Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

Funnny thing about speaking anonymously, it means you can say whatever you want with virtually no risk of repercussions. When her allegations became public, Dr. Ford put her name to them. She sat in a hearing and answered hard questions about them. She was willing to be held accountable for her allegations, even though she didn’t have to. To me that says something.

She wasn't anonymous to everyone before her allegations were made public. Only to the public. She put her name to them from the beginning to her reps and didn't offer an opinion. She made an accusation. She never said I think it might have been Brett Kavanaugh who did this to me or that likely he would do something like this. She insisted it was the truth and when you insist you have to have evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

Funnny thing about speaking anonymously, it means you can say whatever you want with virtually no risk of repercussions. When her allegations became public, Dr. Ford put her name to them. She sat in a hearing and answered hard questions about them. She was willing to be held accountable for her allegations, even though she didn’t have to. To me that says something.

She wasn't anonymous to everyone before her allegations were made public. Only to the public. She put her name to them from the beginning to her reps and didn't offer an opinion. She made an accusation. She never said I think it might have been Brett Kavanaugh who did this to me or that likely he would do something like this. She insisted it was the truth and when you insist you have to have evidence.

Also, my opinion is based on facts and evidence that I have as back up. Actual testimony. I didn't make a determination from the beginning other than to assume that Kavanaugh was innocent until proven guilty. I didn't assume anything about her story true or not. She didn't prove it happened and now I have her testimony and actions as evidence to speculate on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

Funnny thing about speaking anonymously, it means you can say whatever you want with virtually no risk of repercussions. When her allegations became public, Dr. Ford put her name to them. She sat in a hearing and answered hard questions about them. She was willing to be held accountable for her allegations, even though she didn’t have to. To me that says something.

She wasn't anonymous to everyone before her allegations were made public. Only to the public. She put her name to them from the beginning to her reps and didn't offer an opinion. She made an accusation. She never said I think it might have been Brett Kavanaugh who did this to me or that likely he would do something like this. She insisted it was the truth and when you insist you have to have evidence.

No, you actually don’t. That’s what an investigation is for. Going back to the previous post, do you expect every victim of any crime to have incontrovertible proof from the moment of their first allegation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why Ford did not report this to the Montgomery County police when she decided to come forward. Certainly a police department would do more investigation than a FBI background check.

What could the police do at this late stage? More than three decades have passed, and not only does she not know where and when this happened, the witnesses she said could collaborate her story said they have no recollection of it. Even her best friend, whom she said was at the gathering, said she never even met Kavanaugh.

Mark Judge knew Kavanaugh and was there.

Mark Judge has said that he has no memory of this party taking place, so no we do not know if he was there. We don’t know if “there” actually happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

Funnny thing about speaking anonymously, it means you can say whatever you want with virtually no risk of repercussions. When her allegations became public, Dr. Ford put her name to them. She sat in a hearing and answered hard questions about them. She was willing to be held accountable for her allegations, even though she didn’t have to. To me that says something.

She wasn't anonymous to everyone before her allegations were made public. Only to the public. She put her name to them from the beginning to her reps and didn't offer an opinion. She made an accusation. She never said I think it might have been Brett Kavanaugh who did this to me or that likely he would do something like this. She insisted it was the truth and when you insist you have to have evidence.

No, you actually don’t. That’s what an investigation is for. Going back to the previous post, do you expect every victim of any crime to have incontrovertible proof from the moment of their first allegation?

I think they should have some proof and at least come across as if their allegations have some evidence behind them. She had zero proof. Zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

Funnny thing about speaking anonymously, it means you can say whatever you want with virtually no risk of repercussions. When her allegations became public, Dr. Ford put her name to them. She sat in a hearing and answered hard questions about them. She was willing to be held accountable for her allegations, even though she didn’t have to. To me that says something.

She wasn't anonymous to everyone before her allegations were made public. Only to the public. She put her name to them from the beginning to her reps and didn't offer an opinion. She made an accusation. She never said I think it might have been Brett Kavanaugh who did this to me or that likely he would do something like this. She insisted it was the truth and when you insist you have to have evidence.

No, you actually don’t. That’s what an investigation is for. Going back to the previous post, do you expect every victim of any crime to have incontrovertible proof from the moment of their first allegation?

I think they should have some proof and at least come across as if their allegations have some evidence behind them. She had zero proof. Zero.

That doesn’t mean her allegation is untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

Funnny thing about speaking anonymously, it means you can say whatever you want with virtually no risk of repercussions. When her allegations became public, Dr. Ford put her name to them. She sat in a hearing and answered hard questions about them. She was willing to be held accountable for her allegations, even though she didn’t have to. To me that says something.

She wasn't anonymous to everyone before her allegations were made public. Only to the public. She put her name to them from the beginning to her reps and didn't offer an opinion. She made an accusation. She never said I think it might have been Brett Kavanaugh who did this to me or that likely he would do something like this. She insisted it was the truth and when you insist you have to have evidence.

No, you actually don’t. That’s what an investigation is for. Going back to the previous post, do you expect every victim of any crime to have incontrovertible proof from the moment of their first allegation?

I think they should have some proof and at least come across as if their allegations have some evidence behind them. She had zero proof. Zero.

Also if I were to make an allegation like that, I would not do it anonymously or without informing police if I thought it was a crime. That's what I don't get about the entire situation. Either she thought a crime was committed or she wanted to defame him. There is no other alternative. If she thought a crime was committed, she should have finally gone to the police for further investigation. If she wanted to defame him, she did exactly that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

Funnny thing about speaking anonymously, it means you can say whatever you want with virtually no risk of repercussions. When her allegations became public, Dr. Ford put her name to them. She sat in a hearing and answered hard questions about them. She was willing to be held accountable for her allegations, even though she didn’t have to. To me that says something.

She wasn't anonymous to everyone before her allegations were made public. Only to the public. She put her name to them from the beginning to her reps and didn't offer an opinion. She made an accusation. She never said I think it might have been Brett Kavanaugh who did this to me or that likely he would do something like this. She insisted it was the truth and when you insist you have to have evidence.

No, you actually don’t. That’s what an investigation is for. Going back to the previous post, do you expect every victim of any crime to have incontrovertible proof from the moment of their first allegation?

I think they should have some proof and at least come across as if their allegations have some evidence behind them. She had zero proof. Zero.

That doesn’t mean her allegation is untrue.

Again innocent until proven guilty. It is an unproven allegation. Therefore there's nothing to accuse Kavanaugh of at this point in time related to the accusation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why Ford did not report this to the Montgomery County police when she decided to come forward. Certainly a police department would do more investigation than a FBI background check.

Because she didn't want him to go to jail? She just didn't want him to be a supreme court justice? But ya: maybe he should go to jail (not).

Because she was 15 and scared?

Because she was at a gathering she wasn't supposed to be at?

Because she was embarrassed and ashamed?

BECAUSE SHE THOUGHT NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE HER?

What makes no sense to me is why she didn’t tell any of her friends. A couple of guys are complete a**holes to her and try to assault her and she doesn’t tell her friends? That’s not how teen girls behave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:K lied about his yearbook. But he didn’t lie about drinking. He said he had too much to drink at times. He said he regretted some of the things he has done. I dont what else you wanted him to say about drinking. The fame seekers coming out of the woodwork to say he drank a lot more than 30 years ago is embarrassing.

Actually many of them said they didn’t intend to come out to corroborate accounts of his heavy drinking and aggressive behavior while drunk until they heard him lie to the SJC This is why his Yale roommate and other people who witnessed his behavior at Yale came forward. It wasn’t the drinking it was the lying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why Ford did not report this to the Montgomery County police when she decided to come forward. Certainly a police department would do more investigation than a FBI background check.

Because she didn't want him to go to jail? She just didn't want him to be a supreme court justice? But ya: maybe he should go to jail (not).

Because she was 15 and scared?

Because she was at a gathering she wasn't supposed to be at?

Because she was embarrassed and ashamed?

BECAUSE SHE THOUGHT NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE HER?

What makes no sense to me is why she didn’t tell any of her friends. A couple of guys are complete a**holes to her and try to assault her and she doesn’t tell her friends? That’s not how teen girls behave.

Maybe but it doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not. Until there is evidence it's just a he said she said case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he would have been confirmed even if there was evidence to prove the truth of the story.

Let's say that he did what she said...do you disqualify a person for an offense that was 35 years ago when they were a teen when as an adult there isn't a single compliant by any woman he has worked with or known socially but in fact gets high compliments from?

The women he hired recently, do you think they sold themselves? How could they possibly work for him? Why isn't there an outcry against them for working with him?

When this first came out, I said to my husband that no man his age should be disqualified for something he did as a teenager. But then he started to lie. And to me there is nothing more sacred than the truth. the leaders of our great nation should not be liars. Average people may occasionally succumb to lying, but our best and brightest should not (or they are not the best)

Here is an interesting article. It quotes Kavanaugh as saying he never blacked out. Then it has comments from people that knew him in college.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/yale-kavanaugh-drinking/index.html

I didn't see anyone say he blacked out. All said he drank too much but beyond that there are differences in what they relate. Who is right? Did they show Kavanaugh lied or has that become a talking point? Kavanaugh stated “I drank beer with my friends,” he said in his opening statement. ”Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone.” In the article Swisher call him a liar but in fact what she said lines up with what he said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

Funnny thing about speaking anonymously, it means you can say whatever you want with virtually no risk of repercussions. When her allegations became public, Dr. Ford put her name to them. She sat in a hearing and answered hard questions about them. She was willing to be held accountable for her allegations, even though she didn’t have to. To me that says something.

She wasn't anonymous to everyone before her allegations were made public. Only to the public. She put her name to them from the beginning to her reps and didn't offer an opinion. She made an accusation. She never said I think it might have been Brett Kavanaugh who did this to me or that likely he would do something like this. She insisted it was the truth and when you insist you have to have evidence.

No, you actually don’t. That’s what an investigation is for. Going back to the previous post, do you expect every victim of any crime to have incontrovertible proof from the moment of their first allegation?

I think they should have some proof and at least come across as if their allegations have some evidence behind them. She had zero proof. Zero.

That doesn’t mean her allegation is untrue.

Again innocent until proven guilty. It is an unproven allegation. Therefore there's nothing to accuse Kavanaugh of at this point in time related to the accusation.

That she doesn’t have definitive proof does not mean there is not accusation to be made, nor does it means the accusation is untrue. Leaving aside this case specifically for a moment, if in a hypothetical case a crime did occur, why are you so opposed to the victim speaking up about that crime unless they can prove it in gent own without an investigation? What is your hostility to crime victims and your investment in protecting perpetrators?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he would have been confirmed even if there was evidence to prove the truth of the story.

Let's say that he did what she said...do you disqualify a person for an offense that was 35 years ago when they were a teen when as an adult there isn't a single compliant by any woman he has worked with or known socially but in fact gets high compliments from?

If he lies about it when confronted to try to cover it up, yep.

I agree but therein lies the problem, there is no way of knowing at this point and in this particular situation. Many are reacting simply from their own experience and/or political or social bias. I have shared on here that my wife, who was sexually assaulted years ago doesn't believe her story.

One thing I have been curious about with her therapy, which is a significant linchpin in this, who is the therapist and what was the process of this therapy. If this had been a court of law that would be known now since once it is entered there is an absolute right to discovery.

He lied about his drinking. He clearly lied about his drinking. And he lied about Renata. That disqualifies him.

I responded to another about the drinking...please read that and let me know if there is something else to consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

Funnny thing about speaking anonymously, it means you can say whatever you want with virtually no risk of repercussions. When her allegations became public, Dr. Ford put her name to them. She sat in a hearing and answered hard questions about them. She was willing to be held accountable for her allegations, even though she didn’t have to. To me that says something.

She wasn't anonymous to everyone before her allegations were made public. Only to the public. She put her name to them from the beginning to her reps and didn't offer an opinion. She made an accusation. She never said I think it might have been Brett Kavanaugh who did this to me or that likely he would do something like this. She insisted it was the truth and when you insist you have to have evidence.

No, you actually don’t. That’s what an investigation is for. Going back to the previous post, do you expect every victim of any crime to have incontrovertible proof from the moment of their first allegation?

I think they should have some proof and at least come across as if their allegations have some evidence behind them. She had zero proof. Zero.

That doesn’t mean her allegation is untrue.

Again innocent until proven guilty. It is an unproven allegation. Therefore there's nothing to accuse Kavanaugh of at this point in time related to the accusation.

That she doesn’t have definitive proof does not mean there is not accusation to be made, nor does it means the accusation is untrue. Leaving aside this case specifically for a moment, if in a hypothetical case a crime did occur, why are you so opposed to the victim speaking up about that crime unless they can prove it in gent own without an investigation? What is your hostility to crime victims and your investment in protecting perpetrators?

I don't think that. But she didn't want a criminal investigation. If there would have been a criminal investigation than the decision guilty or not guilty would have ceased to be about her words and it would have been all about the results of the investigation and criminal hearings. That didn't happen per her own wishes.

So then if we're just supposed to go on her word, there should be enough evidence she can provide if she wants me or any senators to believe her. Otherwise I have no other determination to make other than this was a decision to defame someone with just words.

Why do you believe her without any evidence to prove her case?