were the only ones with enough confidence to do it vs nerdy kids). They may have been the privilege class of wankers also but I remembered them as jocks.

If there hasn't been a relapse and is a good Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc. person for the past 30 years or so, and he is qualified, I would put it to youthful indiscretions and be okay with it.

Basically it boils down to this.

And for the record, I'd have much more respect for the man if he flat out said he got drunk and was highly inappropriate when he was younger. That he changed as he got older, married, and had daughters. That he regrets those decisions. I respect people who own up to their mistakes, not those who lie.

Re: choirboy, I absolutely agree.

Re: Ramirez, what if he really didn't do it?

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

One thing this illustrates is that every GOP senator can be a king if they want to be. It's genuinely surprising to me that so few have used the power they have to control the agenda.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I wasn't trying to equate them as equivalent and have said that in prior posts. I brought up the flashing to point out that if you want to call Kavanaugh a "sex offender" because he showed his dick, so is flashing breasts.

Technically true. There are huge double standards when it comes to the law.

For instance if a homeless man pulls out his dick on the train in front of a woman, he'll be immediately arrested. He'll likely be a sex offender and spend time in prison. Not many people here would be upset with it. But if you are a wealthy prep schooler and do it, it's "youth indiscretions".

Perhaps the person being added to the Supreme Court shouldn't be considered above the law.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Re: Ramirez, what if he really didn't do it?

Then he goes back to being a highly paid Federal judge. He can sue these women for defamation too. Not a big deal.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Looks like Murkowski is joining Flake calling for a week long FBI Investigation before a full Senate vote. That's 2 Republican Senators potentially voting no if there is no investigation.

This is the right thing to do IMO.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...ommittee-vote/

JUST IN: The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted to send the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the floor -- under one condition: Flake will only support it after a brief FBI investigation.

I'm predicting a lot more pain & embarrassment for choirboy. He better hope there are no corroborating witnesses.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah. It's one thing if after all the interviews and investigation, it appears that it is too difficult to say if it actually happened, so we'll vote yes. It's quite another to say, nah, we don't need an investigation when there is so much smoke, just vote him in.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

33% of his supporters are whites without a college degree. Is that a majority of his supporters?

"Oh, look its snowing outside"
- Snowflake the Snowman

Sorry, didn’t see you changed your orginal argument to “majority of trump voters were...”

And it is my issue, not yours, that I find your limited experiences myopic. I think there are a lot good posters here that I hope you gain from their frame of reference.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Perhaps the person being added to the Supreme Court shouldn't be considered above the law.

As some earlier said, this isn't a trial its a job interview.

But I actually agree with you. We should investigate more, lets lay out the facts, the context, corroborating witnesses etc. and have the senate/committee make an informed judgement.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Then he goes back to being a highly paid Federal judge. He can sue these women for defamation too. Not a big deal.

Its a once in a lifetime opportunity. I can't blame him for fighting hard.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Sorry, didn’t see you changed your orginal argument to “majority of trump voters were...”

And it is my issue, not yours, that I find your limited experiences myopic. I think there are a lot good posters here that I hope you gain from their frame of reference.

I wish the same for you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Its a once in a lifetime opportunity. I can't blame him for fighting hard.

Being on the Supreme Court isn't a birthright. There are plenty of highly qualified people who could fill the role just the same.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by muns

If you want to see something interesting that can be used about what people focus on which is problematic in investigations, let alone investiagtions that span 30+ years please watch this video selective attention test - YouTube

7. So the rub is that as an investigator, I totally believe that something happened to her. There is trauma there, and I would love to be able to explore that side more. However, as things stand at this very point, I wouldn’t be able to throw someone out of school on what I know now. I need MORE.

Nice post, well balanced. Thanks for sharing.

I got the correct # of passes but the last question did get me.

Do you think the FBI would include trauma trained investigator on the team?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by corbes

It was not about sex. It was about the sexual humiliation of women as a means of bonding with other men. It was about respect and dignity.

It all means nothing. Let it be said that they have not discredited her testimony, they have not even tried.

She was simply ignored.

I agree the Republican senators ignored her, but I don't think Kavanaugh did. He said it did not happen, I never met her, I would not have been at a party where she indicated the night in question with the people she said, based off her recollection I'm not sure how she would have gotten to or from a party where she claims either, and everyone she claims was there so far has denied it.

I don't know who to believe. Both parties seemed much more credible yesterday (at least when it came to that incident - I don't believe his yearbook rationales, or her fear of flying f.e.) than they had beforehand. I didn't like the emotion and overt partisan attacks from a future SC judge, but with respect to that incident I don't know what else you need or want Kavanaugh to do that isn't attacking her and her character.

Originally Posted by muns

7. So the rub is that as an investigator, I totally believe that something happened to her. There is trauma there, and I would love to be able to explore that side more. However, as things stand at this very point, I wouldn’t be able to throw someone out of school on what I know now. I need MORE.

Yeah, that's about where I ended up. She seemed very credible in reporting what the event was. The where/when part seems very suspect. Not sure what to think on the who part.

Maybe an FBI investigation will be able to dig more into that, but I'm not sure we'll get much clarification. (Though maybe they can also look into the alleged roofying and gang rapes of passed out girls, because the media seems to have forgotten about that allegation.) The only thing obvious from yesterday was that Chuck Grassley is an embarrassment and exhibit 128 why we should have term or age limits for Senators or at least not assign committee chairs based strictly on seniority.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Then he goes back to being a highly paid Federal judge. He can sue these women for defamation too. Not a big deal.

So hypothetically even if all the allegations are proven false, but after he has his character assassinated, loses a nomination to the Supreme Court because of it, and half the country thinks he's a rapist, it's "not a big deal" because he can maybe get a little money in defamation suits?

Originally Posted by Atocep

I do think this will drive midterms further to Dems advantage and maybe makes the paths to tipping Senate slightly more realistic.

I only saw a passing reference to it when reading stuff from The Atlantic yesterday, but apparently Republicans believe that confirming Kavanaugh is their only chance to "win" the midterms. Like most here I think that's crazy and a Kavanaugh confirmation will mobilize many more Democratic voters, but after seeing Lindsey Graham's performance yesterday and the response to it maybe "a victory" over the PC crowd really will galvanize that Trump base enough.

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

To be fair, society seemed to believe that non-consensual sex and sexually aggressive behaviour was funny in the 80's (see Sixteen Candles, Revenge of the Nerds, Porky's, Meatballs, Breakfast Club, etc.).

Animal House, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Caddyshack... maybe that's why I find it so easy to believe a high school jock acted sexually aggressive at parties and why I don't think you can judge whipping your dick out during a drinking game then as you would a homeless guy flashing people on the subway today - because that was the accepted and celebrated culture in teen comedies of the era.

[SackAttack]

So I don't have enough faith in the basic humanity of Kavanaugh supporters to think this is going to change anybody's mind but it is striking to look at.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-hearing-chart

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Animal House, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Caddyshack... maybe that's why I find it so easy to believe a high school jock acted sexually aggressive at parties and why I don't think you can judge whipping your dick out during a drinking game then as you would a homeless guy flashing people on the subway today - because that was the accepted and celebrated culture in teen comedies of the era.

"Who I was in that moment was influenced by the attitudes of the era, especially amongst the peers I surrounded myself with; while that doesn't excuse the behavior, that's the context. The man I am now is deeply ashamed of that behavior, has not repeated it, nor ever would."

Unless that behavior perpetuated a looooooong damn time past his high school/early collegiate years, there is no reason not to give an answer along those lines. Republicans would be quick to accept it and push ahead with his nomination, and it undercuts the strength of any future accusations.

'cept mebbe the train rape stuff that's different

Acknowledge, apologize, and move on, and his ideological contemporaries will cheerfully handwave it all away to confirm him.

Prevarication and behaving the way he did in contrast to Dr. Ford's testimony just allows the pressure to get turned up to 11 on the folks who have to cast a vote.

Will it matter? Not sure it will. But his insistence that he was an angelic virgin is making this harder for himself and Senate Republicans than it ever had to be. Democrats would have opposed him no matter what, but he could have easily given Republicans more cover to vote for him than he has.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still don't get why they don't just nominate someone else. There's dozens of prep school, trust fund kiddies with similar resumes who will cater to their class. Just nominate one of those and move on from this fucking weirdo.

Trump has touted getting Gorsuch confirmed as one of the major accomplishments in his presidency. Him withdrawing Kavanaugh's would be a failure. Plus being here also has multiple accusations of sexual assault and harrasment pulling the nomination for that reason would be admitting that all women who come forward with accusations aren't liars looking for money or part of a political conspiracy.

Kavanaugh's views on presidental immunity probably okay a role in it too, but I doubt it would change things even without that.

[GrantDawg]

muns- That was one of the best posts I have ever read on this site, and really the best breakdown of this that I have read anywhere. Thank you so much for posting.

[Ryche]

Flake's threat could work out well for Senate Republicans. They say no, we're voting immediately. Kavanaugh goes down with all the Dems and 3 Republicans voting no. Perfect issue to gin up turnout in November. McConnell was never thrilled about his nomination anyway. They start the process again for someone else, giving enough time to squeeze them in regardless of who controls the Senate in January.

Or the swing Republicans chicken out and vote yes, win either way.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, looks like Flake got an investigation. Well done, Senator.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ernoon-n914676

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

So hypothetically even if all the allegations are proven false, but after he has his character assassinated, loses a nomination to the Supreme Court because of it, and half the country thinks he's a rapist, it's "not a big deal" because he can maybe get a little money in defamation suits?

That's the game he chose to play. Remember he was heavily involved in the Clinton investigation and felt taking a women's words at face value and digging as deep into sexual proclivities was relevant. Wrestle with pigs and you're going to get dirty.

As for "not a big deal", that's true. His life won't change. He'll be a Federal Judge. He'll hang out in the same wealthy circles that will support him. This isn't someone who has to hang around us commoners. He'll be just fine.

[RainMaker]

I'd add that I think it'd be nice if we could get out of the Harvard/Yale bubble and nominate someone who maybe didn't attend those schools. Who perhaps had a career that wasn't choreographed from the beginnings.

There are brilliant legal minds that did attend other schools and had different upbringings. Heck, some of our greatest Justices had unconventional backgrounds like Hugo Black and Earl Warren.

One of the problems with the court is we're just nominating these legal robots from one group or the other who can't think for themselves. The fact that people treat Kavanaugh being on it as his birthright is everything wrong with it.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

"Who I was in that moment was influenced by the attitudes of the era, especially amongst the peers I surrounded myself with; while that doesn't excuse the behavior, that's the context. The man I am now is deeply ashamed of that behavior, has not repeated it, nor ever would."

Unless that behavior perpetuated a looooooong damn time past his high school/early collegiate years, there is no reason not to give an answer along those lines. Republicans would be quick to accept it and push ahead with his nomination, and it undercuts the strength of any future accusations.

'cept mebbe the train rape stuff that's different

Acknowledge, apologize, and move on, and his ideological contemporaries will cheerfully handwave it all away to confirm him.

Prevarication and behaving the way he did in contrast to Dr. Ford's testimony just allows the pressure to get turned up to 11 on the folks who have to cast a vote.

Will it matter? Not sure it will. But his insistence that he was an angelic virgin is making this harder for himself and Senate Republicans than it ever had to be. Democrats would have opposed him no matter what, but he could have easily given Republicans more cover to vote for him than he has.

That may have played on this board, but I doubt it would have played well with the general public or the anti-Kavanaugh media.

At least he admitted he liked drinking beer this time, but he did really throw down the gauntlet by claiming he was a virgin into his mid-20's... It's not mutually exclusive that someone could be sexually aggressive in front of their friends & shy behind closed doors, and it likely won't matter for confirmation, but that changed the threshold for undermining his credibility from "do you believe Ford/Swetnick/Ramirez" he said/she said to find someone who had sex with him in HS or college.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's the game he chose to play. Remember he was heavily involved in the Clinton investigation and felt taking a women's words at face value and digging as deep into sexual proclivities was relevant. Wrestle with pigs and you're going to get dirty.

As for "not a big deal", that's true. His life won't change. He'll be a Federal Judge. He'll hang out in the same wealthy circles that will support him. This isn't someone who has to hang around us commoners. He'll be just fine.

Sorry, but no I don't accept that (hypothetically) it's okay to ruin a person's reputation with false rape allegations because they have a more privileged background and their fallback life would still be better than mine. Hate him if you want, believe the allegations if you want, but that's bullshit.

[Ryche]

Or, you know, push the investigation through knowing nothing can be found in a week.

[jct32]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Or, you know, push the investigation through knowing nothing can be found in a week.

Yeah. I don't feel like the investigation will be anything than a check in the box. It's going to come up with nothing and then Democrats will complain it didn't take long enough.

[Thomkal]

Strike two against Trump and the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. A second judge has allowed a lawsuit brought by 200 Dem members of Congress to move forward. The first was limited to Trump hotel in Wash DC, this one is much more broad:


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/judg...-payments.html

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Strike two against Trump and the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. A second judge has allowed a lawsuit brought by 200 Dem members of Congress to move forward. The first was limited to Trump hotel in Wash DC, this one is much more broad:


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/judg...-payments.html

So if the Democrats win their case on this one, what exactly is the penalty for Trump here?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So if the Democrats win their case on this one, what exactly is the penalty for Trump here?

Well to be honest, not sure of the penalty, but in discovery Trump, the Trump Organization, and any individuals/companies involved would have to give the lawyers for the Dems who sued access to all records/financials, etc. Becomes a bigger issue for Trump if the Dems take control of the House/Senate as it will be used in impeachment maneuvers I'm sure.

[bronconick]

Kavanaugh said his life is ruined. Parkland dad tweets: ‘Try having a child murdered’

[cthomer5000]

4D Chess

[muns]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Nice post, well balanced. Thanks for sharing.

I got the correct # of passes but the last question did get me.

Do you think the FBI would include trauma trained investigator on the team?

I only show that video as a way to try to get people to understand investigating isn't as easy everybody thinks it is/can be. Even as investigator you have a bias. If you are looking so hard at one thing trying to prove it right or wrong, something that actually could be helping you could literally be right in your face and you miss it.

It's also a good tool to use to make the point that just because someone says they saw something or experienced something either as a witness or a victim doesn't mean its 100% accurate. It's why its makes is that much more tough when someone comes forward 30+ years afterwards.

It becomes down near impossible to tell, and when you are trying to do the right thing makes it an excruciating process. Then you multiply what you are going through as an investigator by 100 and thats what the victim is going through.

To your question, I would imagine the FBI has them. It would be shocking if they didnt, but its not hard to pick up the phone and get one to come on over to help. Still flabbergasted that not 1 dem on that panel knew enough to get a trauma trained investigar to feed them questions. Like i said, this entire situation blows my mind.

I think as long as she is willing to continue to be probed and answer questions more info should come. However, if she isnt and says thats enough of me re-living all this shit, i have done enough, or if the FBI has been told we don't want real answers here, then nothing else will come of it.

[Edward64]

Something for all of us to consider.

I can easily believe it for "stop" vs "yield" signs (and other, smaller details) and also for an assault by a stranger (e.g. never saw the person before) but if the assault was by a HS/college acquaintance, can you mis-identify that person?

Kavanaugh hearing: Can you be 'very, very certain' -- and wrong?

Washington (AFP) - US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who says he sexually assaulted her decades ago, both say they are convinced their recollections of the past are correct.

But the stories do not match. How can one square the circle?

Elizabeth Loftus, a cognitive psychologist and professor at the University of California, Irvine, says it's possible that both are entirely sincere.

Loftus has spent decades researching human memory, and how those memories can change based on suggestion and other factors -- notably in the legal context. She offered the following thoughts to AFP on the Kavanaugh hearings:

- Sincerity -

Q: Is it possible that both witnesses are sincere?

A: "Absolutely. Certainly she came across as very credible and sympathetic, with most people wanting to believe her, and she seems to definitely believe what she is saying.

"He came across very angry and belligerent, and that is to be expected by someone who is convinced that he is being falsely accused.

"If he did do this, and he has no memory of it because it was so long ago, because maybe he was drinking more than usual and he forgot about that, he could honestly believe his denials."

- False memory -

Q: How commonly can a person misremember details of a real event?

A: "That would be very common. When you have an experience, especially a very upsetting experience... you often remember the core of the event -- you know it was an airplane crash and not a huge fire, and you can remember certain core details, but often many of the peripheral details will suffer.

"And then memory changes over the course of retelling with different audiences -- with the exposure to new information, other details can change.

"We have done studies where we show people an accident -- where a car goes through a yield sign and we suggest later it was a stop sign -- and many people will tell us they remember seeing a stop sign.

"Changing the details of an actual memory is a relatively easy thing to do. And it can happen spontaneously."

- 'Very, very certain, and wrong' -

Q: Does it make a difference if someone says they are 100 percent sure?

A: "Sometimes people are very, very certain and wrong. In DNA exonerations, you will find many instances where people start out being uncertain... they'll look at some photos and say, 'Well, that one looks the closest, I guess.'

"But by the time they get to trial, they've become vastly more certain, and therefore more persuasive.

"So you see in these cases how someone who is now very certain, was once not so certain. In those cases, we need to ask what made them become so certain."

[PilotMan]

Discussing it really doesn't matter anymore unless it's for educational purposes with an intent to be able to handle it better or differently the next time. As for Kav, he's getting on. There is no circumstance in my mind, where he doesn't get on.

The FBI report is going to come out similarly to what muns posted. As in, something happened, but there is no other corroborating physical evidence that it was Kav other than her word, and so much time has passed and memories are so corruptible that we can't be certain enough to remove him.

It's done. Despite that fact, as people have said, that there is a line of people, cut from the same cloth, without these skeletons who will do the exact same thing. Depending on how bad it gets before the election with Kav getting confirmed, it could boost the D's that much more before the election.

Meanwhile the world keeps turning and we miss out on things like the EPA deciding to dissolve the position of Science advisor to the EPA. As in the person who's job it is to keep the administrators up to date on the actual science, journals, and science based policy recommendations.

[jct32]

Originally Posted by muns

I only show that video as a way to try to get people to understand investigating isn't as easy everybody thinks it is/can be. Even as investigator you have a bias. If you are looking so hard at one thing trying to prove it right or wrong, something that actually could be helping you could literally be right in your face and you miss it.

It's also a good tool to use to make the point that just because someone says they saw something or experienced something either as a witness or a victim doesn't mean its 100% accurate. It's why its makes is that much more tough when someone comes forward 30+ years afterwards.

It becomes down near impossible to tell, and when you are trying to do the right thing makes it an excruciating process. Then you multiply what you are going through as an investigator by 100 and thats what the victim is going through.

To your question, I would imagine the FBI has them. It would be shocking if they didnt, but its not hard to pick up the phone and get one to come on over to help. Still flabbergasted that not 1 dem on that panel knew enough to get a trauma trained investigar to feed them questions. Like i said, this entire situation blows my mind.

I think as long as she is willing to continue to be probed and answer questions more info should come. However, if she isnt and says thats enough of me re-living all this shit, i have done enough, or if the FBI has been told we don't want real answers here, then nothing else will come of it.

I'm curious to what the difference between a "trained trauma investigator" is and the background of Rachel Mitchell. Is there a certification to in order to get that title? Ms. Mitchell has 12 years of experience prosecuting sex crimes, it seems like that is a pretty good background for what this hearing involved. You obviously have a lot more experience than me in this area so I was curious if you could explain further. Thank you.

[muns]

Originally Posted by jct32

I'm curious to what the difference between a "trained trauma investigator" is and the background of Rachel Mitchell. Is there a certification to in order to get that title? Ms. Mitchell has 12 years of experience prosecuting sex crimes, it seems like that is a pretty good background for what this hearing involved. You obviously have a lot more experience than me in this area so I was curious if you could explain further. Thank you.

Really good question, and here is why I think it was a terrible idea to have Rachel Mitchel ask questions.

A prosecutor is going for a goal. They are looking to convict someone. Someone accused of a crime, right? What crime was Dr. Ford accused of?

A prosecutor is usually not going after the victim, a defense attorney is. I would bet my salary, that Rachel Mitchel has either never gone after a victim in her career (because she is usually on the opposite side of the fence) or if she has gone after a victim, it’s only been a few times. Her 12 years of experience isn't going after victims, they are going after defendants.

It makes no sense. It was a waste of a first-round draft pick if the goal was answers. It sounded like a good idea to most people because why wouldn't it if you aren't in the weeds in all this kind of crap.

The only way that her asking questions makes sense, is if the republicans wanted her to grill Dr.Ford which was the goal. It backfired, and they looked like idiots. Instead of getting answers, they got no answers. The questions of the who, the what, the where, and the why is what matters in court. It's what a prosecutor is trained to go after and look for. That sequential order matters and if someone can’t come up with that they are lying.

However, a trauma informed investigator knows that there is no sequential order in most rape cases as long as there is or has been rape or trauma. Study after study has proven that.

Trauma trained is more focused on how the brain has stored other info. The brains natural reaction is to protect the victim in any way possible. They could fight, they could run (flight) or they can freeze. The technical term for freeze is tonic immobility if anybody wants to look stuff up. The last category is the "new" category over the past how many years and isn't just with sexual assault victims. It’s occurs in first responders and in the military as well.

The best example I can give is if you dumped a 50-piece puzzle set on ground right in front of you. A normal brain would say ok let’s start with the edges, then look for colors to match in places, and off you go in sequential order to finishing the puzzle.

In a trauma victim, the puzzle pieces are all over the place and the victim can't put each piece in sequential order. So, you might find a piece that is an edge, and then you jump to a middle piece, because the brain skipped 15 pieces that should be in sequential order. Those 15 pieces that the brain skipped are the pieces of the sexual assault that the brain is hiding.

In order to try to figure out those pieces you don't focus on what is occurring or what has occurred. You focus on why the brain has suppressed whatever it is. So you build out your puzzle pieces from there.

So, you ask open ended questions that are based on senses and surroundings. Tell me about what you were hearing? Tell me about what you were smelling? Tell me about what you are seeing? Tell me a little bit more on your thought process as this was occurring or that was occurring?

A victim of trauma, especially if their body went the frozen route, will give you answers to those types of questions that an investigator can then go back and investigate. So, if a victim was on her back getting raped, and her brain took her into a trance to protect her, she might be able to give you the exact count of the tiles on the ceiling. That would be evidence because who the hell knows how many tiles are on a ceiling, but the brain chose to focus on that to keep the victim in another place while the rape was occurring so that the victim can function in everyday life.

A prosecutor isn't an investigator, so they aren't going to be doing that kind of stuff nor asking those kinds of questions. It’s a different world. I am sure a person with a JD or an actual lawyer on this board would know far more than I do about the subject though.


Sorry if that was a bit long winded, but I hope I answered your question and I hope that made at least a little bit of sense.

To answer your other question, yes you can be certified to be a trauma informed investigator, just like you can be certified to be a Title IX investigator. It's not a degree, so you don’t go to a college or a university for it. People specialize in it, so it does cost a bit money.

[CrimsonFox]

Kavanaugh earned nothing. He was a Yale Legacy admission from his grandfather.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Kavanaugh earned nothing. He was a Yale Legacy admission from his grandfather.

Do you have a source for this?

[Edward64]

Lots of pros and cons, the cons are it reduces tax revenue and lower income won't take as much advantage of it over the higher income. I like to think I'm a saver so it will benefit me when it comes to retirement. TBH, wish it allowed more to be contributed.

House Approves GOP Bill to Make New Tax Cuts Permanent | Time

On Thursday, the House passed a pair of Republican-written companion bills that would add incentives for savings and startup businesses to the new tax law. The votes were 240-177 and 260-156, also mostly along party lines.

One of the measures would create a “universal savings account” for families that could be used for a range of purposes and would allow the tax-free earnings to be more easily withdrawn than is the case with existing retirement accounts. In addition, it would allow the popular, tax-free 529 college savings accounts to also be used to pay for apprenticeship fees and home schooling expenses, as well as to pay off student debt. Workers would be able to tap their retirement savings accounts without tax penalty to cover expenses from the birth of a child or an adoption.

The second measure would allow startup businesses to write off more of their initial costs against their federal taxes. New businesses would be permitted to deduct more of their expenses for setting up in the first year — up to $20,000, double the current maximum level.

Democrats said there were some positive elements in the legislation, but that overall it would not help average Americans. The new savings accounts would mainly benefit wealthy taxpayers, with about $100,000 in annual income needed to take full advantage of them, said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas.

The details from a Sep 19 article.

“Universal Savings Account� Proposal in New Republican Tax Bill Is Ill-Conceived | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Under the House Republican USA proposal, individuals could place $2,500 each year into a USA. They would contribute such funds with after-tax dollars, but all earnings on the funds would be tax free, and USA account holders would owe no tax when they withdraw money. In that way, USAs would be similar to Roth IRAs — under which contributions are not tax deductible, but account holders don’t pay tax on the earnings as they accrue or when account holders withdraw them.

Nevertheless, USAs are more generous than Roth IRAs in at least two important ways. First, under a Roth IRA, an individual can withdraw funds only after retirement (with limited exceptions). Under the House Republican proposal, however, USA account holders could withdraw funds at any time and for any reason. Second, Roth IRA contributions are limited to married couples that make less than $200,000 a year. USAs, however, would have no income limits on participation.[3]

[jct32]

Originally Posted by muns

Really good question, and here is why I think it was a terrible idea to have Rachel Mitchel ask questions.

A prosecutor is going for a goal. They are looking to convict someone. Someone accused of a crime, right? What crime was Dr. Ford accused of?

A prosecutor is usually not going after the victim, a defense attorney is. I would bet my salary, that Rachel Mitchel has either never gone after a victim in her career (because she is usually on the opposite side of the fence) or if she has gone after a victim, it’s only been a few times. Her 12 years of experience isn't going after victims, they are going after defendants.

It makes no sense. It was a waste of a first-round draft pick if the goal was answers. It sounded like a good idea to most people because why wouldn't it if you aren't in the weeds in all this kind of crap.

The only way that her asking questions makes sense, is if the republicans wanted her to grill Dr.Ford which was the goal. It backfired, and they looked like idiots. Instead of getting answers, they got no answers. The questions of the who, the what, the where, and the why is what matters in court. It's what a prosecutor is trained to go after and look for. That sequential order matters and if someone can’t come up with that they are lying.

However, a trauma informed investigator knows that there is no sequential order in most rape cases as long as there is or has been rape or trauma. Study after study has proven that.

Trauma trained is more focused on how the brain has stored other info. The brains natural reaction is to protect the victim in any way possible. They could fight, they could run (flight) or they can freeze. The technical term for freeze is tonic immobility if anybody wants to look stuff up. The last category is the "new" category over the past how many years and isn't just with sexual assault victims. It’s occurs in first responders and in the military as well.

The best example I can give is if you dumped a 50-piece puzzle set on ground right in front of you. A normal brain would say ok let’s start with the edges, then look for colors to match in places, and off you go in sequential order to finishing the puzzle.

In a trauma victim, the puzzle pieces are all over the place and the victim can't put each piece in sequential order. So, you might find a piece that is an edge, and then you jump to a middle piece, because the brain skipped 15 pieces that should be in sequential order. Those 15 pieces that the brain skipped are the pieces of the sexual assault that the brain is hiding.

In order to try to figure out those pieces you don't focus on what is occurring or what has occurred. You focus on why the brain has suppressed whatever it is. So you build out your puzzle pieces from there.

So, you ask open ended questions that are based on senses and surroundings. Tell me about what you were hearing? Tell me about what you were smelling? Tell me about what you are seeing? Tell me a little bit more on your thought process as this was occurring or that was occurring?

A victim of trauma, especially if their body went the frozen route, will give you answers to those types of questions that an investigator can then go back and investigate. So, if a victim was on her back getting raped, and her brain took her into a trance to protect her, she might be able to give you the exact count of the tiles on the ceiling. That would be evidence because who the hell knows how many tiles are on a ceiling, but the brain chose to focus on that to keep the victim in another place while the rape was occurring so that the victim can function in everyday life.

A prosecutor isn't an investigator, so they aren't going to be doing that kind of stuff nor asking those kinds of questions. It’s a different world. I am sure a person with a JD or an actual lawyer on this board would know far more than I do about the subject though.


Sorry if that was a bit long winded, but I hope I answered your question and I hope that made at least a little bit of sense.

To answer your other question, yes you can be certified to be a trauma informed investigator, just like you can be certified to be a Title IX investigator. It's not a degree, so you don’t go to a college or a university for it. People specialize in it, so it does cost a bit money.

Very good answer. Thank you very much.

[JPhillips]

Apparently the WH has put severe restrictions on the investigation, limiting who can be interviewed and what can be asked.

So my prediction was a little off, but right in spirit. What seems to be happening is the WH controls a sham investigation, vote called, Flake, Collins, Murkowski, etc. all say "good enough", Kavanaugh confirmed.

Or Flake can insist on an investigation controlled by the FBI as his statements yesterday did.

[cartman]

"I was really being tough and so was he. And we would go back and forth. And then we fell in love. No really. He wrote me beautiful letters. They were great letters. And then we fell in love." - Trump on Kim Jong Un

[JPhillips]

Penn State has had a couple of great plays, but overall this PSU/OSU game is yuck.

[Edward64]

And the bro love continues. Crazy.

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...i-fell-in-love

President Donald Trump said that he and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un "fell in love."

While speaking at a rally for Senate candidate and state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) in West Virginia, Trump spoke about his evolving relationship with Kim.

"I was really being tough and so was he," he said. "And we would go back and forth. And then we fell in love. No really. He wrote me beautiful letters."

"They were great letters. And then we fell in love."

Trump praised Kim at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, saying that he was proud of his courage.

"I would like to thank Chairman Kim for his courage and for the steps he has taken, though much work remains to be done," he said.

A second Trump-Kim summit seems to be in the works, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accepted an invitation to visit Pyongyang to being planning.

[mauchow]

'He wrote me beautiful letters and we fell in love': Donald Trump on Kim Jong-un - YouTube

The whole video(not this one), to me, is even more crazy. He's a terrible speaker and people can't get enough of it. Mind boggling.

[JPhillips]

Interesting thread on our current politics that I urge you to click through. In summary,

Because, as we (@ohahl @minjaekim22) show in our research, obvious (“common knowledge”) lies can be effective tools for proclaiming deeper truths to those who are primed to hear them.

THREAD: You may be wondering why only people on the left are worked up about Kavanaugh’s obvious lies. I mean, do people on the right really believe his (changing) story about what “Renate alumnus” meant? https://t.co/yjktb1ugs0

— Ezra Zuckerman Sivan (@ewzucker) September 30, 2018