How to frame Kavanaugh or any other innocent man

ThatRobGuy said:

...a person's political affiliation seems to drive the selective outrage on this topic as well.

The people who were fired up about Clinton are blasé about Brett, and vice versa.


In particularly polarizing times, people tend to wear pretty big blinders, and are willing to basically insult their own intelligence in order to defend their party.

Click to expand...

Yes this is can be the case. Not even Clinton’s perjury was secure until we had his DNA on a dress. He had a cloud of accusations but everyone one of them was unsubstantiated and uncorroborated until the blue dress.

Once again we have a government official with multiple isolated accusations with each of them unsubstantiated and uncorroborated.

Not to mentioned unreported.

Once again: Julie Swetnick signed a sworn affadavit and said that there were eyewitnesses that could corroborate her claims. A person with a security clearance would sign a statement on threat of perjury if she was making something up, but Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee seem to be refusing any sort of investigation in this matter.

So the claim that these reports are "uncorroborated" and "unsubstantiated" is false on its face. It's especially troubling because RedLeg occasionally says things that are reasonable and then lapses right back into the usual partisan talking points. I and many others have said it over and over and over again: the way to make supposedly ""unsubstantiated"" claims more clear is to investigate them.
Ringo

TerranceL said:

According to Chuch Schumer, Kavanaugh doesn't have the presumption of innocence because it's not a legal case. So yes, according to the Senate Democrat leader it's ok to destroy someones political and judicial career without there being the need to provide evidence that they actually did something to deserve it.

Click to expand...

I would like to take a walk through Shumer’s copy of the Torah some time. Seems he forgot Deuteronomy 19:15-19

Ringo84 said:

Oh, you've looked at them! Well gee...that settles that. Too bad Ramirez and Ford couldn't stand up to the eagle-eyed scrutiny of Christian Forums member redleghunter.

"We totally believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that Kavanaugh is innocent. But don't you dare try to investigate! That'd be unamerican!"

- Definitely the sign of confidence in your nominee's innocence
Ringo

Click to expand...

Any Law school student would look like a master litigator taking apart these accusations.

But thanks for the plug and blind post.

TerranceL said:

No, the "American" thing is to file a complaint with your local DA and have it investigated as a criminal case.

Why haven't they don't that?

To be charitable to your argument, you are right I guess, witchhunts are also very American.

Click to expand...

Wonder if The Crucible is still required reading.

Ringo84 said:

Once again: Julie Swetnick signed a sworn affadavit and said that there were eyewitnesses that could corroborate her claims. A person with a security clearance would sign a statement on threat of perjury if she was making something up, but Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee seem to be refusing any sort of investigation in this matter.

So the claim that these reports are "uncorroborated" and "unsubstantiated" is false on its face. It's especially troubling because RedLeg occasionally says things that are reasonable and then lapses right back into the usual partisan talking points. I and many others have said it over and over and over again: the way to make supposedly ""unsubstantiated"" claims more clear is to investigate them.
Ringo

Click to expand...

No Ringo the claim by Swetnick becomes substantiated and corroborated when actual witnesses come forward and testify. Not before. Anyone can make this claim. Plus Swetnick probably needs a better lawyer than the inappropriate content lawyer. She is on record now showing she attended multiple parties where other women were repeatably raped and she was an adult in college at the time. If this is investigated she makes herself complicit.

redleghunter said:

No Ringo the claim by Swetnick becomes substantiated and corroborated when actual witnesses come forward and testify. Not before. Anyone can make this claim. Plus Swetnick probably needs a better lawyer than the inappropriate content lawyer. She is on record now showing she attended multiple parties where other women were repeatably raped and she was an adult in college at the time. If this is investigated she makes herself complicit.

Click to expand...

You're supposed to be a lawyer, right? An affadavit comes with a penalty of perjury if what she said was untrue.

But I definitely agree: let's have an investigation and see exactly how "unsubstantiated" these claims are. I would welcome that, but I'm much more confident of Swetnick telling the truth than you seem to be of Kavanaugh.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

You're supposed to be a lawyer, right? An affadavit comes with a penalty of perjury if what she said was untrue.

But I definitely agree: let's have an investigation and see exactly how "unsubstantiated" these claims are. I would welcome that, but I'm much more confident of Swetnick telling the truth than you seem to be of Kavanaugh.
Ringo

Click to expand...

No not a lawyer but served on Article 32 boards as the investigation officer. One was a rape case. An Article 32 officer functions similar to a Grand Jury to determine if there is enough evidence to go forward with a Court Martial panel. Which is a jury trial. So no lawyer but very familiar with the rules of evidence, what hearsay is, what constitutes a sworn statement (more formal in the military justice) and what constitutes a valid witness. A valid witness is not one that is just mentioned but properly identified and deposed. I spent the better of 8 months doing case after case as I was recovering from surgery. I practically lived with the JAG lawyers and learned a lot from them.

She might have witnesses but just saying others can confirm her story is not enough?

Jeopardy for a false statement? As she wrote the attested letter her lawyer left loads of room where she can make another statement that those she called able to corroborate her claims meant the story she told them. She also kept the portion where she said others saw what she saw so wide open you could drive an 18 wheeler through. If no one comes forward and someone else gives a different account than she does, she can chalk that up as a difference of opinion. So she’s safe if anyone wants to interrogate her on witnesses. She could easily say it was a long time ago and she was speaking generally. Until actual witnesses come forward and corroborate her claim, her letter is worth the value of the paper it was written on. A few cents.

Now the real question I have is how such a government employee would issue such a vague letter and sign her name on it.

ViaCrucis said:

Fascinating how when accusations come out against Democrats, there tends to be a bipartisan agreement to investigate the matter, and be willing to dispense of the person accused if they are guilty.

Fascinating how when accusations come out against Republicans, there tends to be a massive backlash by conservatives, and so every dark conspiracy theory is rendered plausible as to why a good person is being accused by malicious powers that be.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Fascinating how according to the minority leader of the senate there is no assumption of innocence because this isn't a criminal case. Fascinating that the accuser has never reported what she claims to have happened to the correct authorities so that it can be investigated.

Not at all fascinating that democrats are again perpetuating a witch hunt against a conservative justice.

ThatRobGuy said:

...so if his accuser actually had a stained dress, you'd be opposed to him then?

Click to expand...

Without a doubt, if he was found guilty of doing whats, claimed I wouldn't support him if there was even the slightest corroboration of her story I'd be all for drawing this out like democrats want to do.

...and as we're seeing with the Brett case, a popular tactic is to wait for a ridiculous "bandwagon"/"copycat" accuser, point out how silly they are and how ridiculous their claim is, and attempt to project that onto everyone else who's made an accusation.

Click to expand...

That's just false before there was a second accuser we knew that the people who claimed were witnesses and were there have no idea what she's talking about.

Everyone's harping on how silly the second accuser is/was and how their story is full of holes (which is true), however, they're zeroing in on that so they can avoid having to acknowledge that the first accuser isn't silly and their story isn't full of holes.

Click to expand...

The first accuser? Ford?

https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/

1) For starters, Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month.

Click to expand...

2) Ford concedes she told no one what happened to her at the time, not even her best friend or mother. That means she can rely on no contemporaneous witness to corroborate her story.

Click to expand...

3) Worse, the four other people she identified as attending the party, including Kavanaugh, all deny knowledge of the gathering in question, including Leland Ingham Keyser, who she calls a “lifelong friend.”

Click to expand...

5) This summer, Ford tried to reach out to old friends from high school and college to jog her memory. They couldn’t help her. “I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” Ford complained to one friend in July, according to an account in The San Jose Mercury News.

Click to expand...

6) Yet she still pushed forward with her bombshell charge, contacting The Washington Post tip line and Democratic lawmakers, while hiring a Democratic activist lawyer. Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.

Click to expand...

7) Ford contends that notes her therapist took in 2012 corroborate her account. But they don’t mention Kavanaugh.

They also point up inconsistencies in her story. For instance, her shrink noted that Ford told her there were “four boys” in the bedroom, not two as she now says. The notes also indicate Ford said she was in her “late teens” when she was assaulted. But Ford now says she may have been only 15.

Click to expand...

8) In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.

Click to expand...

Now Rob, I don't know you personally, but if you can look at all the holes in this womans story and still believe her I'd have to question if you were ok with what looks like a witchhunt.

Brett Kavanaugh - Wikipedia

Where were this woman's claims during Kavanaughs 2003 confirmation hearing to the Court of Appeals?

With all of this whining about """witch hunts""" and rules lawyering over 'process', I can't help but wonder how many men might be frightened that if a powerful man like Kavanaugh can go down, questionable events from their past might be dredged up and used against them.

That is one possible reason why there's so much squawking over ""vague"" affadavits (with details and possible witnesses) but a complete refusal to hold anything other than one hearing tomorrow with two witnesses, Kavanaugh and Ford. No time, attention or concern is given to Swetnick's allegation at all.
Ringo

Where were this woman's claims during Kavanaughs 2003 confirmation hearing to the Court of Appeals?

Click to expand...

"Those boys" didn't step up when Hastert was being considered for the job of Speaker of the House. Therefore, I can only conclude that their coming forward was a politically-motivated "con job".

And what about "those women" who failed to come forward about Larry Nassar? Obviously, he's not a politician, but since they didn't come forward until much later, their timing was questionable.

Or perhaps Andrea Constand? She was drugged and assaulted by Cosby - what? Twelve years ago? Where was she then? Why didn't she come forward? Obviously she was "just trying to destroy the reputation of a good and honorable man", just like Kavanaugh.

Women - and other victims of sexual assault - can only come forward in a very and arbitrary time frame. Otherwise, it's a "con job", right?
Ringo

Required reading to advance in this thread.

https://www.cusd80.com/cms/lib/AZ01.../4860/The Crucible_full text_adobe_format.pdf

Whoops

Ahead of pivotal Senate hearing, witnesses surface to say Christine Ford may have mistaken them for Kavanaugh


Ahead of pivotal Senate hearing, witnesses surface to say Christine Ford may have mistaken them for Kavanaugh

OK, put up or shut up. Cancel tomorrow's hearing and open an investigation where these claims are examined and these alleged attackers are placed under oath. We'll find out real fast if this is true or another half-hearted eleventh hour attempt to muddy the waters.

My argument has never changed: investigate, interview, uncover the truth. Meanwhile, the pro-Kavanaugh have cycled between "boys will be boys", B-b-but they didn't come forward soon enough! and "Boo hoo! Men are being railroaded!".

Ford has four affadavits to back up her story: Ford's lawyers submit 4 affidavits backing up assault story

Maybe these alleged assaulters should get some if they want to be taken seriously.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

With all of this whining about """witch hunts""" and rules lawyering over 'process', I can't help but wonder how many men might be frightened that if a powerful man like Kavanaugh can go down, questionable events from their past might be dredged up and used against them.

Click to expand...

That's precious. Your argument is that if you support rule of law you just might have done something bad in your past.

Reminds me of the "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about" argument I used to hear from neocons when people brought up privacy issues of the Patriot act.

That is one possible reason why there's so much squawking over ""vague"" affadavits (with details and possible witnesses) but a complete refusal to hold anything other than one hearing tomorrow with two witnesses, Kavanaugh and Ford. No time, attention or concern is given to Swetnick's allegation at all.

Click to expand...

"Squaking" over silly things like evidence... yeah, keep politicizing rape, see where that gets us.

Ringo84 said:

Women - and other victims of sexual assault - can only come forward in a very and arbitrary time frame. Otherwise, it's a "con job", right?
Ringo

Click to expand...

I guess your right man, it's best to come forward at a time when it'll put a brake on a president you loathe supreme court nominee.

TerranceL said:

That's precious. Your argument is that if you support rule of law you just might have done something bad in your past.

Reminds me of the "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about" argument I used to hear from neocons when people brought up privacy issues of the Patriot act.


"Squaking" over silly things like evidence... yeah, keep politicizing rape, see where that gets us.

Click to expand...

Is it ""politicizing"" rape to ask that a nominee to the Supreme Court who bleats constantly about his innocence undergo an investigation? These things are how innocence is proven or disproved.

Why is he so frightened of an investigation if he's innocent?
Ringo

TerranceL said:

I guess your right man, it's best to come forward at a time when it'll put a brake on a president you loathe supreme court nominee.

Click to expand...

Nah...clearly the only way that Senate Republicans would accept an investigation is if it happened in a time frame that was politically convenient to them.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

Is it ""politicizing"" rape to ask that a nominee to the Supreme Court who bleats constantly about his innocence undergo an investigation? These things are how innocence is proven or disproved.

Why is he so frightened of an investigation if he's innocent?
Ringo

Click to expand...

How many days did Diane Feinstein have the letter from Ms Ford before it became public? Answer 60 days. The total number of days from announcing BK as the nominee was 90 days. So two thirds the time for confirmation Feinstein has this letter and drops it at 80 days in.

This is withholding evidence.