Why These Kavanaugh Hearings

[essentialsaltes]

Hearsay is now evidence??

It would be evidence that the story was not invented last week or six years ago, but was known around the time of the alleged incident.

(Or Obama used his time machine again.)

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

That's my problem here, more than anything else: I'm concerned that this is becoming more about partisan politics than figuring out the truth.

I suspect that partisan politics is all it was ever about...

Hearsay is now evidence??
“This incident did happen,” Miranda wrote. “Many of us heard about it in school and Christine’s recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true.”

Since then, she's walked it back a bit and admitted that she doesn't know if it happened. She has also said she's not going say anything more about it publicly.

Kavanaugh Accuser's Classmate: 'That It Happened Or Not, I Have No Idea'

 

[Ringo84]

Sorry I was in prep school 50 years ago. I did not realize that Kavanaugh is so much younger than I am.

Honest mistake.

Then you do not want to have a discussion. We have to understand how the human mind works and how it functions if you want to determine how dependable her claims are.

Liberals are very interested in how the mind functions. Esp when they are trying to get in our pocket and get out money.

This, however, is not an honest mistake but victim blaming.

If someone raped your daughter twenty years ago, would you care if they were an "OK person" now?

I never said it was. What I said was you do not have the right to falsely accuse people. Everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. They do not have the right to put you in jail just because someone somewhere accuses you of something. IF you take rights away from people you may very well be giving up your own rights.

Once again, an investigation - not just a single hearing a few days from now - will bear out very quickly if this is a "false accusation", as you claim, or something that really happened. You are speaking awfully definitively without a lot of evidence.

I have warned liberal many times that they are going to be judged the way they judge people. This is why we need to be careful to always treat people the way we want to be treated. Can you honestly say if a girl from your high school were to accuse you of assault then we should believe her without giving you a chance to defend yourself?

If a "girl" (I graduated fifteen years ago) from my high school accused me of rape, I'd shout from the mountaintops that I wanted an investigation because I'd know it was false and would want a chance for an investigation to prove that.

Why did she wait so long. This was clearly designed to delay the vote and has fraud written all over it for that reason alone.

Because she was traumatized. What is it to you?

This does not even get into a discussion about teenage girls and the type of fantasy they have and how upset they get when things did not go the way they expected things were going to go. Nor does this make any mention at all about how often the girl is the aggressor and not the guy. I know when I was a teenager I hated rejection. So I always let the girls chase after me. So I know just how aggressive women can be to chase after guys. Also I know how upset they can be when things do not go according to their plan and their fantasy.

So now the truth comes out: it didn't happen. But if it did, it's the victim's fault because she was "too aggressive" and was "asking for it". This is bad-faith garbage.

We have this situation with Asia Argento. First she is accusing men of attacking her and now it turns out that she assaulted a minor. Not to mention what happened to Anthony Bourdain. These cases are not so open and closed as you suggest and they are a lot more twisted then you want to acknowledge.

Yes, an entirely separate incident obviously proves that Argento wasn't raped, because if she's wrong in one way she's wrong in all other ways too.

We're done. Learn how to better respect women.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Hearsay is now evidence??
“This incident did happen,” Miranda wrote. “Many of us heard about it in school and Christine’s recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true.”

Alumnae from 50+ years of classes are credible witnesses? Were they all there?
"Alumnae of the Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Maryland, circulated a letter Monday in support of Christine Blasey Ford, a graduate of the private girls school who alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh when they were both in high school."
...
"The document says it has been signed by “a group of 200+ alumnae from the classes of 1967-2018,"

This is very weak evidence to support your argument. It actually better supports the argument that this is a political stunt meant to delay the confirmation proceedings. You'll have to do better than that.

"Evidence signed by people who would know is proof that it didn't actually happen! Checkmate!"

You call my arguments weak?
Ringo

 

[BigDaddy4]

It would be evidence that the story was not invented last week or six years ago, but was known around the time of the alleged incident.

(Or Obama used his time machine again.)

Or not...

Since then, she's walked it back a bit and admitted that she doesn't know if it happened. She has also said she's not going say anything more about it publicly.

Kavanaugh Accuser's Classmate: 'That It Happened Or Not, I Have No Idea'

Again, credibility issues on the accusing side...

 

[BigDaddy4]

"Evidence signed by people who would know is proof that it didn't actually happen! Checkmate!"

You call my arguments weak?
Ringo

Yes, yours are weak. No credible evidence has been put forth, especially by you. Please, tell me how an alumnae who graduated years after the incident allegedly occurred has any credibility as a witness to the alleged event (i.e., letter signed by alumnae from 1967-2018 you presented as "evidence")? And, as Soldier of the King has presented in post #142, the woman in the article you presented as "evidence" has since backtracked.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

If a "girl" (I graduated fifteen years ago) from my high school accused me of rape, I'd shout from the mountaintops that I wanted an investigation because I'd know it was false and would want a chance for an investigation to prove that.

You wouldn't get one if it was beyond the statute of limitations, no matter how loud you shouted precisely because it would be unlikely to prove anything either way.

"Evidence signed by people who would know is proof that it didn't actually happen! Checkmate!"

Proof that it didn't happen isn't necessary...

 

[joshua 1 9]

victim blaming.

This is about due process of law and a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Once again, an investigation

Exactly why did they not investigate when they got the letter. Why did they wait until now? Why does she not want to testify? What was she doing in the bedroom in bed with that guy?

They dropped the ball, they fumbled the ball and it could be they will lose the game because this whole issue was not taken care of properly.

 

[Belk]

Under constitutional law the accused has the right to met his accusers face-to-face. This is long established law that goes back thousands of years to the Greeks. So no one is making any exceptions for anyone. We are just going by a long established principle of law. The accused and the accusers both have equal rights under the law. This is a very balanced scale and it would be unfair to tip that scale one way or the other to favor one or the other. As a judge he understands the law and he does not want to take any of her rights away from her. But he has rights under the law also.

This reminds me of land lord - tenant laws. In a court of law the scale is balanced and they both enjoy equal protection under the law.

This is not a criminal investigation.

Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia

 

[essentialsaltes]

Or not...

She has not walked back that there was a "buzz" of gossip that went around at the time.

 

[Sistrin]

I think they are wrong and should drop this appointment and go to the next one.

Give a rattlesnake the opportunity to bite you, and it will.

 

[Sistrin]

Silencing the hearings would be taking an official, public position that sexual assault is unimportant...

That is a ridiculous, completely specious argument and I believe you know it. The hearings are going to be a planned, scripted circus conducted by the Democrats and featured on every news channel out there. Every time a Republican opens his mouth some Code Pink or otherwise paid protester will stand up and start shouting, then be carted off camera to be replaced by another paid protester. It has already started, with hoards of idiots wallowing around on the floor outside Senator Grassley's office chanting what they have been told to chant.

However in regard to your assertion, logic alone dictates you are only parroting a DNC talking point without bothering to question or even think about the content of that talking point. An official, public position, regardless of which party may issue it, is one which must first be issued. Neither you, nor anyone else, can infer an official, public position based solely on one action taken by that party. If you believe one can, then the Democrat Party is now, always has been, and always will be the party of racist, as Slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, Voter Suppression, Poll Taxes, and the KKK were all proud Democrat Party creations and institutions.

...that the most important response to a charge of sexual assault is to silence the accuser quickly...

That depends on who is making the accusation. Tell me, do you know who Macherie Reese Everson is?

...so as to protect the reputation of the person accused.

The accused has rights. In addition, an accusation does not constitute proof, and an accusation alone should not be enough to ruin a man's reputation, career, and family.

Yet at this moment that is exactly what the wailing class wants, Kavanaugh's head on a spike, in response to an accusation alone. The American left has lost its sanity.

I think this is not a position that the Republican Party wants to take at this time.

And if you approached this topic with any intellectual honesty you would be forced to admit that isn't the position the Republican Party is trying to take. Tell me, what part of Senator Grassley's comments here, quote:

"You have stated repeatedly that Dr. Ford wants to tell her story," Grassley wrote to Ford's lawyers. "I sincerely hope that Dr. Ford will accept my invitation to do so, either privately or publicly, on Monday. In the meantime, my staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her."

Do you not understand?

It is a policy that has turned out very badly for several major organizations in recent history.

Yeah? Like who?

 

[Ringo84]

You wouldn't get one if it was beyond the statute of limitations, no matter how loud you shouted precisely because it would be unlikely to prove anything either way.

Both I and my accuser would deserve one. My concern for the "statute of limitations" couldn't be measured with an electron microscope. If it happened, it needs to be investigated.

Proof that it didn't happen isn't necessary...

Either way, if Kavanaugh is innocent he would be clamoring for an investigation to clear his name.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Yes, yours are weak. No credible evidence has been put forth, especially by you. Please, tell me how an alumnae who graduated years after the incident allegedly occurred has any credibility as a witness to the alleged event (i.e., letter signed by alumnae from 1967-2018 you presented as "evidence")? And, as Soldier of the King has presented in post #142, the woman in the article you presented as "evidence" has since backtracked.

It almost seems that when something like a sexual assault happens, people would be talking about it after the fact and might know details that would be germane to figuring out the truth. But since I know that Republicans care less about the victim and the truth than their partisan advantage, I expect that to matter about as much as a hill of baked beans.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, they already have a statement from Judge and a few other attendees to this party that definitely didn't happen and they definitely have no details of:

Senate Judiciary on Twitter

Take that for what you will. I don't trust Senate Republicans, but they may be doing some legitimately good work here. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Ringo

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, I think it's just splendid that there is no methodical, confidential investigation. Instead, everyone who ever went to high school at roughly the same time as the two principal people in the story are making Facebook posts, tweets, and talking to the media. Transparency!

 

[hedrick]

I have to address this, because if it is true that he sexually assaulted her - and it sure looks like it is - then "being OK since" doesn't cut the mustard. Sexual assault is never "OK"; it's not something that should be excused because "boys will be boys" or "well, he's been an OK guy since then, so we should forget it".

Of course not. But I think repentance is possible. If he took responsibility for it and didn't do anything like that again, I might be willing to ignore it. This is a moot point, because he's not going to repent, and at this point it's too late for it to be believable.

 

[hedrick]

I think there's a pretty good chance that Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and after that the press will turn up enough people who knew about this incident from when it happened that most people (except die-hard Republicans, who will ignore facts as usual) will be convinced that Kavanaugh lied.

It turns out I wasn't imaginative enough. There's no statute of limitations in Md, where it happened. If the Senate doesn't do anything, I suspect Ford will report it to the police. At that point we'll have an investigation that national politics can't affect.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

 

[Ringo84]

Of course not. But I think repentance is possible. If he took responsibility for it and didn't do anything like that again, I might be willing to ignore it. This is a moot point, because he's not going to repent, and at this point it's too late for it to be believable.

It may very well be possible. The problem is that the first steps to repentance are
1) Acknowledgment that a wrong has been done.
2) Genuine regret/sorry for perpetrating that wrong.

Kavanaugh has shown neither.
Ringo