30 year gap in accusation and consequences

[Lamb]

Kavanaugh's accuser waited 30 years to avenge the alleged sexual assault by doing what she thinks is her civic duty in stopping him from becoming a Supreme Court Judge.

We don't know all the evidence yet to know who is telling the truth. It could be that both perceive their version to be the truth.

How would you feel if someone from your high school years came forward with an accusation? Should it affect your current life? Do you think that (from what we know so far) Kavanaugh should not be allowed to be on the Supreme Court? Was his actions as a minor harsh enough to warrant preventing him from being on the court?

 

[psalms 91]

I dont think he should be denied the seat and I dont think the accusations are credible

 

[tango]

Kavanaugh's accuser waited 30 years to avenge the alleged sexual assault by doing what she thinks is her civic duty in stopping him from becoming a Supreme Court Judge.

We don't know all the evidence yet to know who is telling the truth. It could be that both perceive their version to be the truth.

How would you feel if someone from your high school years came forward with an accusation? Should it affect your current life? Do you think that (from what we know so far) Kavanaugh should not be allowed to be on the Supreme Court? Was his actions as a minor harsh enough to warrant preventing him from being on the court?

Quite aside from the problem of every part of this specific situation being politically loaded, the key problem is that there's really very little that can be done to establish the facts so long after the alleged events.

Some say Kavanaugh should welcome an FBI investigation so he can clear his name before joining the Supreme Court. The trouble is that in the politically charged environment, especially with the #MeToo movement sometimes seeming to seek to believe women automatically and disbelieve men automatically, it's hard to see how anyone can come out of this unsmeared. If the FBI concludes there is credible evidence that he may have acted inappropriately as a hormone-driven teenager it doesn't necessarily mean he's unfit for the Supreme Court; if the FBI concludes there is no credible evidence it still leaves open the possibility he is a sex pest who only got away with it because his victim was afraid to come forward.

Of course it's almost impossible to defend yourself against an allegation that you did something improper many decades ago. If a woman I knew at university suddenly came forward and claimed I assaulted her during a party back then there's realistically no way I could prove I didn't. Chances are I couldn't even prove whether or not I actually attended the party and frankly anyone who insisted I had been at the party would lack credibility because the simple truth is we don't typically remember every single detail of every single thing we did decades after the face.

Throw alcohol into the mix, as often happens at student parties, and the situation just gets more and more blurred.

The fact both of Kavanaugh's accusers seem to be Democrat activists does little to ease the suspicion that this is more about mudslinging than seeking truth. If a Republican activist came forward and said he assaulted her at university, at this point I'd regard the claim as being a lot more credible. What we have now looks more like a campaign to disrupt a process, than any desire to actually uncover truth.

 

[NewCreation435]

Kavanaugh's accuser waited 30 years to avenge the alleged sexual assault by doing what she thinks is her civic duty in stopping him from becoming a Supreme Court Judge.

We don't know all the evidence yet to know who is telling the truth. It could be that both perceive their version to be the truth.

How would you feel if someone from your high school years came forward with an accusation? Should it affect your current life? Do you think that (from what we know so far) Kavanaugh should not be allowed to be on the Supreme Court? Was his actions as a minor harsh enough to warrant preventing him from being on the court?

If the accusations are credible then I would vote against him being a Supreme Court judge. I believe a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is such a high honor that you would be held to the highest standards.

 

[Josiah]

Oh the HYPOCRISY of it all.....


100% of the Democrats in Congress (including Senator Feinstein) and also Mrs. Clinton all insisted that the MANY credible women who accused PRESIDENT Bill Clinton of FAR worse things (all adults at the time, all sober at the time) ... of things not 36 years but a few months ago.... not at some drunken teen party but in at least one case in The White House.... they all insisted these women should not be considered, all their accusations should be dismissed... none of it mattered.... a persons personal life is his personal life and has NO BEARING on anything. And the press all went along.

Now, some of these same congressmen... and same newpapers and reporters.... INSIST that anything said by one who CLAIMS that 36 years ago, when they were at an illegal teen party and drunk out of their minds, the person who was a teenager 36 years years ago, did things (much less than Clinton was accused of doing)... and it's all relevant, and it all means that ERGO this man TODAY is an irresponsible, immoral, drunken pervert who does bad things at drunken teen parties.

Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.....




.

 

[tango]

If the accusations are credible then I would vote against him being a Supreme Court judge. I believe a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is such a high honor that you would be held to the highest standards.

The question is how you determine what counts as "credible".

I agree that anyone considered for appointment to the Supreme Court should be held to the highest standards, but those standards also have to be realistic. If someone has demonstrated good character for several decades should they be disqualified for indiscretions during their teenage years?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Kavanaugh's accuser waited 30 years to avenge the alleged sexual assault by doing what she thinks is her civic duty in stopping him from becoming a Supreme Court Judge.

"avenge"? that's a bit emotive isn't it?

We don't know all the evidence yet to know who is telling the truth. It could be that both perceive their version to be the truth.

There are three accusers about at least three events. Each independent of the others.

How would you feel if someone from your high school years came forward with an accusation? Should it affect your current life? Do you think that (from what we know so far) Kavanaugh should not be allowed to be on the Supreme Court? Was his actions as a minor harsh enough to warrant preventing him from being on the court?

Let the evidence be gathered and weighed, that may take a little time, some weeks or months, and then when all the evidence is gathered it can be evaluated and a decision made. There's no objective reason to rush the matter. The job will not disappear.

 

[Ruth]

I'm waiting to see if there is any credible evidence. Then I will say what I think.opworm:

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm waiting to see if there is any credible evidence. Then I will say what I think.opworm:

To find that and know that what is found is credible needs an investigation that looks into the evidence from witnesses, documents, and whatever other sources of evidence are available.

 

[tango]

To find that and know that what is found is credible needs an investigation that looks into the evidence from witnesses, documents, and whatever other sources of evidence are available.

To hold an investigation requires a report to the police. Has Dr Ford provided such a report yet?

Assuming she does, what sort of evidence do you think might exist and still be credible after nearly 40 years?

There is perhaps some merit in slowing the process down a little to attempt to determine whether the allegations cast credible doubt on the character of Brett Kavanaugh. There is a lot of reason to be suspicious that the whole process is little more than mud slinging, even if only based on the timing of everything. And it's hard to see what evidence might be available, other than a stream of people who testify that they believe one or other person, which doesn't actually prove much of anything.

 

[MoreCoffee]

To hold an investigation requires a report to the police. Has Dr Ford provided such a report yet?

Assuming she does, what sort of evidence do you think might exist and still be credible after nearly 40 years?

There is perhaps some merit in slowing the process down a little to attempt to determine whether the allegations cast credible doubt on the character of Brett Kavanaugh. There is a lot of reason to be suspicious that the whole process is little more than mud slinging, even if only based on the timing of everything. And it's hard to see what evidence might be available, other than a stream of people who testify that they believe one or other person, which doesn't actually prove much of anything.

40 years is not so long, it is still within living memory. Most of the history that we discuss here in CH is well beyond living memory yet we account it credible. The holy scriptures, the events of the protestant revolt and the catholic reformation that followed are well beyond living memory yet are referenced as credible in discussions here so the report of misconduct from 1982 through to 1998 is much closer to us in time; people still living remember it and the man who is accused is still living as well as the three women who accuse him. The FBI or other investigative body is capable of checking the facts - even journalists are able to check facts and report them and evidently 11 Republican senators think they are capable of gathering the facts and evaluating them despite their stated unwillingness to subpoena some of the witnesses named in the accusations.

 

[psalms 91]

40 years is not so long, it is still within living memory. Most of the history that we discuss here in CH is well beyond living memory yet we account it credible. The holy scriptures, the events of the protestant revolt and the catholic reformation that followed are well beyond living memory yet are referenced as credible in discussions here so the report of misconduct from 1982 through to 1998 is much closer to us in time; people still living remember it and the man who is accused is still living as well as the three women who accuse him. The FBI or other investigative body is capable of checking the facts - even journalists are able to check facts and report them and evidently 11 Republican senators think they are capable of gathering the facts and evaluating them despite their stated unwillingness to subpoena some of the witnesses named in the accusations.

The difference being that there is plenty of written accounts and oral history that these events happened. As for this there seems to be no way to prove it one way or the other. All that has been accomplished is the smearing of this mans name no matter if he is appointed or not. It is a shame that we live in an era where no evidence is needed and one is convicted on anothers testamony that cant be backed up and actually has been refuted. It seems to me that 6 background investigations over the years would have turned this up not to mention all the women he has worked with and hold this man in high regard or did he instantly change from a predator to a mild person? Many questions here and zero proof.

 

[tango]

40 years is not so long, it is still within living memory. Most of the history that we discuss here in CH is well beyond living memory yet we account it credible. The holy scriptures, the events of the protestant revolt and the catholic reformation that followed are well beyond living memory yet are referenced as credible in discussions here so the report of misconduct from 1982 through to 1998 is much closer to us in time; people still living remember it and the man who is accused is still living as well as the three women who accuse him. The FBI or other investigative body is capable of checking the facts - even journalists are able to check facts and report them and evidently 11 Republican senators think they are capable of gathering the facts and evaluating them despite their stated unwillingness to subpoena some of the witnesses named in the accusations.

Within living memory is only worth so much when you're trying to pick out truth from conflicting accounts, especially when there seems to be political bias all around. It surely can't be purely coincidental that the first two accusers are Democrat activists who stayed silent until the absolute last minute and then pointed fingers, then expected the FBI to investigate something that is outside of their remit and expected to stall the entire process until the FBI had done what they wanted. Because, you know, they couldn't possibly have come forward with objections earlier. Like, oh, maybe when his name was first put forward, or at any point between then and now.

If multiple witnesses to an event exist it's easier to pick out the truth. When something is little more than he-says-she-says how would you propose to establish exactly what happened? So far it seems the original story has changed and at least some of the people allegedly at the party have denied being at the party.

If the intention of whatever investigation people are expecting is to determine something beyond any reasonable doubt I can't help thinking that enough doubt already exists to reject the accusations. If the intention is to argue that this man can't become a Supreme Court Justice unless he can clear his name beyond any reasonable doubt then the entire legal system got turned on its head and from here on the chances are there will be no more Supreme Court Justices.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Within living memory is only worth so much when you're trying to pick out truth from conflicting accounts, especially when there seems to be political bias all around. It surely can't be purely coincidental that the first two accusers are Democrat activists who stayed silent until the absolute last minute and then pointed fingers, then expected the FBI to investigate something that is outside of their remit and expected to stall the entire process until the FBI had done what they wanted. Because, you know, they couldn't possibly have come forward with objections earlier. Like, oh, maybe when his name was first put forward, or at any point between then and now.

If multiple witnesses to an event exist it's easier to pick out the truth. When something is little more than he-says-she-says how would you propose to establish exactly what happened? So far it seems the original story has changed and at least some of the people allegedly at the party have denied being at the party.

If the intention of whatever investigation people are expecting is to determine something beyond any reasonable doubt I can't help thinking that enough doubt already exists to reject the accusations. If the intention is to argue that this man can't become a Supreme Court Justice unless he can clear his name beyond any reasonable doubt then the entire legal system got turned on its head and from here on the chances are there will be no more Supreme Court Justices.

There is no criminal prosecution in the accusations and the deliberations of the senate regarding the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS. The process is about confirming a nominee to sit on the SCOTUS. Judge Kavanaugh is in no danger of imprisonment for a crime if what the lawyers say is true about the statute of limitations. So there's no call for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All that is at stake it a reasonable doubt about the Judge's character and truthfulness.

 

[Josiah]

Some cast this as only one of two possibilities: This accuser is sincere or she is lying.

There are actually at least 3 possibilities....

1. She is telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" (as she FINALLY agreed to do... and for which, yes, she can be charged with a felony if it is determined otherwise, as Bill Clinton could tell her).

2. She is lying. Intentionally, willingly, PERHAPS as a passionate Trump hater and Democrat Party activist.

3. She is telling things AS SHE REMEMBERS, but her memory is fundamentally in error. Happens all the time. It's just ONE of the reasons why lie detector tests are not submissible in a court or in any hearing, AT BEST all they can do is hint at whether the person is being sincere... it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the person is telling the truth. In nearly every hearing and every court case, people tell DIFFERENT things - all under oath, all (well most) being totally sincere. It's just very, very common for one to be sincerely wrong.


And I think we need to remember.... Senator Feinstein "sat" on this for weeks, never doing ANYTHING with this. Not in ANY of the hearings on this (all of which she attended) and not during her two hour long private meeting with Kavenaugh, not until it was the 12th hour and it seemed the confirmation was a "done deal." In other words, it IS a possibility she is sincere (perhaps sincerely wrong but sincere) and is simply being USED by the Democrats to STALL everything until January - in hopes of 2 things, the Dems will then control the Senate and therefore, as a direct result of that, Trump will abandon his promise and will then nomination only uber-liberal, "Constitutional Reconstructionist," pro-abortion Democrats whom they will confirm. Ms. Ford could be a pone in a political GAME. Remember: Sen. Feinstein is the VERY SAME person who insisted the 8 women accusing PRESIDENT Bill Clinton of doing FAR worse - not decades ago but months ago, not while drunk teens but sober adults, not at some party house but in the White House - the very same lady who insisted all those women were to be dismissed and that none of this mattered anyway. The press wrote, "why is everyone so interested in his private life? If Hilary believes and/or forgives him, why does it matter? It has NOTHING to do with his duties as President." For some in politics, one thing matters: politics.




- Josiah

 

[tango]

There is no criminal prosecution in the accusations and the deliberations of the senate regarding the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS. The process is about confirming a nominee to sit on the SCOTUS. Judge Kavanaugh is in no danger of imprisonment for a crime if what the lawyers say is true about the statute of limitations. So there's no call for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All that is at stake it a reasonable doubt about the Judge's character and truthfulness.

What do you consider would constitute a reasonable doubt? A mere accusation, or the accusation being credible? There has to be a certain level of credibility or there won't be any more Supreme Court Justices, ever, unless both sides can agree on a candidate. If a mere accusation is all it takes to derail a nomination then something is badly wrong.

 

[tango]

It's also worth noting the split between hashtags #BelieveWomen and #SupportBrett. As usual the concept of "believing women" is simpified to make it sound like either we believe woman, all the time, universally and without exception, or we call women liars. It's the same garbage that produced the argument that anyone not voting for Hillary Clinton for President must be sexist because they had the chance to elect a female President and rejected it.

Just as it's perfectly possible to say we don't have a problem with a woman President but don't want that woman to be our President, so we can believe women in general but still conclude that one particular woman is not recounting events as they happened. Whether that particular woman is deliberately lying or has merely got something confused is irrelevant to the underlying concept.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What do you consider would constitute a reasonable doubt? A mere accusation, or the accusation being credible? There has to be a certain level of credibility or there won't be any more Supreme Court Justices, ever, unless both sides can agree on a candidate. If a mere accusation is all it takes to derail a nomination then something is badly wrong.

I think that Dr Ford's accusation is credible. Her testimony was credible. I do have doubts about Judge Kavanaugh's character and honesty. His testimony is overtly political. That too adds to doubts about his suitability as a member of the SCOTUS.

 

[Lamb]

I think that Dr Ford's accusation is credible. Her testimony was credible. I do have doubts about Judge Kavanaugh's character and honesty. His testimony is overtly political. That too adds to doubts about his suitability as a member of the SCOTUS.

How do you feel about the inconsistencies in what she's been saying since mid-September through today?

 

[Andrew]

I think that Dr Ford's accusation is credible. Her testimony was credible. I do have doubts about Judge Kavanaugh's character and honesty. His testimony is overtly political. That too adds to doubts about his suitability as a member of the SCOTUS.

Liberals feed off of victimising people for political gain, it's the new democratic approach and this was an attempt of a live smear character assassination, I'm glad Lyndsy called them out.
MC how did you see any credibility of her claim with no evidence? You are buying into her sob story that happens to unfold 36 years later and just before nomination, do you not see the political motive? She was prompted by her liberal beach buddies and couched and was betrayed by democrats in the senate who released her case to the public.
An underage drinking party 36 years ago with no evidence just a sob story and playing the role of a rape victim... soooo low