It isn't nothing if Justice Roberts is referring it to other Circuit Court judges to evaluate.
I saw reporters commenting that the complaints would be dismissed as moot now that he is a Supreme Court justice and not s circuit court judge. Is that incorrect?
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?
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.
Because when you feel embarrassed and ashamed that a guy assaulted you and treated you like trash, you don’t necessarily feel comfortable admitting that to your friends. Especially if you might be worried one of your friends will tell others what happened, or you think they may judge you for getting yourself into that situation, or because you just don’t even want to admit to yourself what really happened and saying it aloud to your friends will
Force you to do that.
I was assaulted in college and confided in someone I thought was my good friend. Turned out she had a crush on the guy who assaulted me and got mad that, from her perspective, he wanted me instead of her, and that I was saying bad things about a guy she really liked. So she used it against me to try to get in good with him, including going to him and his friends to “warn” them I was planning to file a rape complaint against him (something I specifically told her I didn’t want to do). I had no idea this was going on until I walked into a different party a few days later and got cornered and shoved into a room by his friends, where one of them held me against the wall by the throat while they threatened that if I said a word about what happened, the next thing that happened to me would be much worse. That was what I got for confiding in a friend, so I will never question why anyone else might choose not to. I certainly wish I hadn’t.
Who raises these animals?
Probably the same people who will grasp at any excuse to defend a man who is accused of sexual assault and smear the woman doing the accusing. They learned somewhere they could get away with it, that they would be protected.
It's actually you people, who coddle your little boys into thinking they're entitled to anything they want. Let's just be honest here.
You’ll need to break this one down for me. How does holding men accountable for their behavior and saying it’s not okay to assault women translate to coddling boys and telling them they’re entitled to anything they want?
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?
Anyone?
When you learn the definition of “evidence,” then we’ll talk.
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
Honestly want to know specifically what he said about his drinking that was a lie?
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?
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?
I would disqualify based on the perjury.
The premise was that he admited that from the beginning.
And there in lies the rub, after how many investigations were her accusations proven either false or inconsistent?
Whistling in the wind, nothing more.
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?
I would disqualify based on the perjury.
The premise was that he admited that from the beginning.
If he never lied or tried to conceal it and offered up a sincere apology I would probably be ok with that. Depends on the offense.
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.
Um, because it was for a political hit? Were you asleep for two weeks?
I think most likely something happened that night but it may not have been exactly like Ford remembers it. I really doubt she only had 1 drink otherwise she would have remembered details like how she got home or how she got there or who's house it was. If her memory was that faulty for the other details why wouldn't it be for the "assault"? Maybe he tried to make a move on her and she rejected it. I don't think it was ever going to be rape but who knows.
And there in lies the rub, after how many investigations were her accusations proven either false or inconsistent?
Whistling in the wind, nothing more.
what investigation? are you counting the sham one that didn't even interview Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford?
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}