Kavanaugh has an accuser

[MoreCoffee]

I think it is a good thing to delay until the voting public can voice its opinions on who should be in the house and in the senate making decision about matters of law and who is appointed to the scotus.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Let's see what happens. A week is a long time in politics.

Agonizingly long

 

[Josiah]

I think it is a good thing to delay until the voting public can voice its opinions on who should be in the house and in the senate making decision about matters of law and who is appointed to the scotus.

So, we should wait until November of 2020 to see who is going in the White House, no to 2024, no to 2028, no to 2032? Friend, it's over TWO YEARS until it's even possible to have a party change in the one who makes the nominations.... You seem to think every two years it's good to wait two more years, when does it end that we stop waiting? Until there's a liberal, pro-abortion, anti-church, democrat in the White House AND with a 2/3 majority in the Senate and THEN it's appropriate to consider a judge? Friend, that may be how things work in Australia but I pray never here.

 

[hedrick]

It is about sexual assault. That is not ugly politics. It is a crime in many jurisdictions and if reported immediately it can lead to arrest and trial. It is not right to dismiss a claim because there's a political dispute going on.

It's partly politics. It's possible that the timing is political, though there are other possible examples. But even if the timing is political, that doesn't mean it should be ignored. After all, the point isn't to be fair to Democrats or Republicans, but to get a good Supreme Court nominee.

If she talked about it before, and there are other people who knew, then the accusation doesn't seem to be political, even if its handling was. False accusations happen, but the majority are true, so there's a good chance that the event really did happen. I suspect if a real investigation is done, it may turn up other people who have information. After all, the party had a bunch of kids there.

My prediction: the Committee won't investigate; they'll let her testify, but without an investigation they'll be able to say it's an uncorroborated accusastion. So they'll immediately confirm. The press will do the investigation, and will turn up pretty good evidence. Then we'll have a justice that everyone who cares knows shouldn't have been confirmed. This is only a guess, of course. Maybe she is exaggerating an innocent event. But the probabilities point in this direction.

 

[tango]

A lawyer I loosely know from another forum did some digging and found that in MD the statute of limitations for what would be battery at most is 2 years. This event allegedly took place 36 years ago. There really is nothing to investigate.

Is anything alleged that wasn't regarded as pretty much normal when two high school aged kids were making out, 36 years ago? It's meaningless to try and see everything through the lens of modern day thinking.

 

[JPPT1974]

But the question is where is the proof? And if she can try to find the proof that he did that. She needs to provide it even though it has been decades. Her friends and family members if they have proof he did that. Then why not provide it?!

 

[MoreCoffee]

A lawyer I loosely know from another forum did some digging and found that in MD the statute of limitations for what would be battery at most is 2 years. This event allegedly took place 36 years ago. There really is nothing to investigate.

Is anything alleged that wasn't regarded as pretty much normal when two high school aged kids were making out, 36 years ago? It's meaningless to try and see everything through the lens of modern day thinking.

interesting. Does your comment imply that child exploiting adults, priests, pastors, teachers, and so forth are not to be investigated because the statute of limitations has expired? Really?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Take some time, give consideration to what it is like for the person who was assaulted

 

[Lamb]

interesting. Does your comment imply that child exploiting adults, priests, pastors, teachers, and so forth are not to be investigated because the statute of limitations has expired? Really?

Child predators are in an entirely different class than 2 teenagers.

 

[psalms 91]

Take some time, give consideration to what it is like for the person who was assaulted

Take some time, think what it is like to be falsely accused

 

[tango]

interesting. Does your comment imply that child exploiting adults, priests, pastors, teachers, and so forth are not to be investigated because the statute of limitations has expired? Really?

Big difference between allegations. Where rape or other sexual penetration has occurred the statute of limitations is different. And I'm sure I don't need to explain how an adult priest abusing a choirboy is a totally different scenario to two teenagers making out at a party.

Even then, an accused is innocent until proven to be guilty. Although this is hugely distasteful when someone who has numerous allegations against them effectively gets away with it, unless the allegations can be proven to an acceptable standard what other option is there? How can an allegation even be investigated unless there's at least some detail around it? And the insistence that the FBI investigate the allegation is also curious given that, even if the allegations are 100% true, it isn't a federal matter.

Of course in situations where allegations are investigated there are often other people coming forward with similar stories, consistencies between stories from people who don't know what others have said, and so on. In this context the "evidence", such as it is, appears to be an allegation with no details and some people saying they believe the accuser on one side, and a denial with some people saying they believe the accused on the other side. And let's not forget the accused has apparently passed multiple background checks to get to the position he currently holds, nor that just about everything is this is conveniently split along partisan lines.

In this instance we seem to have a case of someone who claims she was groped by a teenage boy with no indication as to exactly when or where the party took place or who else was present.

 

[tango]

Take some time, give consideration to what it is like for the person who was assaulted

Thanks, but I don't need a video for that. I have personal friends who were assaulted as children. The fact that child abuse is such an evil thing doesn't mean that we can be quick to destroy the life of someone based on an apparently unsubstantiated allegation. If anything it means we need to be even more careful to ensure that justice is done. When allegations aren't brought for many decades it's unlikely that any physical evidence will remain and in the absence of evidence how can a conviction be safely secured?

One person I know has more or less accepted that their abuser is unlikely to ever face human justice, simply because so much time passed between the events and their feeling strong enough to speak about it. I can only imagine what that must be like for them, but at the same time we can't throw people to the wolves based on nothing more than an allegation. As soon as we walk that path none of us are safe. What happens if you or I are accused of abusing a child, with little to no detail provided? Can you say exactly where you were and what you were doing on April 14, 1982? You stand accused of abusing a child on or around that day. It might have been a couple of weeks either side of that, so you'd best know what you were doing for most of April 1982. If you can't, well, that's mighty convenient isn't it? Maybe that was the day you abused the child. Or, just maybe, as a respectable person you don't keep detailed records of everything you do every single day because you don't expect to face a wild accuation 30+ years later.

 

[Josiah]

Well....

The STALL tactic is working.

Will it until January in hopes that the Dems will get a majority in the Senate and THEREFORE Trump will only nominate uber-liberal, pro-abortion, anti-church Democrats and therefore such will get confirmed? We'll see.


Meanwhile, Ms. Ford has been given every opportunity to testify under oath. She continues to waffle, stall, delay, stall, waffle..... She doesn't want to testify under oath.... she doesn't want to be questioned by anyone who doesn't completely believe her... she doesn't want anything she says to be accountable .... and she can't testify on Monday (maybe she has a nail appointment or needs to get the car's oil changed)... and we continue to get stall after stall. Meanwhile, she has no time for the Senate Committee but LOTS of time to continue to accuse the nominee of groping her when he was 17 and she 15 when she was at a drunken teen party, insist there was a witness to all this but the witness has testified that no such thing happened 36 years ago when they were all teens at a drunken teen party, all with NOTHING to confirm it, never under oath... and stalling saying anything to anyone under oath... All by a liberal activist, very active in the California Democrat Party, passioantely anti-Trump. Political GAMES taken to a whole new low.

Will this result this nominee being thrown under the bus and Trump therefore, from now on, only nominating uber-liberal, anti-Constitution, pro-abortion, anti-Church Democrats? We'll see.


Stinks.



.

 

[Albion]

Stinks indeed. I do not think that the Republicans will throw him under the bus as things stand now because it would take months to get a replacement confirmed, regardless of the outcome of the November elections. However, all it would take is for another Democratic party worker to volunteer to claim that she was looked at sideways by Kavanaugh for Senators Flake, Corker, and Collins-Murkowski to bolt, thereby denying Kavanaugh the necessary votes for confirmation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Child predators are in an entirely different class than 2 teenagers.

The girl was 15, the 'boy' was 17.

 

[psalms 91]

The girl was 15, the 'boy' was 17.

And?

 

[Josiah]

And?

They were both MINORS.

And this was 36 years ago.

And Ms. Ford claims to have been 15 and at a "drunken teen party."

And Ms. Ford claims there was (just one) witness to all of this, but said witness insists NO SUCH THING happened and that she has made it up.

And Ms. Ford seems VERY hesitant to testify under oath.... or to be questioned by anyone who ALREADY doens't 100% agree with her and believe her.... or to have anything she accuses be accountable....

And Ms. Ford is a Democrat Party activist and passionately anti-Trump.

And NO ONE ELSE on the Planet Earth notes any such behavior from Mr. Kavanaugh - at drunk parties as a teenager or otherwise.


And I remind you that President Clinton (although I realize he's a Democrat) was accused by SEVERAL women of MUCH worse.... and finally admitting to a felony, ADMITTED to a crime AS AN ADULT, only a matter of MONTHS earlier, to much worse.... and did he resign? Did anyone insist he was thereby disqualified for an even higher office than Supreme Court judge? And who threw every one of those accusers under the bus, insisting they would not be heard or considered? Yup, the very same lady now insisting Ms. Ford has got to be right and Kavanaugh must not be confirmed (Bill's wife). Stinks, doesn't it?


Now, Bill.... let me ask you. If YOU were nominated for an important job for which you are highly qualified, what would you make of this? Would this PROVE you, Bill, are an immature, irresponsible, pervert and obviously unqualified for this job (or any?) Have YOU ever applied for a job? How would you feel about some drunk high school girl from 36 years ago suddenly - at the last moment - claiming this? A person SO angry at the one who nominated you?

 

[Lamb]

The girl was 15, the 'boy' was 17.

A boy and a girl. That's entirely different from an adult male preying on a child.

 

[Josiah]

A boy and a girl. That's entirely different from an adult male preying on a child.

CLAIMED..... 36 years ago..... at what she claims was a drunken party she attended as a 15 year old.... witnessed by one who testified no such thing happened and she made it all up.


... or the President of the USA (finally) admitted to doing much worse... when neither was drunk.... just a few months earlier... as an adult.... and to perhaps 8 others.... and it was determined that had NOTHING to do with his character or qualification for holding an office higher than Supreme Court Judge.

 

[tango]

The girl was 15, the 'boy' was 17.

Wow, a whole TWO years difference in their ages. Obviously the boy should be castrated, flogged, castrated again and shot at dawn for such a heinous act.

Can you seriously not see the difference between two minors getting it together, and an aging priest abusing a choirboy?