Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[jackstar7]

Revised my original post as you requested, but there is also this study and article which places the prevalence of injury in cases of sexual assault at 90%.

Here is the conclusion of the study:

“As technology and examination techniques have improved, the literature reflects a growing ability by examiners to detect genital injury following rape and sexual assault. In particular, the combination of colposcopy with digital image capture and staining with contrast media such as toluidine blue, Gentian violet, fluorescein, and/or Lugol’s solution has led to reports of genital injury prevalence approaching 90% following nonconsensual sexual intercourse. Several replication studies demonstrated the same four locations that are the most common sites for genital injury: posterior fourchette, labia minora, hymen, and fossa navicularis“

DEFINING PATTERNS OF GENITAL INJURY FROM SEXUAL ASSAULT
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3142744/

What does it cost you to give these women the benefit of the doubt?

Do you doubt the people coming forward against priests with this same skepticism?

 

[Blackjack200]

Got the DVR ready to roll. It's interesting that we have a woman doing the questioning and yeah he's a republican but not a defense attorney, but a prosecutor with a genuinely respectable record and remember that Mueller too is a Rep. Seems like a good choice to get at whatever truth can be had. I hear that some Dems didn't want this but this is where I part company with them. This is a fact-finding mission and one thing Senators aren't interested as a whole is the truth but what can be spun as a replacement for it.

Let's see how it goes.

If they wanted to find facts they would have let the FBI investigate. They don't want to find facts, they want to punch a few holes in her story to give them cover for their confirmation votes.

 

[K1052]

I don't feel that Grassley's opening statement, in content or delivery, to be beneficial to shifting opinion in Republican favor.

 

[vi edit]

I don't feel that Grassley's opening statement, in content or delivery, to be beneficial to shifting opinion in Republican favor.

Yeah it was a rambling, tone deaf and completely unempathetic opening.

 

[K1052]

He interrupted Feinstein's opening statement to mansplain. Brilliant.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I don't feel that Grassley's opening statement, in content or delivery, to be beneficial to shifting opinion in Republican favor.

There's not much they can do now. They have made it clear they aren't interested in an actual investigation or a fair presentation of all accusers. Acknowledging the new accusers just makes them moving forward that much worse.

 

[K1052]

Yeah it was a rambling, tone deaf and completely unempathetic opening.

The open contempt for the fact that this hearing exists and bashing his political opponents after a "call for civility" is pretty special.

 

[repoman0]

I'd never heard Grassley speak before ... holy shit he sounds like a fossil. He stares at his notes and never looks up and can STILL barely get complete sentences out. I'm a shitty public speaker and hate presentations at work but I can do 10 times better than that.

No wonder Repubs hate Feinstein. She's coherent and makes them sound like morons.

 

[vi edit]

Di-Fi being the adult in the room....great opening statement.

 

[Homerboy]

Keep the running commentary/notes coming please. I can't watch it and I'm in/out of meetings all morning.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If you are going to cite something, please actually read it before posting it. Why?

1) It is not a study. Your link is a review of other studies.
2) The majority of the studies it cites finds that 50-60% of women have visualized injuries (see section Injury Prevalence With Visual Inspection or Table 1)
3) The 90% value is derived from a single study and is not reflective of the other 51 studies cited in this review
4) In the study that found injury prevalence of 90%, it required Colposcopy, an invasive procedure that is not always completed when examining women of sexual assault
5) In another study cited by the review, 36% of adult women had no injuries visualized by colposcopy
6) The 90% value does not reflect injuries sustained with "gang rape" as you were specifically citing.
7) The single study had 87% of women examined within 48 hours of the assault, a higher value than some of the other studies cited in the review

Next time please carefully read and review a link before you post it, especially when you've demonstrated that you are no expert on this topic at all.

So you think that forcible gang rape doesn't cause physical injury in many cases. There's something to be proud about.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Keep the running commentary/notes coming please. I can't watch it and I'm in/out of meetings all morning.

This! I'm on the trade desk today. It's slower than it has been but still can't really monitor anything but this thread!

 

[fskimospy]

So you think that forcible gang rape doesn't cause physical injury in many cases. There's something to be proud about.

It appears more that he thinks that we should base our opinions on the relevant facts.

Not like you're one to talk though, you believe that Trump's taped confession to being a serial sex criminal was 'doctored' based on nothing more than your feelings. Making excuses for sex offenders seems to be something you're proud about so i think he's doing just fine compared to you.

 

[ivwshane]

So you think that forcible gang rape doesn't cause physical injury in many cases. There's something to be proud about.

And you just love showing this forum just how fucking dumb you are.

You get pretty mad when people mischaracterize your position but you have no problem mischaracterizing others positions. Why is it ok for you to do that, hypocrite?

 

[K1052]

Di-Fi being the adult in the room....great opening statement.

She sounds, in thought and speech, much younger than Grassley even though they are the same age.

 

[K1052]

And Grassley couldn't help but scold Feinstein for brining up the other accusers in her opening statement before proceeding. Yeesh.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

And Grassley couldn't help but scold Feinstein for brining up the other accusers in her opening statement before proceeding. Yeesh.

As I said. They don't want them to even exist as apart of this process. How dare she mention the people they expressly refused to include in this process regardless of how relevant it is.

 

[UNCjigga]

Is it me, or did Grassley change his tone after Feinstein's opening statement? He went from gruff Inquisitor in his opening statement into full on dad mode when asking Ford to make her statement.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Oh for those hitching their wagon to the claim of two other men that they attacked Ford, here's Lindsey Graham's take on them.

Norah O'Donnell ‏Verified account @NorahODonnell
.@LindseyGrahamSC on the two men who have come forward claiming they may have been the man who assaulted Ford: “One’s crazy as a loon, I don’t believe the other one. I’m not going to play this game.”

 

[K1052]

My judgement that this hearing was a terrible idea for the GOP is exponentially increasing in confidence as I hear her statement.

 

[vi edit]

She sounds, in thought and speech, much younger than Grassley even though they are the same age.

Absolutely. I've said it before, I don't like octogenarians being responsible for such an important part of life for people that literally 1/4 their age and are *still* adults old enough to drink.

That aside, she's definitely a hell of a lot sharper than most within a decade or two of her.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Is it me, or did Grassley change his tone after Feinstein's opening statement? He went from gruff Inquisitor in his opening statement into full on dad mode when asking Ford to make her statement.

Mostly because of the accusations it seems that Ford's is the most credible and the one that seems to have affected her the most. The other 2 accusations stink to high heaven. It's tough for Ford that none of were "corroborating witnesses" corroborated her story.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I would be willing to consider possibly giving him a pass regarding SCOTUS regarding ONLY this issue, if he had come out with an apology when the story broke with a sincere declaration that he was a hormone laden idiot in his teenage years. However, he has chosen to double down and declare that nothing happened, despite increasing testimony from multiple people. This indicates to me that he believes he never did anything wrong and also that he does not have the judgment to realize that his yearbook was there to be found and that multiple people of that time had not died and would be available to provide testimony. Those are both seriously disqualifying aspects of his life and career.

If he has lied about what happened he is disqualified to be sitting on the Supreme Court. Full stop, both from an integrity standpoint and for being so stupid as to not realize his past behavior via school yearbooks and fellow student revelations would bring his true behavior to light.

 

[K1052]

Jesus

 

[Stokely]

When considering feasibility/probability, look at motive.

If he didn't molest these women, what motive do they have to publicly accuse him?

They are paying a cost for this: death threats, having to move their family (with the first woman at least). Knowing the kind of nutters that are out there, I wouldn't put my family in danger unless I was getting something very, very big in return. Even without the danger, putting yourself in front of cameras for the whole world to decide about you isn't an easy thing. One woman is risking her career (clearance).

So what would that be the thing they are getting in return? Two possibilities come to mind.
Money, a lot of it
Justice

If it's money, it's something we can find out, correct?

In short, they are either getting paid off bigtime for this, or they believe Kavanaugh molested them. I don't believe someone would just make up shit for no reason and put their families through this.