Kavanaugh

[Beebs52]

I am going to watch the hearing that they are giving to Dr. Ford.

I am going to just ignore any theatrics by either side, and count it against the credibility of their case.

I am going to ignore any emotion-based arguments. Our system of justice is not based on emotions. It is based on facts and evidence. Yes, I feel for her for what she may have gone through. But I also feel for Kavanaugh, and I do acknowledge the possibility that he is being smeared, because of the actions that the democrats have done in the past.

I am going to start with the assumption that Kavanaugh is innocent of these accusations because he says he didn't do them. In our system of justice, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I am going to see if Dr. Ford has any additional EVIDENCE that may strengthen her case, which, up to this point is based only on emotion.

I am giving the burden of proof to Dr. Ford. She accused Judge Kavanaugh of doing this thing to her 35 years ago. It is up to her to make a fact-based argument that it indeed happened and that it was Kavanaugh that did it.

If she does not produce any factual evidence that beyond the shadow of doubt links Judge Kavanaugh to the horrendous thing that she says happened to her, I will have no problem with the Senate confirming Kavanaugh as an associate justice. I will also hold the leaders of the democrat party more in contempt than I already do (FWIW, ie nothing) for making the confirmation process a joke. They apparently sat on this accusation for 2 months, which I believe is plenty of time to give it more substantiation than it currently has. If they can only support it with the mantra "a woman has to be believed", then shame on them.

If she does come up with some credible evidence specifically verifying this event and Kavanaugh's role in it, he should withdraw his nomination immediately. If that is the case, he bald-faced lied to the American people, just like Clinton did, and has no place in a position of power in our government. And, if possible, he should be prosecuted for it.

I acknowledge the possibility that it may have happened exactly as she described it, but because it happened so long ago, she has no way to physically prove it happened. If that is the case, it's wrong, it's unfair and it's tragic. But unfortunately, life is sometimes unfair to all of us. She could have reported it when it happened, but she didn't. For whatever reason. In that case, she let him get away with it. And sadly, she will have to live with that decision.

I have no problem, and I would encourage her, if she wants, to prosecute this case in a court of law, where it belongs, to see if she can prove it and to see if she can get some just compensation for the wrongs done to her.

The standard in U.S. criminal courts is not "beyond the shadow of doubt", it's "with no reasonable doubt". In civil courts, it's by the "preponderance of evidence". I say that's sufficient in this case.

As to why Dr. Ford didn't report the crime, beyond the same reasons most victims don't report, she probably knew Kavanaugh's mother was a prosecutor and therefore may have felt she had no chance of being heard.

Why not report it now?

[flockofseagulls104]

I am going to watch the hearing that they are giving to Dr. Ford.

I am going to just ignore any theatrics by either side, and count it against the credibility of their case.

I am going to ignore any emotion-based arguments. Our system of justice is not based on emotions. It is based on facts and evidence. Yes, I feel for her for what she may have gone through. But I also feel for Kavanaugh, and I do acknowledge the possibility that he is being smeared, because of the actions that the democrats have done in the past.

I am going to start with the assumption that Kavanaugh is innocent of these accusations because he says he didn't do them. In our system of justice, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I am going to see if Dr. Ford has any additional EVIDENCE that may strengthen her case, which, up to this point is based only on emotion.

I am giving the burden of proof to Dr. Ford. She accused Judge Kavanaugh of doing this thing to her 35 years ago. It is up to her to make a fact-based argument that it indeed happened and that it was Kavanaugh that did it.

If she does not produce any factual evidence that beyond the shadow of doubt links Judge Kavanaugh to the horrendous thing that she says happened to her, I will have no problem with the Senate confirming Kavanaugh as an associate justice. I will also hold the leaders of the democrat party more in contempt than I already do (FWIW, ie nothing) for making the confirmation process a joke. They apparently sat on this accusation for 2 months, which I believe is plenty of time to give it more substantiation than it currently has. If they can only support it with the mantra "a woman has to be believed", then shame on them.

If she does come up with some credible evidence specifically verifying this event and Kavanaugh's role in it, he should withdraw his nomination immediately. If that is the case, he bald-faced lied to the American people, just like Clinton did, and has no place in a position of power in our government. And, if possible, he should be prosecuted for it.

I acknowledge the possibility that it may have happened exactly as she described it, but because it happened so long ago, she has no way to physically prove it happened. If that is the case, it's wrong, it's unfair and it's tragic. But unfortunately, life is sometimes unfair to all of us. She could have reported it when it happened, but she didn't. For whatever reason. In that case, she let him get away with it. And sadly, she will have to live with that decision.

I have no problem, and I would encourage her, if she wants, to prosecute this case in a court of law, where it belongs, to see if she can prove it and to see if she can get some just compensation for the wrongs done to her.

The standard in U.S. criminal courts is not "beyond the shadow of doubt", it's "with no reasonable doubt". In civil courts, it's by the "preponderance of evidence". I say that's sufficient in this case.

As to why Dr. Ford didn't report the crime, beyond the same reasons most victims don't report, she probably knew Kavanaugh's mother was a prosecutor and therefore may have felt she had no chance of being heard.

The standard in U.S. criminal courts is not "beyond the shadow of doubt", it's "with no reasonable doubt". In civil courts, it's by the "preponderance of evidence". I say that's sufficient in this case.

It's telling that you want to play semantics with this phrase. Any specific evidence besides her memory or emotional pleas for justice will be helpful.

As to why Dr. Ford didn't report the crime, beyond the same reasons most victims don't report, she probably knew Kavanaugh's mother was a prosecutor and therefore may have felt she had no chance of being heard.

I did say 'for whatever reason'. If she didn't trust the system then, that was her decision.

[silverscreenselect]

Any time someone makes a valid point, you just ignore it, make up lame excuses and stick with your opinion as fact no matter what.

Flock, if you ever make a valid point, I won't ignore it. But you confuse "valid points" with arguments approved by the right wing, which you do incessantly parrot. If you can't argue, which is often, you make sarcastic, unfunny cracks and yell "fake news."

[Bob Juch]

I am going to watch the hearing that they are giving to Dr. Ford.

I am going to just ignore any theatrics by either side, and count it against the credibility of their case.

I am going to ignore any emotion-based arguments. Our system of justice is not based on emotions. It is based on facts and evidence. Yes, I feel for her for what she may have gone through. But I also feel for Kavanaugh, and I do acknowledge the possibility that he is being smeared, because of the actions that the democrats have done in the past.

I am going to start with the assumption that Kavanaugh is innocent of these accusations because he says he didn't do them. In our system of justice, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I am going to see if Dr. Ford has any additional EVIDENCE that may strengthen her case, which, up to this point is based only on emotion.

I am giving the burden of proof to Dr. Ford. She accused Judge Kavanaugh of doing this thing to her 35 years ago. It is up to her to make a fact-based argument that it indeed happened and that it was Kavanaugh that did it.

If she does not produce any factual evidence that beyond the shadow of doubt links Judge Kavanaugh to the horrendous thing that she says happened to her, I will have no problem with the Senate confirming Kavanaugh as an associate justice. I will also hold the leaders of the democrat party more in contempt than I already do (FWIW, ie nothing) for making the confirmation process a joke. They apparently sat on this accusation for 2 months, which I believe is plenty of time to give it more substantiation than it currently has. If they can only support it with the mantra "a woman has to be believed", then shame on them.

If she does come up with some credible evidence specifically verifying this event and Kavanaugh's role in it, he should withdraw his nomination immediately. If that is the case, he bald-faced lied to the American people, just like Clinton did, and has no place in a position of power in our government. And, if possible, he should be prosecuted for it.

I acknowledge the possibility that it may have happened exactly as she described it, but because it happened so long ago, she has no way to physically prove it happened. If that is the case, it's wrong, it's unfair and it's tragic. But unfortunately, life is sometimes unfair to all of us. She could have reported it when it happened, but she didn't. For whatever reason. In that case, she let him get away with it. And sadly, she will have to live with that decision.

I have no problem, and I would encourage her, if she wants, to prosecute this case in a court of law, where it belongs, to see if she can prove it and to see if she can get some just compensation for the wrongs done to her.

The standard in U.S. criminal courts is not "beyond the shadow of doubt", it's "with no reasonable doubt". In civil courts, it's by the "preponderance of evidence". I say that's sufficient in this case.

As to why Dr. Ford didn't report the crime, beyond the same reasons most victims don't report, she probably knew Kavanaugh's mother was a prosecutor and therefore may have felt she had no chance of being heard.

Why not report it now?

Huh?

[flockofseagulls104]

Any time someone makes a valid point, you just ignore it, make up lame excuses and stick with your opinion as fact no matter what.

Flock, if you ever make a valid point, I won't ignore it. But you confuse "valid points" with arguments approved by the right wing, which you do incessantly parrot. If you can't argue, which is often, you make sarcastic, unfunny cracks and yell "fake news."

I don't have a left-wing batphone, like you do, but I got you, babe.

[silverscreenselect]

If she does not produce any factual evidence that beyond the shadow of doubt links Judge Kavanaugh to the horrendous thing that she says happened to her, I will have no problem with the Senate confirming Kavanaugh as an associate justice.

The problem with your "reasonableness" is that the hearing has been set up in such a manner as to prevent her from producing "factual evidence," since there will be no other witnesses or outside investigation. The second accuser, Ramirez, and those who back her story won't be investigated or allowed to testify. The people who initially endorsed Kavanaugh and have now called for further investigation won't be allowed to testify. The people who contradict Kavanaugh's statements about his "clean" behavior during those years won't be allowed to testify. The other witness, Mike Judge, won't be required to testify. Ford now has sworn statements from four people who she reported the incident to prior to the Kavanaugh nomination. It's unclear whether those statements will be admitted into evidence. Certainly the people who gave those statements won't be testifying. So, what we're getting is not a full and fair hearing but something that the Republicans hope passes as a fair hearing to sway those few remaining Republicans like Lisa Murkowski whose minds haven't already been made up about the entire process.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 429270002/

[silverscreenselect]

And Michael Avenatti's mystery witness has now come forward. Her name is Julie Swetnick, and she has released an affidavit:

Swetnick, in an affidavit posted online by Avenatti, claims that Kavanaugh, as a high school student in Maryland in the early 1980s, with others spiked the drinks of girls at house parties with grain alcohol and/or drugs to "cause girls to lose inhibitions and their ability to say 'No.' " Swetnick, 55, said these efforts by Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge were done so the girls "could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys."

"I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh," Swetnick said. She also said in her affidavit sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee that in approximately 1982 "I became the victim of one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present."

Yes, the timing on this is political, but does anyone really think that Grassley would have done something different if this woman came forward last week?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael ... tnick.html

[flockofseagulls104]

I would hope that the main point of the me.too thing is to encourage women who are being abused to report it, and try and support it with as much evidence as they can. That is the best way of prosecuting and punishing men who abuse women.

But I don't think that is the goal of the me,too movement. Unfortunately, like a lot of the 'movements' these days, it is a manufactured tool of the left, and is being carried out too far.

Nothing will discourage vindictive women from manufacturing charges against men they don't like. "Survivors must be believed" is a powerful emotional argument, but it is a dangerous thing when people in positions of power substitute that standard for due process of law.

[jarnon]

Unfortunately, like a lot of the 'movements' these days, it is a manufactured tool of the left, and is being carried out too far.

Tell that to Weinstein, Cosby, Ellison, Franken, etc.

[Beebs52]

The standard in U.S. criminal courts is not "beyond the shadow of doubt", it's "with no reasonable doubt". In civil courts, it's by the "preponderance of evidence". I say that's sufficient in this case.

As to why Dr. Ford didn't report the crime, beyond the same reasons most victims don't report, she probably knew Kavanaugh's mother was a prosecutor and therefore may have felt she had no chance of being heard.

Why not report it now?

Huh?

As in file a police complaint even if statute has run. Then file a civil suit.

[Bob Juch]

Why not report it now?

Huh?

As in file a police complaint even if statute has run. Then file a civil suit.

There is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland. We may be seeing criminal and civil cases soon.

[Beebs52]

Huh?

As in file a police complaint even if statute has run. Then file a civil suit.

There is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland. We may be seeing criminal and civil cases soon.

What was your huh? for then?

[silverscreenselect]

I would hope that the main point of the me.too thing is to encourage women who are being abused to report it, and try and support it with as much evidence as they can. That is the best way of prosecuting and punishing men who abuse women.

But I don't think that is the goal of the me,too movement. Unfortunately, like a lot of the 'movements' these days, it is a manufactured tool of the left, and is being carried out too far.

Nothing will discourage vindictive women from manufacturing charges against men they don't like. "Survivors must be believed" is a powerful emotional argument, but it is a dangerous thing when people in positions of power substitute that standard for due process of law.

Your attitude and those of people like you are the reason why women haven't made these accusations public. Because the defense is that the woman is vindictive or out for money or having a case of after-the-fact remorse for something she later regrets or anything else other than a victim of a forcible sexual assault. Women have faced public shame and ridicule along with the loss of employment possibilities, not to mention the utter embarrassment of having to describe to complete strangers an intimate violation of their bodies. Despite the fact that statistics show that the incidence of false reporting is quite low, about 2-8%, you'll still insist on some "proof" that's hard or impossible to find.

The fact is that men who are sexual abusers, like Weinstein, Spacey, Cosby, and others are usually serial sexual abusers, and the only way women (or in cases like Spacey's, men) who have been abused can try to convince people is to get support from others who have been through the same thing. This isn't a political tool of the left. If anything, most of those in Hollywood who have been brought down, like Weinstein, were well-known liberals. The fact that so many women have come forth, the vast majority of them in situations where they have no possible personal gain, should impress on people just how widespread this sort of activity has been in our society for years.

[Bob Juch]

As in file a police complaint even if statute has run. Then file a civil suit.

There is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland. We may be seeing criminal and civil cases soon.

What was your huh? for then?

She has reported it.

[flockofseagulls104]

I would hope that the main point of the me.too thing is to encourage women who are being abused to report it, and try and support it with as much evidence as they can. That is the best way of prosecuting and punishing men who abuse women.

But I don't think that is the goal of the me,too movement. Unfortunately, like a lot of the 'movements' these days, it is a manufactured tool of the left, and is being carried out too far.

Nothing will discourage vindictive women from manufacturing charges against men they don't like. "Survivors must be believed" is a powerful emotional argument, but it is a dangerous thing when people in positions of power substitute that standard for due process of law.

Your attitude and those of people like you are the reason why women haven't made these accusations public. Because the defense is that the woman is vindictive or out for money or having a case of after-the-fact remorse for something she later regrets or anything else other than a victim of a forcible sexual assault. Women have faced public shame and ridicule along with the loss of employment possibilities, not to mention the utter embarrassment of having to describe to complete strangers an intimate violation of their bodies. Despite the fact that statistics show that the incidence of false reporting is quite low, about 2-8%, you'll still insist on some "proof" that's hard or impossible to find.

The fact is that men who are sexual abusers, like Weinstein, Spacey, Cosby, and others are usually serial sexual abusers, and the only way women (or in cases like Spacey's, men) who have been abused can try to convince people is to get support from others who have been through the same thing. This isn't a political tool of the left. If anything, most of those in Hollywood who have been brought down, like Weinstein, were well-known liberals. The fact that so many women have come forth, the vast majority of them in situations where they have no possible personal gain, should impress on people just how widespread this sort of activity has been in our society for years.

That's right, aSShole, I'm a BAAAAAAD man. I personally prevent every abused woman from reporting their abuse. I forget, there are no vindictive women. Only men lie. Probably only conservative white guys. How stupid of me to even think about equal justice under the law.

I practice shaming and ridiculing women every day just in case I ever get a chance.

I guess being self-righteous is a useful, all-encompassing debate point.

[Beebs52]

There is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland. We may be seeing criminal and civil cases soon.

What was your huh? for then?

She has reported it.

Not to Maryland officials, unless whatI've read on several sites is wrong.

[Bob Juch]

Christine Blasey Ford Polygraph Regarding Kavanaugh Assault Allegation Released

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ka ... mg00000067

[Bob Juch]

[silverscreenselect]

That's right, aSShole, I'm a BAAAAAAD man. I personally prevent every abused woman from reporting their abuse.

That's right. You don't prevent abused women from reporting, but collectively, you sure as hell discourage it. You don't even treat this allegation as a coin flip on credibility; you're insisting she come up with an impossible standard of proof before you believe her. And considering the doubt that keeps mounting day after day about Kavanaugh's credibility and the way he now seems to be changing his tune about how he was a choir boy in high school and college (after his handlers undoubtedly let him know that his original story wasn't playing too well), there are some significant doubts about that credibility.

Women do invent stories. But it doesn't happen very often, and now we have three different women alleging various versions of the same thing. And keep in mind that the Democrats have never asked specifically for a down vote on Kavanaugh. They've asked for the FBI to investigate, and the Republicans are stonewalling. Presumably, now that the FBI knows what to look for, they can get to the bottom of a lot of these allegations. Under your standards, any criminal victim would have to prove his or her case before the police would even be bothered to investigate.

[silverscreenselect]

Stay tuned tomorrow for Kavanaugh 4.0, depending on how well this version plays with focus groups.

[flockofseagulls104]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/joe ... onclusive/

Joe Biden in 1991:
"The next person that refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. ...The FBI explicitly does not in this or any other case reach a conclusion. Period. The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report, you wouldn’t like it if we did, because it is inconclusive. They say he said, she said, and they said. Period. So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand, they do not … reach conclusions. They do not make … recommendations."

I believe he was right back then. He, and the whole dem party, have gotten progressively stupider as years have gone by. Or have assumed we have gotten stupider. They might be right about the latter.

[Beebs52]

Proves assault and rape? Bit disingenuous are we?

[flockofseagulls104]

Proves assault and rape? Bit disingenuous are we?

This is proof enough for the idiots that believe the crap generated by the Trump Resistance Movement.

Why do these Confirmation Hearings turn into character assassinations only when conservatives are nominated?

[Beebs52]

Actually, it's surprisingly refreshing that BobJ adhered to monastery values and did nothing cringeworthy during his high school, college and 20's plus years, which carried into his family values stance during the Clinton era. Good for him.

[silverscreenselect]

Why do these Confirmation Hearings turn into character assassinations only when conservatives are nominated?

Two things come to mind:

1) Only Republicans choose to nominate sexual abusers and harrassers.

2) When Republicans don't like the nominee, they simply don't hold hearings.