Kavanaugh has an accuser

[tango]

I'm wondering whether this whole thing will weaken the #MeToo movement.

Already the movement seems to have drawn in a load of utter garbage. I remember a female acquaintance posting her #MeToo story about how she was assumed to be far more junior at work than she really was, simply because she was female. Except it may not be true - one friend of mine was mistaken for the new junior analyst when they were actually the new senior scientific officer, and another (an internationally published scientist) is frequently mistaken for a junior due to looking much younger than they are. Except both of the latter two are men, so they don't get to put a #MeToo tag on anything.

It's a good thing to empower women to speak up following sexual abuse. It's a desperately bad thing if the #MeToo movement becomes little more than a means to destroy peoples' reputations by making allegations that smear them based on events from decades previously that can't possibly be proven or disproven.

It seems, as with so much else, those on the hard left work very hard against the people they supposedly care so much about.

 

[Josiah]

I'm wondering whether this whole thing will weaken the #MeToo movement.

Already the movement seems to have drawn in a load of utter garbage. I remember a female acquaintance posting her #MeToo story about how she was assumed to be far more junior at work than she really was, simply because she was female. Except it may not be true - one friend of mine was mistaken for the new junior analyst when they were actually the new senior scientific officer, and another (an internationally published scientist) is frequently mistaken for a junior due to looking much younger than they are. Except both of the latter two are men, so they don't get to put a #MeToo tag on anything.

It's a good thing to empower women to speak up following sexual abuse. It's a desperately bad thing if the #MeToo movement becomes little more than a means to destroy peoples' reputations by making allegations that smear them based on events from decades previously that can't possibly be proven or disproven.

It seems, as with so much else, those on the hard left work very hard against the people they supposedly care so much about.

I think it is.




.

 

[tango]

I saw a meme on Facebook (posted by a woman) with a #HimToo hashtag.

As it said, if a woman making sexual allegations is automatically believed without evidence or due process then no man will ever be safe. There isn't a single one of us who would be able to defend ourselves against an unfounded allegation that we had acted in a sexually inappropriate manner towards someone, on an unspecified date in a range of several weeks, 25 years or more ago.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I saw a meme on Facebook (posted by a woman) with a #HimToo hashtag.

As it said, if a woman making sexual allegations is automatically believed without evidence or due process then no man will ever be safe. There isn't a single one of us who would be able to defend ourselves against an unfounded allegation that we had acted in a sexually inappropriate manner towards someone, on an unspecified date in a range of several weeks, 25 years or more ago.

Investigating the claims of the two women who have accused judge Kavanaugh is due process. Taking the evidence from witnesses and from accusers as well as the accused and any forensic evidence, documented evidence, and other forms of evidence is what due process is intended to accomplish. Then after it is properly investigated the evidence that is gathered can be weighed and a decision reached.

Gathering evidence, hearing it, evaluating it all takes time. But the Senate committee majority doesn't want to spend time, they want to decide before the evidence is properly gathered and before it can be heard and before it can be evaluated so a decision can be made.

Party before nation, politics before truth. That is the slogan that is operative in the senate hearings.

 

[tango]

Investigating the claims of the two women who have accused judge Kavanaugh is due process. Taking the evidence from witnesses and from accusers as well as the accused and any forensic evidence, documented evidence, and other forms of evidence is what due process is intended to accomplish. Then after it is properly investigated the evidence that is gathered can be weighed and a decision reached.

Gathering evidence, hearing it, evaluating it all takes time. But the Senate committee majority doesn't want to spend time, they want to decide before the evidence is properly gathered and before it can be heard and before it can be evaluated so a decision can be made.

Party before nation, politics before truth. That is the slogan that is operative in the senate hearings.

Except investigating a state-level allegation using federal resources is not due process. Opening a complaint long after the statute of limitations has passed is not due process. Making allegations to senior politicians rather than law enforcement makes a mockery of the whole process.

Have either of these accusers even attempted to file a police report? If not, what do they expect to happen? The FBI doesn't investigate crimes that are not federal crimes.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Except investigating a state-level allegation using federal resources is not due process. Opening a complaint long after the statute of limitations has passed is not due process. Making allegations to senior politicians rather than law enforcement makes a mockery of the whole process.

Have either of these accusers even attempted to file a police report? If not, what do they expect to happen? The FBI doesn't investigate crimes that are not federal crimes.

Why does it matter if the "crimes" were under state laws when the appointment to the SCOTUS is a matter of character? The evidence can be gathered, evaluated, and a decision made without involving using police resources and the FBI is an appropriate body to gather and investigate the evidence and then hand on the evidence and any supporting or opposing information to the senate for its decision.

 

[Josiah]

Why does it matter if the "crimes" were under state laws when the appointment to the SCOTUS is a matter of character?

1. State laws are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government; the federal government only has jurisdiction over FEDERAL laws. A 15 year old drunk girl CLAIMING a teen boy groped her 36 years ago would probably not even be an issue for any State but it surely isn't for the federal government.


2. Democrats have already INSISTED in the most powerful way (in the mid 90's) that these women are not to be believed (as Hilary Clinton screamed over and over and over at the time) so what does that say about these 2 Democrat Party activists, neither of which came forward until the 12th hour? And that what is alleged to have happened MONTHS ago is irrelevant, so what does this say about 36 YEARS ago? And that it's irrelevant for sober people (so what does that say about DRUNKS) and adults (so what does that say about TEENAGERS, legal minors)? There is such amazing hypocrisy in all this..... the Dems showing this is nothing more than a stall game, with two women being used.


3. This reflects on CURRENT character? Then what about the women? They both admit to being at DRUNKEN teen parties, and being drunk out of their minds. One was 15, the other 18. What does THAT say to THEIR character? If what the parties did 35-36 years ago defines character NOW, then I think we can dismiss whatever "memory" these have of events they CLAIM happened when they were drunk teens. And remember: ALL the witnesses to date fully deny what both of these Democrat Party activisits claim.


4. This reflects on CURRENT character? So, when you apply for a job, the employer should ignore everything in your life in the past 35 years and instead consider what it is CLAIMED (with NOTHING to support it, ALL witnesses fully denying) that you did when you were a teenager? Really? How would you apply all this to YOU and YOU standing for a job? What is CLAIMED you did as a TEEN 35 years ago (with NOTHING to show it's true) defines your CURRENT character and job qualification?

The evidence can be gathered, evaluated, and a decision made without involving using police resources and the FBI is an appropriate body to gather and investigate the evidence and then hand on the evidence and any supporting or opposing information to the senate for its decision.

WHAT "evidence?" What hard evidence do you expect the Federal government to find now that a very drunk teen girl (so drunk she claims her vision and memory were severely effected) saw a boy's penis at a drunken party 35 years ago? What hard evidence would you expect the feds to find for that? Yes, she claims there were witnesses but a steady stream have come forward to say it never happened and she made it up. Or what hard "evidence" would you expect the feds to find that a very drunk 15 year old girl was "groped" by a 17 years old boy at a drunken teen party 35 years ago? What hard evidence would you expect them to find 36 years later? Yes, she insisted there was a witness to the whole thing and gave his name, but he testified it didn't happen and she just made up the whole thing. What hard "EVIDENCE" do you expect the feds to come up with of these things 35-36 years later?


NO ONE expects anything.... but the Dems hope to STALL things. That's all this is... two Democratic Party activists being USED to hopefully STALL things, in the hope that the Dems will gain control of the Senate in Janurary (although the polls currently suggest otherwise) AND that THEREFORE, Trump will go back on his campaign promise and nominate only uber-liberal, pro-abortion, "Constitutional reconstructionists", Democrats that they Dems want on the Court. The first hope is possible, the second is silly. But that's what the STALL tactic is all about.



- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Why does it matter if the "crimes" were under state laws when the appointment to the SCOTUS is a matter of character? The evidence can be gathered, evaluated, and a decision made without involving using police resources and the FBI is an appropriate body to gather and investigate the evidence and then hand on the evidence and any supporting or opposing information to the senate for its decision.

Such as Sen. Feinstein did in July?

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

Such as Sen. Feinstein did in July?

She SAT on it for weeks... she had a private meeting with Kavanaugh for 2 hours and never mentioned it.... she participated in several Senate hearings and never mentioned it. The STALL thing was needed at the 12th hour, especially needed since it was clear he had the votes to be confirmed.


BTW, this is the very same Senator Feinstein who insisted that the 8 ADULT, SOBER women who accused PRESIDENT Clinton of worse stuff just months before - all be dismissed, none of it suggested any consideration or investigation or hearings.... Very same Diane Feinstein. Stinks, doesn't it.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Such as Sen. Feinstein did in July?

Do you expect an elderly woman to do a Miss Marple and find all the clues and evidence and solve the "crime"?

Really?

:smirk:

And now, for a slightly naughty musical interlude ...

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Do you expect an elderly woman to do a Miss Marple and find all the clues and evidence and solve the "crime"?

I expect her to act as a duly elected Senator or else retire

 

[MoreCoffee]

I expect her to act as a duly elected Senator or else retire

That is reasonable as an expectation, what has it to do with Judge Kavanaugh?

 

[tango]

Why does it matter if the "crimes" were under state laws when the appointment to the SCOTUS is a matter of character? The evidence can be gathered, evaluated, and a decision made without involving using police resources and the FBI is an appropriate body to gather and investigate the evidence and then hand on the evidence and any supporting or opposing information to the senate for its decision.

Except the FBI's job is not to investigate state level crimes. The clue is in the name - the F stands for Federal. They investigate federal crimes. They are not an appropriate body to investigate a state-level crime that happened decades ago.

It's hard to know just what evidence can be gathered. So far it seems the people who were allegedly at the party have denied being at the party.

It's not even a matter of character. Even if it could be conclusively proven that Kavanaugh did grope this woman at the party all it means is that he did stupid stuff when he was a hormone-fuelled teenager. Unless you could prove he actively lied to hide the fact (as opposed to simply forgetting about the party - do you remember every single party you attended during your teenage years?) it would be meaningless.

 

[tango]

Do you expect an elderly woman to do a Miss Marple and find all the clues and evidence and solve the "crime"?

Really?

If she had evidence that a proposed Supreme Court nominee was unfit for the position don't you think she might have mentioned it, rather than waiting until right before the vote and then saying "oh, by the way...."?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Seems that Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a third accuser from the same period.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If she had evidence that a proposed Supreme Court nominee was unfit for the position don't you think she might have mentioned it, rather than waiting until right before the vote and then saying "oh, by the way...."?

It has been mentioned and two more women have made accusations from the same period.

 

[tango]

The third accuser, if what I first read is anything to go by, is far more credible than the other two put together.

As for the second one, it's rather curious to think that if a grown woman sees a penis at a college party it's considered sexual assault but if a 9-year-old girl sees a penis in the ladies' room it's considered tolerance.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The third accuser, if what I first read is anything to go by, is far more credible than the other two put together.

As for the second one, it's rather curious to think that if a grown woman sees a penis at a college party it's considered sexual assault but if a 9-year-old girl sees a penis in the ladies' room it's considered tolerance.

if by "full grown" you mean 18 or 19 years old then I cannot agree with you.

 

[tango]

if by "full grown" you mean 18 or 19 years old then I cannot agree with you.

Such a woman is certainly more grown (I didn't say "full grown", although I'm not sure it really matters) than a girl in the ladies' bathroom.