Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

We've learned the perjury doesn't matter to Republicans, as long as it is a Republican doing it.
 
There is a time and place to use Trump-tactics to win -
a Supreme Court nomination hearing is not one of them.
 
Belz... said:
Who in the world thinks this? Oh, that's right; no one.
Click to expand...
Actually, everybody who passes around the slogan "Believe victims", along with everybody whose usual reaction to rape accusations is to believe the accuser, whether they recite the slogan describing that tendency or not.

And that might be a fair enough default position for people who aren't on a jury in a criminal trial. The presumption of innocence is for trials and is not required in other contexts, and it could very well be true that accusations are more often true than false. (I ran into a claim that it's about three fourths a few days ago, but didn't catch the source and don't recall where I saw that.) Outside of a criminal trial, the consequences of a presumption of guilt might sometimes be acceptable. For example, for most people, the loss of a job, especially for this kind of reason, would be disastrous, but the guy we're talking about in this case isn't at risk of losing his job; he's just at risk of not getting a new one (and already rich enough that he'd be fine if he actually lost his old one, too). I'd say it's worth it to let that happen to him even if he's innocent, in the interest of not having a Supreme Court Justice who we even have any reason to think might be a rapist.

Ziggurat said:
they HAVE heard from every other alleged witness. All of them deny any knowledge of any such events. I say "alleged witness" because there cannot be any witnesses if it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
That would be accurate & relevant... if her story were that they had observed the assault.
 
Delvo said:
That would be accurate & relevant... if her story were that they had observed the assault.
Click to expand...

You don’t get it. None of them recall even the existence of the alleged gathering. There is no evidence even THAT occurred, let alone the alleged assault.
 
Ziggurat said:
You don’t get it. None of them recall even the existence of the alleged gathering. There is no evidence even THAT occurred, let alone the alleged assault.
Click to expand...

So what? This was 30 years ago. Nothing happened to them. Just one of many parties.
 
acbytesla said:
So what? This was 30 years ago. Nothing happened to them. Just one of many parties.
Click to expand...

So there isn’t a single thing that corroborates anything she has claimed. Why should we ever take an accusation like that seriously?
 
Delvo said:
Actually, everybody who passes around the slogan "Believe victims", along with everybody whose usual reaction to rape accusations is to believe the accuser, whether they recite the slogan describing that tendency or not.

And that might be a fair enough default position for people who aren't on a jury in a criminal trial. The presumption of innocence is for trials and is not required in other contexts, and it could very well be true that accusations are more often true than false. (I ran into a claim that it's about three fourths a few days ago, but didn't catch the source and don't recall where I saw that.) Outside of a criminal trial, the consequences of a presumption of guilt might sometimes be acceptable. For example, for most people, the loss of a job, especially for this kind of reason, would be disastrous, but the guy we're talking about in this case isn't at risk of losing his job; he's just at risk of not getting a new one (and already rich enough that he'd be fine if he actually lost his old one, too). I'd say it's worth it to let that happen to him even if he's innocent, in the interest of not having a Supreme Court Justice who we even have any reason to think might be a rapist.

That would be accurate & relevant... if her story were that they had observed the assault.
Click to expand...


I seriously doubt the highlighted part. The conclusion by sexual crimes experts is that sexual crimes are grossly unreported. It seems as if every woman I know has been sexually assaulted or found themselves with overly aggressive males that made them very afraid of being raped and NONE of them reported it. They understand the difficulty of proving it happened and want to put it in the past and sweep it under the rug. My high school sweetheart that I had a relationship with for 5 years didn't tell me she was raped until a year after it happened. She blamed herself as much as the guy simply because she trusted the guy and allowed herself to be alone with him.
 
Ziggurat said:
So there isn’t a single thing that corroborates anything she has claimed. Why should we ever take an accusation like that seriously?
Click to expand...

Say, I think this calls for an investigation. And if the scum you regularly cover for had half a brain (between them - the admin and the caucus), instead of trying to rush this through in time for the election they would have done their investigations in private, and told the Federalist Society to come up with a less reprehensible douchebag; another in the Gorscuh vein.

The GOP shameless version is "Hey, we wanted to rush this through without presenting evidence or the full documentation and now that we've **** the bed you're to blame for doing this at such a late date and in such a public manner! Poor us! Sniff! Liberal meanies always picking on our rapey-judge nominees."
 
Ziggurat said:
So there isn’t a single thing that corroborates anything she has claimed. Why should we ever take an accusation like that seriously?
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't we take it seriously? You think she just decided to turn her life upside down to accuse some guy she knew in high school of sexual assault? How many women said nothing for years about Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein or Larry Nasser? How about the children assaulted by priests that didn't come forward for decades?

But as I already told you. It is not her accusation that disqualifies him, but his dishonest whiney belligerent response.
 
Lurch said:
The lesson to learn...

Why are the allegations unsubstantiated, and significant questions unanswered?
Click to expand...
Because they concern events that happened 35 years ago and no independent corroboration has been unearthed?

In good measure because the Rs demanded a hearing:
- Without extending the FBI background check!
Click to expand...
What do you think that will do? I guess we will see.
- Without hearing from other witnesses!
Click to expand...
What other witnesses?
- Without having any documentation admitted!
Click to expand...
What documentation?

They plowed ahead at speed in order to *ignore* anything that may that be corroborative of Ford.
Click to expand...
There are no witnesses that corroborate her testimony.
They *set up* the hearing specifically so that no clarification could attend. The *aim* was to keep it to a he said/she said situation.
Click to expand...
That's all it can ever be at this point. Because it happened 35 years ago and nobody witnessed it and she didn't tell anyone afterwards.

So it seems to me that your post is not a good example of "lessons to be learned" but just more of the same partisan bickering.

***

I think what we have learned thus far is that we as a society are going to have to figure out a way to fairly deal with sexual assault allegations. I'm probably not going to perceived as being very fair here and I don't have any set answers, but I think there's a problem no one really wants to talk about. Just hear me out, if you will, while I flesh out my thoughts.

Take current personalities out of it. What is the best and fairest way to deal with a he said/she said situation? She says he sexually assaulted her, he says he did not. There is no physical evidence, no witness and no external way to corroborate the accusation. Is it appropriate to make those accusations public? Is the court of public opinion the best place to hash out the truth? I think the answer is no to both of those questions.

So what is the best way to deal with the accusation? I would say that, given the serious consequences for both parties, it should be handled as discreetly as possible. Especially, since we know how unreliable human memory is, if the only evidence consists of old memories. An accuser should not just be able to make a public statement; it should be reported to law enforcement. LE should handle and investigate it confidentially.

In the current situation, I think the leaking of Ford's statement was a pretty grievous error. Where I am not so sure about is -ok, now what? How can you possibly enforce such a policy of confidentiality given 1st Amendment rights? Changes in defamation law? If someone accused me, a nobody, I would have recourse that a public figure like Kavanaugh does not.

Like I said, I don't have the answers, but it's a conversation that needs to start happening. Because what if he didn't do this? Look at the Al Franken episode; what if Al Franken didn't do anything but take a stupid joke picture? Did he deserve to go down for something so harmless? I don't know. . .
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
So there isn’t a single thing that corroborates anything she has claimed. Why should we ever take an accusation like that seriously?
Click to expand...

1. She told her therapist in 2012 about the assault and described him as going to an elitist all boys school who was now a "highly respected and high-ranking member of society in Washington". Odd how that just happens to describe Kavanaugh.

2. Dr. Ford's husband says she told him it was Brett Kavanaugh in 2012. Another odd cowinkydink.

3. She told 3 friends on 3 different occasion between 2013 and 2017 of the attack. One said B-F said her attacker was now a federal judge in D.C. The two other friends said B-F said her attacker was Brett Kavanaugh.

4. Ford named Judge and Smyth as being at the party. Ford's own calendar proves he partied with them and they were part of his crowd.

5. Judge's book describes 'Bart O'Kavanaugh' as a drunk who ralphed (in the true use of the word and not the silliness BK tried to peddle) and passed out in a car after drinking too much.

Yep, there is absolutely nothing to support Ford's story. Not a single thing.:rolleyes:
 
acbytesla said:
Why shouldn't we take it seriously? You think she just decided to turn her life upside down to accuse some guy she knew in high school of sexual assault? How many women said nothing for years about Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein or Larry Nasser? How about the children assaulted by priests that didn't come forward for decades?
Click to expand...

In all your other examples, the claims were corroborated. Strange how you failed to notice that this separates them all from Ford’s claim.
 
What we have learned from the Kavanaugh hearings is that no one wants to address the real problem. That the country is about 65% blindly partisan has been obvious for a while. That the judiciary members bottom-to-top are being groomed as partisan judges has been noticed by some but is now painfully clear.

The takeaway is that the present judicial system is destroying the intention of the separation of powers. When the judiciary tasked with adjudicating over laws and attempts at laws is of a political party, then how does that not corrupt the intentions of the Constitution.

We need to do away with party politics for judgeships at any level. This would require revamping the entire system or would require that voters actually Vote for Non-Partisanship. The latter is not likely to happen, so there needs to be discussion about the former. AND NO ONE IS DISCUSSING IT. It's like campaign finance reform and term limits. That stuff is all fine for YOUR candidates, not mine.
 
Stacyhs said:
1. She told her therapist in 2012 about the assault and described him as going to an elitist all boys school who was now a "highly respected and high-ranking member of society in Washington". Odd how that just happens to describe Kavanaugh.

2. Dr. Ford's husband says she told him it was Brett Kavanaugh in 2012. Another odd cowinkydink.

3. She told 3 friends on 3 different occasion between 2013 and 2017 of the attack. One said B-F said her attacker was now a federal judge in D.C. The two other friends said B-F said her attacker was Brett Kavanaugh.

4. Ford named Judge and Smyth as being at the party. Ford's own calendar proves he partied with them and they were part of his crowd.

5. Judge's book describes 'Bart O'Kavanaugh' as a drunk who ralphed (in the true use of the word and not the silliness BK tried to peddle) and passed out in a car after drinking too much.

Yep, there is absolutely nothing to support Ford's story. Not a single thing.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Three of your items are just Ford’s own story. A story can’t corroborate itself, and it’s changed over time as well (and not just by filling in Kavanaugh’s name). Your other two items are not actually about Ford’s claimed assault, and therefore do not corroborate it.

ETA: but while we are on the subject of odd cowinkydinks, in 2012 Kavanaugh’s name was publicly floated as a likely Supreme Court pick for Romney if he won.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
In all your other examples, the claims were corroborated. Strange how you failed to notice that this separates them all from Ford’s claim.
Click to expand...

No, they weren't. There were simply so many similar stories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom