How to frame Kavanaugh or any other innocent man

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
She was at the March for Science, just as I stated. If Trump and his supporters want to see the March for Science as anti-Trump, well, that's up to them.

she was at an anti trump rally. call it what you want.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: brinny
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,119
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Oh, and then cause her to magically forget every possible detail, expect who the guy was and how many beers she had. LOL!
nope. There's is plenty of examples outside of kavanaughs case too.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
  • Informative
Reactions: brinny
Upvote 0

comana

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Jan 19, 2005
6,917
3,473
Colorado
✟899,580.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
  • Optimistic
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Did you read the article or did you just like the title? Do you think it supports the March as being anti-Trump stance (hint it doesn't). If not I'm curious why you posted it in response to the post you did.

Why do you think Dr Ford may have found this a cause worthy to march for?
So you disagree that "March for science" is not science?
 
Upvote 0

comana

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Jan 19, 2005
6,917
3,473
Colorado
✟899,580.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So you disagree that "March for science" is not science?
You didn't answer my questions.

Whether or not people were there for the wrong reasons is what the article was about. No doubt some were as well as those there with a genuine interest to speak out for science and its proper use.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,119
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
So you disagree that "March for science" is not science?
This isn't ancient Judaic dialectics. Someone asked some very pertinent questions (ie. did you read the very article you quoted).
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
No, it doesn't work that way. All are innocent until proven guilty.

The accuser simply bears the burden of proof in establishing some credibility, not to what she feels and believes, no matter how sincerely, but what actually occurred. Need some facts. Who owned the house, who hosted, who was there at this party, who drove her home, at a minimum. You can't accuse a guy of committing assault at a party whne he did not attend the party, as he claims, and as no witness controverts, last I heard. They have to establish that a party occurred at a location and he was there, at a bare minimum.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: brinny
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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

What is desperate is the accusation without any supporting evidence whatsoever even establishing a party occurred and he and she were both there.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: brinny
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Which it looks like the White House is trying to whitewash already:

While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.

<snip>

Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.

White House limits scope of the FBI’s Kavanaugh investigation

So despite your protestations that "all are innocent until proven guilty", it sure looks like there's an attempt at a whitewash in progress. Definitely proof that they're not at all concerned with Kavanaugh's denials and Ford's evidence.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Which it looks like the White House is trying to whitewash already:



White House limits scope of the FBI’s Kavanaugh investigation

So despite your protestations that "all are innocent until proven guilty", it sure looks like there's an attempt at a whitewash in progress. Definitely proof that they're not at all concerned with Kavanaugh's denials and Ford's evidence.
Ringo
Not at all proof of anything. The relevant facts in THIS charge need to be uncovered and substantiated. That is what is relevant now.

Your article does not even support your contention:

"The FBI has received no new instructions from the White House about how to proceed with its weeklong investigation of sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a senior U.S. official and another source familiar with the matter tell NBC News."

"I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion," Trump tweeted in response to an NBC News report citing multiple people familiar with the process who said the White House was limiting the scope of the reopened background investigation of Kavanaugh."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: brinny
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Not at all proof of anything. The relevant facts in THIS charge need to be uncovered and substantiated. That is what is relevant now.

Your article does not even support your contention:

"The FBI has received no new instructions from the White House about how to proceed with its weeklong investigation of sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a senior U.S. official and another source familiar with the matter tell NBC News."

"I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion," Trump tweeted in response to an NBC News report citing multiple people familiar with the process who said the White House was limiting the scope of the reopened background investigation of Kavanaugh."

ALL relevant facts need to be addressed, not just the ones the White House finds convenient for them and their nominee. If they can't do that, then Kavanaugh needs to withdraw.
Ringo
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
ALL relevant facts need to be addressed, not just the ones the White House finds convenient for them and their nominee. If they can't do that, then Kavanaugh needs to withdraw.
Ringo

I agree. Even if Kavenaugh is confirmed, there will be a cloud over any decision he makes in the future, particularly if that decision has anything to do with women's rights.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ringo84
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Once again we see a man who has been touted as "completely innocent" but cannot seem to withstand any amount of investigation at all. It's like being stopped for a traffic ticket and telling the cop, "You can search my car, but you're absolutely not allowed to look in my trunk. No way; that's off limits".

Kav and his supporters don't seem to grasp the idea that this makes him look even more guilty, like there's stuff he's afraid might see the light of day.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Newtheran

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2018
783
571
South
✟26,789.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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!

This is also why her lawyers were insisting on reversing the traditional order of testimony where the accuser makes the case first, and the accused then speaks in his or her defense. Reversing that order gives the false accuser an opportunity to adjust their story and incorporate details from defense testimony to make it sound more credible.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: brinny
Upvote 0