How to frame Kavanaugh or any other innocent man

[Calminian]

If you want to frame an innocent man in public opinion, this is how you do it.

No Possible Alibi
Make a general allegation, but give no specifics. In this case, there's specifics on what happened but nothing that could give the accused a chance to alibi himself. There is no time or place of the crime. Kavanaugh can't research to show that he wasn't in the general vicinity at the general time because there is no general vicinity or time. It's totally open to a million possibilities. She doesn't even know the year or the town. It just happened sometime, somewhere.

Generally when innocent people are suspected or accused, they look to alibi themselves. They simply let their whereabouts at a specific time be known. And Most of the time this works well.

Therefore, if you want to frame an innocent person, you simply take this away. You do exactly as Ford and the Dems have done. Make it a long time ago, somewhere totally unknown. She doesn't know the year, city, details about who was there or how she got there.

No Possible Scrutiny
But this won't work, unless you also eliminate scrutiny. You refuse to testify and claim that an opportunity to testify is actually a form of abuse! You should never have to clarify an accusation. It's anti-woman! Any woman should be able to level a public accusation and never be subject to any kind of official cross-examination.

No Possible Doubt
And, finally, level the axiom that all women should be believed—no matter what! That is the final nail in the coffin for the accused innocent. With these three pillars in place, no innocent man can escape judgement.

It really is the perfect plan. They did some other brilliant things also. Instead of reporting details that do the talking they asked the accuser to speculate on Kavanaugh's motives and intentions. The incident as it stands wasn't actually a crime. He didn't commit rape, but she's pretty sure he was going to in a room with many witnesses. This also was accepted as gospel truth. Do not question. If you do, you're sexist!

 

[mark kennedy]

What I've seen described is him getting a little frisky at a party when he was in high school. This is a road bump on the way to the nomination that hardly seems effected by this flimsy allegation. I dont see any indication of him being accused of rape or sexual assult. Just a little harmless mud slinging, it should wash off with minimal effort and they can procede to the vote.

 

[Calminian]

What I've seen described is him getting a little frisky at a party when he was in high school. This is a road bump on the way to the nomination that hardly seems effected by this flimsy allegation. I dont see any indication of him being accused of rape or sexual assult. Just a little harmless mud slinging, it should wash off with minimal effort and they can procede to the vote.

Yes, even if it's true, that's all I see, also. This of course is politically incorrect, and you and I would be stoned on the alter of the MeToo movement for saying so. That's because her speculations are just as important as anything else. She not only should be believed, but her speculations about his motives and ultimate intentions should be taken as gospel truth. This, according to virtually all MSM outlets, was an "attempted rape!" Why? Because she felt it might have lead to that (even in a room filled with people). See how it works?

Denis Prager wrote a good article on this:
Brett Kavanaugh Accusations Should Be Ignored | National Review
By DENNIS PRAGER

I think he's right.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, even if it's true, that's all I see, also. This of course is politically incorrect, and you and I would be stoned on the alter of the MeToo movement for saying so. But that's why her speculations are so important. She not only should be believed, but her speculations about his motives and ultimate intentions should be taken as gospel truth. This, according to virtually all MSM outlets, was an "attempted rape!" Why? Because she felt it might have lead to that (even in a room filled with people). See how that works?

Denis Prager wrote a good article on this:
Brett Kavanaugh Accusations Should Be Ignored | National Review
By DENNIS PRAGER

I think he's right.

I wouldnt take a serious allegation lightly but this is Anita Hill revisited. I have plenty of reasons to disapprove of this nominee, this isnt one of them. Shes a professional academic, I think this garners a lot of support with no need for substantiating the claim. There is also the fact he denies it ever happened and this is decades later. Just the latest mud pie that wont survive the spin cycle. Yea it should be largely ignored but that dont mean she wont get a fair hearing, just believe ulterior motives are pretty obvious.

 

[Calminian]

I wouldnt take a serious allegation lightly but this is Anita Hill revisited. I have plenty of reasons to disapprove of this nominee, this isnt one of them. Shes a professional academic, I think this garners a lot of support with no need for substantiating the claim. Thete is also the fact he denies it e ver happened and this is decades later. Just the latest mud pie that wont survive the spin cycle. Yea it should be largely ignored but that dont mean she wont get a fair hearing, just believe ulterior motives are pretty obvious.

If only most liberals were this reasonable. This is going to survive a few spin cycles. Trust me.

 

[mark kennedy]

If only most liberals were this reasonable. This is going to survive a few spin cycles. Trust me.

I dont think so, Anita Hill was a smear that made them look foolish, this will to. They will use it politically for a while to play to their base. I dont see anything substantive coming of it.

 

[Calminian]

I dont think so, Anita Hill was a smear that made them look foolish, this will to. They will use it politically for a while to play to their base. I dont see anything substantive coming of it.

Your optimism is encouraging. Hope you're right.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your optimism is encouraging. Hope you're right.

If anything it will back fire, Clearance Thomas came back with a brilliant response to Anita Hill and secured his nomination handily.

 

[JackRT]

What I am starting to sense in discussions of this sort is that when a male is accused of a sexual indiscretion, he is innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, it would seem that the female accuser is guilty (of a lie) until proven innocent.

 

[mark kennedy]

What I am starting to sense in discussions of this sort is that when a male is accused of a sexual indiscretion, he is innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, it would seem that the female accuser is guilty (of a lie) until proven innocent.

I dont think so. If its sexual miscoduct it goes right to the top of the news cycle. You take it on a case by case basis and ask the obvious question, is it credible. This one doesnt seem credible, nothing criminal happened if true and its her word against his. And its been decades. Not a lot there to get excited about.

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

What I am starting to sense in discussions of this sort is that when a male is accused of a sexual indiscretion, he is innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, it would seem that the female accuser is guilty (of a lie) until proven innocent.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

 

[Mountainmanbob]

She doesn't even know the year or the town. It just happened sometime, somewhere.




Generally when innocent people are suspected or accused, they look to alibi themselves. They simply let their whereabouts at a specific time be known. And Most of the time this works well.

Therefore, if you want to frame an innocent person, you simply take this away. You do exactly as Ford and the Dems have done. Make it a long time ago, somewhere totally unknown. She doesn't know the year, city, details about who was there or how she got there.

No Possible Scrutiny
But this won't work, unless you also eliminate scrutiny. You refuse to testify and claim that an opportunity to testify is actually a form of abuse! You should never have to clarify an accusation. It's anti-woman! Any woman should be able to level a public accusation and never be subject to any kind of official cross-examination.

No Possible Doubt
And, finally, level the axiom that all women should be believed—no matter what! That is the final nail in the coffin for the accused innocent. With these three pillars in place, no innocent man can escape judgement.

It really is the perfect plan. They did some other brilliant things also. Instead of reporting details that do the talking they asked the accuser to speculate on Kavanaugh's motives and intentions. The incident as it stands wasn't actually a crime. He didn't commit rape, but she's pretty sure he was going to in a room with many witnesses. This also was accepted as gospel truth. Do not question. If you do, you're sexist!

That is pretty weak!

67 years old here with what I think not the most excellent memory but, I can still remember most all of the dates I had way, way back then and pretty much exactly what happened.

I think these two ladies lay out a good case.

M-Bob

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If you want to frame an innocent man in public opinion, this is how you do it.

No Possible Alibi
Make a general allegation, but give no specifics. In this case, there's specifics on what happened but nothing that could give the accused a chance to alibi himself. There is no time or place of the crime. Kavanaugh can't research to show that he wasn't in the general vicinity at the general time because there is no general vicinity or time. It's totally open to a million possibilities. She doesn't even know the year or the town. It just happened sometime, somewhere.

Generally when innocent people are suspected or accused, they look to alibi themselves. They simply let their whereabouts at a specific time be known. And Most of the time this works well.

Therefore, if you want to frame an innocent person, you simply take this away. You do exactly as Ford and the Dems have done. Make it a long time ago, somewhere totally unknown. She doesn't know the year, city, details about who was there or how she got there.

No Possible Scrutiny
But this won't work, unless you also eliminate scrutiny. You refuse to testify and claim that an opportunity to testify is actually a form of abuse! You should never have to clarify an accusation. It's anti-woman! Any woman should be able to level a public accusation and never be subject to any kind of official cross-examination.

No Possible Doubt
And, finally, level the axiom that all women should be believed—no matter what! That is the final nail in the coffin for the accused innocent. With these three pillars in place, no innocent man can escape judgement.

It really is the perfect plan. They did some other brilliant things also. Instead of reporting details that do the talking they asked the accuser to speculate on Kavanaugh's motives and intentions. The incident as it stands wasn't actually a crime. He didn't commit rape, but she's pretty sure he was going to in a room with many witnesses. This also was accepted as gospel truth. Do not question. If you do, you're sexist!

"And, finally, level the axiom that all women should be believed—no matter what!"

Just think if women evangelized the world with Gospel what could be accomplished throughout the world! We need more Christian women debating with agnostics/atheists because "all women should be believed" because they are women! How sexist is that? Slight of hand with the sexism card. I actually heard the stronger version from their mouths "woman NEED to be believed". I guess men are all liars huh? Good grief Charlie Brown.

 

[Calminian]

That is pretty weak!

67 years old here with what I think not the most excellent memory but, I can still remember most all of the dates I had way, way back then and pretty much exactly what happened.

I think these two ladies lay out a good case.

M-Bob

yeah, I mean you're not going to forget that if it really happened. you'll know the approximate time, and many details like how you got there, and where it was. Did she go with a friend? all she remembers is the names of all the guys there and all the specific details about the incident, but nothing else? No way. She doesn't want to testify because she doesn't want to purger herself.

 

[Calminian]

What I am starting to sense in discussions of this sort is that when a male is accused of a sexual indiscretion, he is innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, it would seem that the female accuser is guilty (of a lie) until proven innocent.

Women assaulted by liberal men, yes. Juanita, Kathleen, Paula. They gave specific details. They testified. They went through scrutiny. Same with Keith Ellison's ex. She offered evidence and went to the police. Totally credible. But the media and the dems protect liberal predators.

Now compare these women to Mrs. Ford. No time, no place, not willing to testify, nothing. Just he did this thing sometime in the past and don't bully me anymore. I believe Kavanaugh.

 

[Calminian]

Wow! New evidence coming out that Ford may have confused Kavanaugh with someone else. Apparently the guy in question had a party much like the one Ford described, at his house. Yet Ford claims he wasn't there.

Interesting, to be sure. We'll see how this develops.


BREAKING: FORMER SCALIA LAW CLERK Drops Pictures and Evidence That Blows Christine Ford’s Case Wide Open (Updated)
September 20, 2018, 5:42 pm by Cristina Laila

 

[Arcangl86]

How does the whole no scrutiny thing when demanding a police investigation?

 

[MoneyGuy]

Are you suggesting that Kavanaugh has been framed?

That’s extremely unlikely. He did it. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Ringo84]

Yes, of course....six years in advance, Ford knew that Donny would be elected president and nominate Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. So she concocted a story to her therapist so that years down the road, she could expose herself to death threats and an FBI investigation all to lie about Kavanaugh when in fact his eeevil twin (goatee and all) actually perpetrated the assault.

The excuses here are getting really desperate. I've heard more plausible theories on fanfiction.net.
Ringo

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Wow! New evidence coming out that Ford may have confused Kavanaugh with someone else. Apparently the guy in question had a party much like the one Ford described, at his house. Yet Ford claims he wasn't there.

Interesting, to be sure. We'll see how this develops.


BREAKING: FORMER SCALIA LAW CLERK Drops Pictures and Evidence That Blows Christine Ford’s Case Wide Open (Updated)
September 20, 2018, 5:42 pm by Cristina Laila

If that's the case apologies, deep apologies would be in order.

But, if so I wonder how many apologies we would even see.

My guess next to none.

M-Bob