Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: billryanThe evidence is there. The Republicans are ignoring it. Not sure what you want them to do. The Chairman is the only one who can do much.
Let me think about that. Well, leaks seem to work well. They could have done a lot more protesting about that instead of asking a judicial nominee how he would rule on a given situation (something that has been the norm for at least years, if not more, but the Dems act like it is news. To be fair, the Republicans may well act the same way next time Dems control things...).
Sue to get the info. FOIA. Publicity campaigns. Promises of investigating fully saying specifically what they will investigate if and when they get back in power--with a promise of impeachment if the evidence is there..or even criminal charges. Be loud about it. Specifics. Walk out. Protest that issue.
Sure, they have done some of it, but they seem happier trying to use the #Metoo and exposing a person who did not even want to come forward. Talk about not giving a crap about women--or at least a woman--by leaking her identity when she seems to not have wanted it out.
Quote: terapinedlol
Ronan Farrow is on the case.
He and Woodward are the 2 most trusted reporters in the country
So you missed Ronan and his buddy
getting torn apart on all three major
Lib networks this morning, NBC CBS
and ABC. Asking why they wrote a
story that not only has no witnesses,
but has a score of people who there
saying it never happened.
'Trusted reporters', what a joke. And
Avanatti has headed for the hills with
his phony story, and locked his Twitter
account. Can't wait for the Dems to
nominate him in 2020..
Quote: EvenBobSo you missed Ronan and his buddy
getting torn apart on all three major
Lib networks this morning, NBC CBS
and ABC. Asking why they wrote a
story that not only has no witnesses,
but has a score of people who there
saying it never happened.
So is the liberal media fake news or not?
Quote: EvenBob'Trusted reporters', what a joke. And
Avanatti has headed for the hills with
his phony story, and locked his Twitter
account. Can't wait for the Dems to
nominate him in 2020..
So Hillary is NOT running again in 2020?
Quote: EvenBobSo you missed Ronan and his buddy
getting torn apart on all three major
Lib networks this morning, NBC CBS
and ABC. Asking why they wrote a
story that not only has no witnesses,
but has a score of people who there
saying it never happened.
No, I dont watch the lib networks like you do
I get my news from the Internet
I see the Victim Ronan wrote about wants an FBI investigation. Thats telling.
All the Senators on the panel will
turn their time for questioning
over to a trained professional.
If no further evidence is presented,
we will vote on Kavanaugh on Friday.
Quote: terapinedNo, I dont watch the lib networks
Neither do I. I see the segments on
Youtube, why would anybody actually
watch that crap live.
My how the democrats have changed their story
Quote: beachbumbabs
This is not a trial. It's a hearing to try and get a sense of who this guy is, his level of integrity and congruence with social and legal realities, his fitness to be an impartial and final arbiter of decisions that will affect all of us for 30 years or so.
People saying unprovable stuff about him doesn't do anything to prove or disprove his integrity. I'd really hate to think that the standard for integrity is to have nobody willing to speak against you, regardless of whether or not what they are saying is provably true.
Quote:He has refused to answer any questions about where he stands on any factors likely to come before him, whether from a legal or philosophical standpoint.
The White House has refused to release 94% of the information available on his work product.
So, what they do know is.
He lied to Congress numerous times in hearings in 2004 and 2006, when interviewed for his present position. There is substantial proof of that. So Congress knows he lies under oath.
All of these things could be construed as potential (and provable) reasons to not want to put him on the SCOTUS, if true. None of the above quote has anything to do with what I'm griping about.
Quote:He attempted, by any means available to him, to block a 17 year old's right to have a legal abortion, including trying to delay her access until she was forced to bear the child under Texas law. Even after he lost that battle, he wrote a strongly worded dissent He claims privately to Susan Collins he won't overturn RoeVWade. But actions speak louder than words. It's very evident in this and other cases they DO have access to, that he has a strong bias on that question that differs from where the country is (71% do not want RvW overturned, according to a very recent poll). Only a fool would disregard his actions towards that young woman.
Once again, that has nothing to do with people coming out of the woodwork with unprovable accusations from over three decades ago. All of these things could be considered, rightfully, when deciding on his fitness for the SCOTUS.
Quote:So, in trying to understand his character and ethics, they are looking at a fair amount of evidence that he did or still does treat women as objects, had a drinking problem for at least several years, and has a very activist conservative Republican background.
You can't tell me he's suddenly fair and impartial when he was a paid legal political operative for the Republicans during decades for, among other issues, the Florida 2000 recount, the Elian Gonzalez thing, the Vince Foster suicide (for which he lost the only case he ever argued in front of the SCOTUS), the impeachment of WJC as a major team member of the Starr investigation, and many other things, lots of which are hidden from us at the moment . He was often the principal person advancing conspiracy theories and far-right agendas in these matters.
So, you seem surprised that Trump would nominate a staunch Conservative for the SCOTUS and I can't help but be surprised at your surprise. Is Trump going to nominate a Liberal? Is Trump going to nominate Merrick Garland?
Like I said, if we're going to get into busting out unprovable accusations from decades ago, and I'm Trump, I would nominate instead a woman who is WAY more conservative than Kavanaugh.
Also, did Trump not make a campaign promise to try to nominate justices to the SCOTUS who would then overturn Roe v. Wade, and now everyone is suddenly surprised that Trump is quite probably trying to do exactly what he said he was going to do?
Anyway, all of that is completely separate from people coming out of the woodwork with unprovable allegations that are supposed to be treated as irrefutably true. Also, we're really just kind of looking at a common symptom of a few underlying diseases which are:
1.) SCOTUS appointments are lifetime.
2.) The SCOTUS can effectively Legislate from the judicial bench.
3.) The SCOTUS, for whatever reason, is not a publicly voted upon position.
Which are all just minor diseases that stem from the biggest disease in this country of all, which is the fact that the #ConstitutionSucks.
Quote: 777Trumpers and evangelicals here and elsewhere had openly stated that the racist, sexist, rapist and con-artist Trump character flaws and incompetents can be ignored or are acceptable for political reasons. So yes, you can apply the standard of the trumpers and the evangelicals, or you take a higher ground … And as I have stated before, the society moral & ethical values and the health of your democracy are reflection of the standard of proof you are applying. What is your standard and compare it with the standard of trumpers and evangelicals?
Trump is a rapist? When did that happen? I tend to agree, at least in terms of my personal opinion, with all the other, "-ists."
I don't know anything about Trumpers and Evangelicals. What I do know is that my personal standard of proof when you are going to accuse someone, essentially, of specific (or quasi-specific in the case of Blasey Ford) sexual crimes for which they can no longer be charged BECAUSE the statute of limitations is up is that you should damn well be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt or it should be just as good as defamation of character.
Think about that for a second. Kavanaugh sticks his pee-pee in that Ramirez's face at that college party, there are witnesses who, THE NEXT DAY could go to the police station and say it happened. Ramirez files a criminal complaint. You have an investigation for sure and you maybe have a trial. Hell, maybe Kavanaugh decides there are enough people willing to testify against him that it would be better just to plead guilty in exchange for a lenient probation...BOOM...disqualified from SCOTUS. Maybe Kavanaugh pleads not guilty and is found guilty of misdemeanor sexual assault...BOOM...disqualified. No way anybody with a sexual assault conviction on his/her rap sheet even sniffs the SCOTUS. He would just be some attorney or low-level judge that almost all of us, if not all of us, has never heard of.
Quote:It had been shown that many also lied under oath, so few simple questions by senate judicial committee without any fact checking and attempt to corroborate evidences are not sufficient. FBI investigation/background check is need, and it most likely will be completed within days, but it may also take longer if additional works are required for additional fact checkings, verifications or to corroborate with witness statements or evidences.
What evidence? There is no evidence. There will be people willing to say it happened, there will be people willing to say it did not happen and there will be people not willing to say anything or who will just say they recall no such thing. In terms of the first two types of people, I bet we see A LOT of political party correlation with what they say.
Anyway, what is the FBI going to investigate? Does the FBI have access to a time machine I don't know about?
Quote:In the end, truth cannot be determined due to insufficient evidences, but the FBI investigation would somehow give an assurance of a transparent process and an assurance that the GOP and the White House did not hide anything from the public.
(Bolded added for effect)
Correct. Thank you. My entire point.
Quote:Political gamesmanship is a part of the democratic process, so yes, it is about our democracy. Rightly or wrongly, people can profit from anything under sun, and you cannot simply throw the democracy under the bus just because few opportunists or bad apples.
Political gamesmanship has nothing to do with democracy nor does it promote the best interests of this country.
Quote:We’ve survived and dealt with many national emergencies and natural disasters, and Marshall Law, curfew and other liberty restrictions were imposed on many of these emergencies. And there are other yet to be named solutions that can be utilized depending on the nature of each emergencies.
I have no idea what this paragraph has to do with anything.
Quote:Deliberately influencing the public, the Presidents, and other politicians is no different than lobbying actions, and it is a part of the democratic process. Well, the Trumpers and evangelicals are allowed to accept the racist, sexist, rapist and con-artist Trump character flaws and incompetents for political reasons certainly indicates that our democratic principle is protected, but it does not necessary that our democracy healthy or is a good one.
You're arguing that this sort of thing is an acceptable political technique?
Should we start, "Deliberately influencing," who does or does not get promotions at work with unprovable accusations? Should we start, "Deliberately influencing," who loses their job with unprovable accusations? Should we, "Deliberately influence," the personal lives of people with unprovable accusations?
The problem is that everyone thinks this is JUST about a SCOTUS nomination, but it's not, it's setting the standard for what sort of behavior is acceptable in terms of trying to get one's way on something.
Quote:Qualification does not limit to only intellectual quality. And there are other factors such as moral, ethical and many other qualities must be considered. If America with of over 300 million citizens cannot find candidate with high intellectual, moral, ethical qualities for the utmost top judicial position then there is certainly something seriously wrong with America.
I agree with that. But, people saying unprovable stuff against other people does not speak to the, "Moral, ethical or any other quality," of that person when there is no proof.
Quote: billryanLying to an FBI agent is a felony. I'd like to see if Ford, Judge and the others are willing to repeat what they have said, under penalty of perjury. It appears the victims are willing. Are the defenders?
If the alleged underlying event can’t be proven, then how could it be proven that someone lied about the underlying event?
Gee, that makes it look as if Holder, Lynch and Obama were responsible for yet another colossal failure.Quote: beachbumbabsYou have very selective attention or you're too lazy to check for yourself. The numerous times were within the document dump the majority dumped on the committee and the many documents they deemed "committee confidential".
In his hearing in 2004 and 2006, he was asked numerous times by several senators about a particular series of decisions made by the Bush White House in those years. He claimed he was not in the meetings, did not have the conversations, was not in the decision loop.
He lied. There were many email exchanges, diary entries, drafts or statements from him and others, dated during the time the senators were asking about, among those documents. He was in the loop about everything they asked, was working with people he claimed he didn't know, took meetings and positions on it, the whole thing.
That group of incriminating documentation is supposedly part of why they were trying to rush the discovery and dump the documents the night before - to hide that evidence before he could be confronted with it in the hearings.
Lying to Congress is a Felony. He should not only be withdrawn from SCOTUS, he should be removed from his present position and charged with a federal crime. I doubt that will happen, but only because of the amount of political protection he has under the party currently in power. I also don't know if it's subject to a statute of limitations, but it was 12 and 14 years ago.
Unfortunately for him, several of the senators he lied to are still in the Senate, and at least one is still on the Judicial Committee. You might Google what Dick Durbin has to say about it, unless you're just trolling me. But that's why the Democrats have entirely rejected him. He lies.
Quote: SanchoPanzaGee, that makes it look as if Holder, Lynch and Obama were responsible for yet another colossal failure.
Gee, if any of them were in office at the time, maybe they would be.
Bush was president. Kavanaugh worked for Bush until he became a judge in 2006. All on Bush's watch, both hearings, and the confirmation.
B-b-b-but I thought Breitbart said no one would back up her claims? You mean the white supremacist-run news site lied to me?!
Quote: ams288Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims
She told them, more than thirty years after the alleged incident took place. Repressed memory discovered in 2010, during group therapy.
That's the same excuse Anita Hill gave Arlen Spector when he asked her why she told the FBI a different story than she was now telling the committee.
Every person mentioned by Ford as being at the party in 1982, has submitted statements denying any knowledge or memory of the incident.
Leland Keyser, a ‘lifelong friend’ of Ford, says she doesn’t even know Kavanaugh and cannot recall being at the party with him.
As for Ramirez.
She admits her memory has gaps, because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.
NY Times
"The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself."
Her former friend said, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.”
Quote: ams288Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims
B-b-b-but I thought Breitbart said no one would back up her claims? You mean the white supremacist-run news site lied to me?!
Her husband and 3 other idiots that are all laughable. I would like action that this woman will not show on Thursday under oath. The Ramirez lady, 2nd false accuser, has already backed out. Avanetti has cut his Twitter and gone into hiding after the gang rape fiasco. This whole thing is laughable and despicable at the same time.
Quote: ams288Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims
B-b-b-but I thought Breitbart said no one would back up her claims? You mean the white supremacist-run news site lied to me?!
Corroborate? Like, all four of these other people were in the room when it happened!?
Oh, no, I see. She told them about it decades after the fact. Well, she’s about to tell all of us about it decades after the fact on the TV...does that mean I get to, “Corroborate,” her claim too?
Quote: ams288Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims
B-b-b-but I thought Breitbart said no one would back up her claims? You mean the white supremacist-run news site lied to me?!
I didn't hear anyone else reporting corroboration, either. I did not see anything in quick searches, either...until this morning...of course, I don't spend 24/7 looking, so it could have been there earlier...
Don't worry, the Liberal press will make sure it is reported as being 100% factual without questioning it.
The press is divided...it is not free and fair. You have to discern things from looking at all of it.
...but that is not news.
Quote: Mission146
Corroborate? Like, all four of these other people were in the room when it happened!?
Oh, no, I see. She told one of them about it decades after the fact...haven’t read the other three yet. Well, she’s about to tell all of us about it decades after the fact on the TV...does that mean I get to, “Corroborate,” her claim too?
Oh, it’s all people she told decades after the fact, one of whom is her husband.
(Sarcasm)This is the kind of undeniable stone cold proof I was talking about us needing to bring forth an accusation of this nature. (/Sarcasm)
Even if something happened, which I don’t deny, are we really thinking her memory on it is perfect after thirty years? It can’t be that great, considering that she’s yet to remember a specific place that the alleged event occurred.
This also isn’t about trying to discredit Blasey Ford. My entire general point is you shouldn’t be able to toss around sexual assault allegations without proof.
i'm sorry, harassment of public figures outside of the work atmosphere is ignorant. Protest on the Hill, at events, etc.--but let people have their peace when out with family.
This is ridiculous and I hope no one condones it from anyone on either side.
Quote: Mission146Quote: ams288Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims
B-b-b-but I thought Breitbart said no one would back up her claims? You mean the white supremacist-run news site lied to me?!
Corroborate? Like, all four of these other people were in the room when it happened!?
Oh, no, I see. She told one of them about it decades after the fact...haven’t read the other three yet. Well, she’s about to tell all of us about it decades after the fact on the TV...does that mean I get to, “Corroborate,” her claim too?
By the end of the day tomorrow, the whole country will be able to meet the new definition of "corroborate"...
"to make more certain; confirm:
He corroborated my account of the accident."
...was the old definition...
So now I can tell someone I won a million dollars in 2000 and that person can then corroborate my story with no other proof? No, you would not believe me or the person I told without something called proof--like someone who saw it happen or physical proof.
I know this is not a trial and the standards of proof are not the same as in court, but this is silly. Her testimony, his testimony...that is what matters. same with anyone else who crawls out of the woodwork after 75 days of knowing that he was on his way to the Court.
Quote: MaxPenThe Ramirez lady, 2nd false accuser, has already backed out.
You may have been duped by more fake news.
Just this morning:
Quote:Accuser Deborah Ramirez’s lawyer tells @TODAYshow that Ramirez is willing to testify publicly before Congress.
Even many Leftists can see these shenanigans for what they are.
Quote: MaxPenThey are not going to show on Thursday. The only people who try and set parameters for discussions with the authorities are perpetrators of crime or falsely accused of crimes. When is the last time you saw a victim of crime trying to direct the narrative and requesting conditions to testify?
Even many Leftists can see these shenanigans for what they are.
Guess we’ll know if you’re right 24 hours from now...
Quote: ams288You may have been duped by more fake news.
Just this morning:
No one is willing to give me action on either one showing up.
Quote: RonC
By the end of the day tomorrow, the whole country will be able to meet the new definition of "corroborate"...
"to make more certain; confirm:
He corroborated my account of the accident."
...was the old definition...
So now I can tell someone I won a million dollars in 2000 and that person can then corroborate my story with no other proof? No, you would not believe me or the person I told without something called proof--like someone who saw it happen or physical proof.
That’s funny because it happened to #MeToo!
I won a million bucks in 2000, although, I don’t remember the exact month I won it or what I won it on. I think it was sometime in the Spring, maybe, but it could have been Summer or Autumn. Definitely not Winter, I’m sure about that.
Anyway, I remember you telling me about your million dollar win back in 2007. I’m surprised you don’t remember telling me about it. I can go to bat for you on this one.
Quote:I know this is not a trial and the standards of proof are not the same as in court, but this is silly. Her testimony, his testimony...that is what matters. same with anyone else who crawls out of the woodwork after 75 days of knowing that he was on his way to the Court.
“Silly,” is entirely too kind. What this is is straight F’n ridiculous.
Her testimony doesn’t even matter, we already know what she’s saying and it proves nothing. The only thing that matters is whether he admits or denies it. That’s it. There’s no proof or actual corroboration of any kind shy of him making an outright admission.
Quote: Mission146Trump is a rapist? When did that happen? I tend to agree, at least in terms of my personal opinion, with all the other, "-ists."
I don't know anything about Trumpers and Evangelicals. What I do know is that my personal standard of proof when you are going to accuse someone, essentially, of specific (or quasi-specific in the case of Blasey Ford) sexual crimes for which they can no longer be charged BECAUSE the statute of limitations is up is that you should damn well be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt or it should be just as good as defamation of character.
Think about that for a second. Kavanaugh sticks his pee-pee in that Ramirez's face at that college party, there are witnesses who, THE NEXT DAY could go to the police station and say it happened. Ramirez files a criminal complaint. You have an investigation for sure and you maybe have a trial. Hell, maybe Kavanaugh decides there are enough people willing to testify against him that it would be better just to plead guilty in exchange for a lenient probation...BOOM...disqualified from SCOTUS. Maybe Kavanaugh pleads not guilty and is found guilty of misdemeanor sexual assault...BOOM...disqualified. No way anybody with a sexual assault conviction on his/her rap sheet even sniffs the SCOTUS. He would just be some attorney or low-level judge that almost all of us, if not all of us, has never heard of.
What evidence? There is no evidence. There will be people willing to say it happened, there will be people willing to say it did not happen and there will be people not willing to say anything or who will just say they recall no such thing. In terms of the first two types of people, I bet we see A LOT of political party correlation with what they say.
Anyway, what is the FBI going to investigate? Does the FBI have access to a time machine I don't know about?Quote:In the end, truth cannot be determined due to insufficient evidences, but the FBI investigation would somehow give an assurance of a transparent process and an assurance that the GOP and the White House did not hide anything from the public.
(Bolded added for effect)
Correct. Thank you. My entire point.
Political gamesmanship has nothing to do with democracy nor does it promote the best interests of this country.
I have no idea what this paragraph has to do with anything.
You're arguing that this sort of thing is an acceptable political technique?
Should we start, "Deliberately influencing," who does or does not get promotions at work with unprovable accusations? Should we start, "Deliberately influencing," who loses their job with unprovable accusations? Should we, "Deliberately influence," the personal lives of people with unprovable accusations?
The problem is that everyone thinks this is JUST about a SCOTUS nomination, but it's not, it's setting the standard for what sort of behavior is acceptable in terms of trying to get one's way on something.
I agree with that. But, people saying unprovable stuff against other people does not speak to the, "Moral, ethical or any other quality," of that person when there is no proof.
You and I have big different perspective on the democratic process, and I don’t think we are anywhere close on this issue.
With regarding to the standard of judging discussion, you seem to focus too much on the standard, perhaps your own "standard" and fail to recognize the lack of uniformity on the standard and its impact in a court of public opinion proceeding (whatever expressed in the congressional chambers, the appointment/confirmation decisions, the WH briefings, political rallies, the racist, sexist, rapist, con-artist Trump’s tweets are for public consumption, and basically belongs to court of public opinion)
In a court of law (both criminal and civil), uniform standards are well established and must be rigorously followed. And standard such as "beyond reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of evidence" are ingrained in our courts. But in the court of public opinion, there is no uniform standard, and the "reasonable suspicion" standard is commonly applied, and I would characterize it as a de facto standard in the court of public opinion (the "reasonable suspicion" standard can become the "which side is your side" standard depending your "confirmation bias" state of mind). What I'm noticing is that this de facto standard is greatly influenced by the confirmation bias factor. And you had inadvertently revealed your "confirmation bias" in your reply which I'll point out later.
In another post you had suggested some minimum evidentiary standard, which is good start, but it would be a fruitless effort if there is no uniform standard on judgment or on deciding "guilt/innocent" in the court of public opinion. Sure, we can legislate some minimum evidentiary standard, but how can you legislate the public opinion standard and multi-partisanship standard of judging so that the evidences putting forward would have some values? You can out of conscience or for the love of the country, take a high road and apply the "beyond reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence" or any other fair & reasonable standards, but you cannot force trumpers to adopt your standard. Can trumpers force you to adopt their standard? Without "enforceable" and uniform standard, people are pretty much influenced by the confirmation bias, fake news, and other propaganda machines.
I did throw you a bone in my other reply and you seem to embrace my opinion, and seem to act like a happy child in a candy store :-) because I'm on your side. Your excitement in embracing of my opinion of "In the end, truth cannot be determined due to insufficient evidences…" is a sign of confirmation bias. I just want you to know that I’m not a law enforcement expert and have not seen the full evidences or have all the facts at my disposal.
When you apply for job, various aspects of your qualifications, experience, and personal history are under "microscope." The recruiter or hiring personnel does not have to "prove" to you that you are the person who you say you are. It is 100% up to you to PROVE or to convince the hiring personnel that you qualify for the job. IMO, "reasonable suspicion" standard is normal and perfectly legal in deciding/evaluating prospective employee qualifications, experience, and behaviors.
Quote: MaxPenThey are not going to show on Thursday. The only people who try and set parameters for discussions with the authorities are perpetrators of crime or falsely accused of crimes. When is the last time you saw a victim of crime trying to direct the narrative and requesting conditions to testify?
Even many Leftists can see these shenanigans for what they are.
I mean, I would be shocked if she doesn’t appear and testify. You’re going to have to win them with the tears at this point, but I find it tough to imagine they just give up.
Quote: MaxPenNo one is willing to give me action on either one showing up.
Well, Ramirez hasn’t been invited to testify by the Senate Judiciary Committee, so someone would have to be crazy to take action on her showing up.
Quote: ams288You may have been duped by more fake news.
Just this morning:
Of course she is now ready to testify. The Ford testimony is set for tomorrow and this is just the next step in trying to delay the process endlessly.
Instead of bringing their stories to at least the Democrats on the panel and allowing it to be handled that way, these folks are using the press to try Kavanaugh. I'm sorry, but that is not the way to handle these things. if they have stories of incidents, bring them to proper authorities (like the committee ranking member) and get them in front of the committee.
I'm still waiting to hear Ford's testimony and then what Kavanaugh has to say. If any real cracks appear in his choirboy image on his part, he could be done without actual proof of anything...when you put yourself on a pedestal, you can get knocked off.
Quote: Mission146Oh, it’s all people she told decades after the fact, one of whom is her husband.
(Sarcasm)This is the kind of undeniable stone cold proof I was talking about us needing to bring forth an accusation of this nature. (/Sarcasm)
Even if something happened, which I don’t deny, are we really thinking her memory on it is perfect after thirty years? It can’t be that great, considering that she’s yet to remember a specific place that the alleged event occurred.
This also isn’t about trying to discredit Blasey Ford. My entire general point is you shouldn’t be able to toss around sexual assault allegations without proof.
Could this be considered as circumstantial evidence? Many rape and murder convictions were based on circumstance evidences. As an old saying goes, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." So the right thing to do is allowing FBI to conduct investigation.
Quote: 777
You and I have big different perspective on the democratic process, and I don’t think we are anywhere close on this issue.
Yeah, I don't know that the democratic process should include accusing people of heinous crimes that you can't prove and waited literal decades to bring up. I'm not sure what makes that essential to the democratic process, I'll admit it.
Quote:With regarding to the standard of judging discussion, you seem to focus too much on the standard, perhaps your own "standard" and fail to recognize the lack of uniformity on the standard and its impact in a court of public opinion proceeding (whatever expressed in the congressional chambers, the appointment/confirmation decisions, the WH briefings, political rallies, the racist, sexist, rapist, con-artist Trump’s tweets are for public consumption, and basically belongs to court of public opinion)
What possible, "Court of public opinion?" Do you have an opinion as to whether or not Blasey Ford's accusations happened? I don't really have one. I've never met Blasey Ford, I've never met Kavanaugh, I hadn't been born yet, so I certainly wasn't at the alleged party. What is there that anyone can reasonably have an opinion on?
In my opinion, there are three possible opinions you can have coming out of this:
1. You blindly believe her.
2.) You blindly believe him.
3.) You acknowledge that there is not, and can not be, any proof for or against and disregard the whole thing accordingly. (My camp)
I'm not even at the point where I'm sure I think something that he may have done as a drunk minor is disqualifying from the SCOTUS even if he actually admitted it, which I'm quite confident he's not going to do.
Lookit, she doesn't even have a place that this alleged event occurred, or even a specific month.
We have an event with no place and no time, and do you know what that tells me? It tells me that you conceivably could, not that you did, but that you could fabricate the events completely in such a way that has no chance of being proven not to have occurred.
Because imagine she says it happened at a specific house. The owners of that house, if alive, could say, "But, we never left town in the Summer of '82, so there's no way there was a house party at our house."
I just don't know how you have this big event that's supposed to be the most traumatic thing in your life and you don't remember where it happened.
Quote:In a court of law (both criminal and civil), uniform standards are well established and must be rigorously followed. And standard such as "beyond reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of evidence" are ingrained in our courts. But in the court of public opinion, there is no uniform standard, and the "reasonable suspicion" standard is commonly applied, and I would characterize it as a de facto standard in the court of public opinion (the "reasonable suspicion" standard can become the "which side is your side" standard depending your "confirmation bias" state of mind). What I'm noticing is that this de facto standard is greatly influenced by the confirmation bias factor. And you had inadvertently revealed your "confirmation bias" in your reply which I'll point out later.
Good, maybe the court of public opinion should function more as the court of law when you are going to accuse people of having perpetrated actual crimes. Maybe there should be some sort of penalty for accusing someone of a crime, after this statute of limitations is long since up on it, without being able to prove it. That way, you can't just run around accusing people of sexual assault, with no proof whatsoever, without legal consequences.
Anyway, that's where the deliberation on whether or not an actual criminal act took place is supposed to happen: In a criminal court. Within the statute of limitations. When that happens, you sometimes get a conviction, and then you can look at it and say, "We should NOT confirm Brett Kavanaugh for the SCOTUS because he was convicted of third degree sexual assault."
Even then, the courts are not always right, and convictions have certainly been overturned. But, when a court concludes that the accused perpetrated the crime and the accused is accordingly found guilty, the public can then accept that the person is effectively guilty of that crime.
Quote:In another post you had suggested some minimum evidentiary standard, which is good start, but it would be a fruitless effort if there is no uniform standard on judgment or on deciding "guilt/innocent" in the court of public opinion. Sure, we can legislate some minimum evidentiary standard, but how can you legislate the public opinion standard and multi-partisanship standard of judging so that the evidences putting forward would have some values? You can out of conscience or for the love of the country, take a high road and apply the "beyond reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence" or any other fair & reasonable standards, but you cannot force trumpers to adopt your standard. Can trumpers force you to adopt their standard? Without "enforceable" and uniform standard, people are pretty much influenced by the confirmation bias, fake news, and other propaganda machines.
It seems your standard for proof is, "Believe whatever you want, accuse anyone of anything you want to." That's fine. I hope for your sake you're never unfairly accused of anything for which there can be no proof.
If you want to know what I would legislate, I would legislate the need for ABSOLUTE PROOF if you are going to be accusing someone of a serious crime well after the statute of limitations has tolled and tarnishing their reputation as such. If you make such an accusation and then are unable to prove it, high-ho, high-ho, it's off to jail you go, you go.
You're also obsessed with, "Trumpers," this and that. My entire angle of this whole conversation has exactly nothing to do with Trump, Trumpers, Conservatives, Liberals, my positions on most political issues etc. etc. etc. In fact, I lean pretty hard left, so if you had people coming out of the woodwork making these sorts of allegations without any proof against a Democrat, I'm sure I would be equally incensed.
Quote:I did throw you a bone in my other reply and you seem to embrace my opinion, and seem to act like a happy child in a candy store :-) because I'm on your side. Your excitement in embracing of my opinion of "In the end, truth cannot be determined due to insufficient evidences…" is a sign of confirmation bias. I just want you to know that I’m not a law enforcement expert and have not seen the full evidences or have all the facts at my disposal.
The only thing that made me happy was that, for a second, I believed I had actually convinced you that being able to prove a major accusation against someone of committing a sex crime should be important. As it turns out, you do not seem to believe that proof is important, or really, that it should matter very much at all.
Quote:When you apply for job, various aspects of your qualifications, experience, and personal history are under "microscope." The recruiter or hiring personnel does not have to "prove" to you that you are the person who you say you are. It is 100% up to you to PROVE or to convince the hiring personnel that you qualify for the job. IMO, "reasonable suspicion" standard is normal and perfectly legal in deciding/evaluating prospective employee qualifications, experience, and behaviors.
When you apply for a job there's usually not somebody running into the middle of your interview and accusing you of a sexually charged crime that they cannot prove took place. If there were, the person interviewing you would probably lose his/her s*** out of confusion alone and there's no way you would get hired.
Quote: 777Could this be considered as circumstantial evidence? Many rape and murder convictions were based on circumstance evidences. As an old saying goes, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." So the right thing to do is allowing FBI to conduct investigation.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE!!!???
That she told people about something decades after its alleged occurrence should be considered circumstantial evidence? It's not, "Evidence," of anything because it does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove that the event did or did not take place.
Let's say Kavanaugh had a prior conviction for anything sexually charged, or if not a conviction, at least an arrest or a police complaint made against him...THAT would be circumstantial evidence. A conviction would prove that a previous similar event took place, an arrest could prove it depending on the circumstances and a criminal complaint alone wouldn't actually prove anything (it wouldn't even prove what the complaint says happened) but it would at least be something concrete.
As far as the convictions you're talking about, lots of convictions have been based in part on convicts going into court and claiming the accused told them about what happened. In my opinion, anything along those lines should also be completely inadmissible. Now you're suggesting that because the alleged victim told other people about the event should constitute circumstantial evidence?
No, the only kind of evidence her telling people constitutes is, "None whatsoever," because it PROVES absolutely nothing. It doesn't even begin to prove anything.
Again, when the FBI has a time machine, let me know, and I'll agree it's time for an FBI investigation.
Quote: RonCI'm still waiting to hear Ford's testimony and then what Kavanaugh has to say.
Me too, which is why I haven't really engaged in all the back and forth in here lately. Let's see what they have to say tomorrow.
Quote: Mission146When you apply for a job there's usually not somebody running into the middle of your interview and accusing you of a sexually charged crime that they cannot prove took place. If there were, the person interviewing you would probably lose his/her s*** out of confusion alone and there's no way you would get hired.
Shit happens in the example you cited for non-political position. And if this happens to you or anyone, then life sucks and you probably did something very bad in your prior life, and certainly you have recourse in the civil court for defamation claim. But don’t worry, you are more likely to get hit by lightning multiple times than by having some stranger running into the middle of your interview and accusing you of a sexual assault or any other crimes.
Now, in high profile political appointment position, or high profile lifetime appointment such as SCOTUS position somebody running into the middle of your interview and accusing you of a sexually charged crime that they can or cannot prove took place is to be expected because our democracy allows it. Perhaps it is a necessary evil in the name democracy.
Quote: Mission146CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE!!!???
That she told people about something decades after its alleged occurrence should be considered circumstantial evidence? It's not, "Evidence," of anything because it does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove that the event did or did not take place.
Let's say Kavanaugh had a prior conviction for anything sexually charged, or if not a conviction, at least an arrest or a police complaint made against him...THAT would be circumstantial evidence. A conviction would prove that a previous similar event took place, an arrest could prove it depending on the circumstances and a criminal complaint alone wouldn't actually prove anything (it wouldn't even prove what the complaint says happened) but it would at least be something concrete.
As far as the convictions you're talking about, lots of convictions have been based in part on convicts going into court and claiming the accused told them about what happened. In my opinion, anything along those lines should also be completely inadmissible. Now you're suggesting that because the alleged victim told other people about the event should constitute circumstantial evidence?
No, the only kind of evidence her telling people constitutes is, "None whatsoever," because it PROVES absolutely nothing. It doesn't even begin to prove anything.
Again, when the FBI has a time machine, let me know, and I'll agree it's time for an FBI investigation.
You seem to have made up your mind on this, which is perfectly fine and I don't see anything wrong with it.
Again, I wonder myself whether or not those evidences can be classified as circumstantial evidences? I don't know, but one thing I know for sure is that maany rape and murder convictions were based on circumstantial evidences alone.
And I hope FBI investigation will bring "sunlight" to this rape allegation.
Quote: MaxPenNo one is willing to give me action on either one showing up.
Propose a wager.
Quote: ams288Avenatti didn’t bluff:
In fairness to Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford, Ms. Swetnick must be cross examined under oath. Also, public interest and the need to know demands a FBI investigation.
Quote: MaxPen
No one is willing to give me action on either one showing up.Quote: billryanPropose a wager
Quote: 777My wager is that you will win this bet
Even if the victim accused a Dem such as Bill Clinton
I find it disgusting that conservatives try to shame sexual assault victims
I find some conservatives really really disgusting
I have compassion for ALL sexual assault victims regardless if they are accusing a Dem or Rep
Quote: terapinedI would never ever post a picture of a sexual assault victim...
At least there's something both you and I agree on.
Quote: RSAt least there's something both you and I agree on.
I would never ever post a pic of a women that claims they were sexually assaulted
I find it totally disgusting that some conservatives will post pictures of women that claim they were sexually assaulted
Its really really disgusting to try to shame women claiming sexual assault
Quote: terapinedIts really really disgusting to try to shame women claiming sexual assault
What else has their side got though?
Nada.
Quote: ams288What else has their side got though?
Nada.
They voted for and continue to support a man that moves on married women like "bitches".
It's amazing how far they've debased themselves for the city slicker liberal. Actually, it's not all that amazing. The GOP took a turn for the worst in the last decade when they put party before country in their obstructionism to Barack Obama.
Trump is the end product of those efforts. And while they are in power now and the strategy has served them well in the short term, we'll see what it does over the long run while their base continues to shrink.
Quote: ams288What else has their side got though?
Nada.
Some people on the right really disgust me
I am sure Fox and Briebart are working hard to have Dems accused
If that happens
I will listen to any women that claims sexual assault regardless if its against a Dem or Republican
It really disgusts me that some conservatives will try to shame a woman claiming sexual assault by posting their picture all over the internet with disgusting memes. Its disgusting
I think its important to listen to ALL women that claim sexual assault
