Kav's FBI "thorough" investigation = Lame Coverup

[_Chap]

...You keep deliberately attempting to tone down what happened by using the term 'job interview'.

Er, nope. See my last post. In fact, I don't think I have referred to a 'job interview' at all on this thread. Did I?

He was on trial

Er, nope. It was a hearing intended to test whether it was prudent to invest him for life with the immense powers of a Justice of the Supreme Court, with lasting influence over the lives, property and liberty of millions. In such a case, 99% of the rights are on the side of the people of the US, represented by their Senate, not the man nominated for the job. It's a privilege for him to be considered at all.

most of us are tired of you promoting the idea that the presumption of innocence is a virtue reserved exclusively for a court room.

When else do you apply it in your daily life? To a used car salesman? Nope. To an investment salesman? I hope not. To a guy about whom you have heard stories of inappropriate behaviour who wants to take your daughter to a party? Hell, no. If you are in the supermarket and the lid of a jar seems loose, do you presume its contents are harmless because they have not been proved to be tainted? Nope again. You reject it, because you can't accept even a tiny risk of eating contaminated food.

In such cases, you exercise the precautionary principle: Choose another jar without a loose lid.

And so on. Appointing a Justice of the Supreme Court is a time for the precautionary principle to be exercised to the utmost in order to protect the integrity of the court. And Kavanaugh was by no means the only qualified candidate.

[_Some Schmo]

When else do you apply it in your daily life? To a used car salesman? Nope. To an investment salesman? I hope not. To a guy about whom you have heard stories of inappropriate behaviour who wants to take your daughter to a party? Hell, no. If you are in the supermarket and the lid of a jar seems loose, do you presume its contents are harmless because they have not been proved to be tainted? Nope again. You reject it, because you can't accept even a tiny risk of eating contaminated food.

Yeah, this is great.

I was trying to picture all these jackasses making these arguments in defense of a guy with Kavanaugh's college reputation who wanted to date their daughter. That alone makes your realize they're either full of crap or reprehensible fathers.

[_honorentheos]

I'm probably a reprehensible father. But when it comes to the evidence, I think society should also be cautious when an accusation that included multiple other witnesses fails to have even one of those witnesses provide the smallest of support. Not even an, "Yes, they knew one another" came out of interviewing three people who where there besides Ford and Kavanaugh. One of them is friendly to Ford. I don't know what else can be said about it. It failed to find a single corroborating second witness of even minor supporting details despite multiple people being claimed as present or having first hand knowledge of the surround event.

I don't think society is best served if that is seen as an acceptable degree of evidence for a claim to be considered actionable against another person.

[_EAllusion]

I'm probably a reprehensible father. But when it comes to the evidence, I think society should also be cautious when an accusation that included multiple other witnesses fails to have even one of those witnesses provide the smallest of support. Not even an, "Yes, they knew one another" came out of interviewing three people who where there besides Ford and Kavanaugh. One of them is friendly to Ford. I don't know what else can be said about it. It failed to find a single corroborating second witness of even minor supporting details despite multiple people being claimed as present or having first hand knowledge of the surround event.

I don't think society is best served if that is seen as an acceptable degree of evidence for a claim to be considered actionable against another person.

The case for Ford rests principally on the fact that sexual assault victims don't frequently lie and the fact that Kavanaugh almost certainly lied a bunch about facts surrounding the accusation. I think you have to confront that case head-on rather than assume people are just believing without any underlying logic.

To the former, while in the abstract that's true, I'm very uncomfortable with that as a basis for any consequences to happen to a person and even believing that someone is likely a sexual offender is a consequence. Yes, it's true that in a he said/she said sexual assault allegation, it's not 50/50 as Cinepro said, but rather much more likely that it happened by default. But there are harms with presuming that sans supporting evidence. To the latter, I agree that Kavanaugh being a serial liar significantly harms his case.

That people don't remember things you wouldn't necessarily expect them to remember just doesn't make it more likely Ford is being untruthful.

To your other point, I wouldn't take what is possible with what is plausible. It is quite unlikely that Ford was assaulted and is simply lying about the part where it is a familiar assault. Is it possible? Sure. Any number of exotic theories are possible, but that isn't normal enough to act as though anyone has a basis to conclude that's likely what happened.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't think society is best served if that is seen as an acceptable degree of evidence for a claim to be considered actionable against another person.

Actionable, as in, I don't trust that guy to date my daughter? Really?

To each their own, but there's a level of absurdity here that's hard to reconcile.

[_subgenius]

most of us are tired of you promoting the idea that the presumption of innocence is a virtue reserved exclusively for a court room.

When else do you apply it in your daily life? To a used car salesman? Nope. To an investment salesman? I hope not. To a guy about whom you have heard stories of inappropriate behaviour who wants to take your daughter to a party? Hell, no. ...

Or to a woman who accuses your son of rape without evidence, witnesses, corroboration, or even basic circumstantial details?

Yet for some reason (presumably), you extend a presumption of innocence to Dr Ford.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

...You keep deliberately attempting to tone down what happened by using the term 'job interview'.

Er, nope. See my last post. In fact, I don't think I have referred to a 'job interview' at all on this thread. Did I?

He was on trial

Er, nope. It was a hearing intended to test whether it was prudent to invest him for life with the immense powers of a Justice of the Supreme Court, with lasting influence over the lives, property and liberty of millions. In such a case, 99% of the rights are on the side of the people of the US, represented by their Senate, not the man nominated for the job. It's a privilege for him to be considered at all.

most of us are tired of you promoting the idea that the presumption of innocence is a virtue reserved exclusively for a court room.

When else do you apply it in your daily life? To a used car salesman? Nope. To an investment salesman? I hope not. To a guy about whom you have heard stories of inappropriate behaviour who wants to take your daughter to a party? Hell, no. If you are in the supermarket and the lid of a jar seems loose, do you presume its contents are harmless because they have not been proved to be tainted? Nope again. You reject it, because you can't accept even a tiny risk of eating contaminated food.

In such cases, you exercise the precautionary principle: Choose another jar without a loose lid.

And so on. Appointing a Justice of the Supreme Court is a time for the precautionary principle to be exercised to the utmost in order to protect the integrity of the court. And Kavanaugh was by no means the only qualified candidate.

Maybe because here on planet Earth, you incorrigible human being, your absurd examples only make sense to the terminally blunt? But hey, if you feel the need to compare buying a used car with selecting a Supreme Court nominee then, well, there you are.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

I don't think society is best served if that is seen as an acceptable degree of evidence for a claim to be considered actionable against another person.

Actionable, as in, I don't trust that guy to date my daughter? Really?

To each their own, but there's a level of absurdity here that's hard to reconcile.

Here's the thing, Schmo. I don't know either Ford nor Kavanaugh and neither is asking to date my daughter. I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter, but I'm also not in the camp that views the results of the investigation as completely without merit. They interviewed the people most likely to have something - anything - that could have added a bit of outside support to the claim. And nothing supportive has been reported to have come from that.

It's not just trying to be supportive of an assault victim or finding Kavanaugh to be untrustworthy. I can't blatantly ignoring that the bar is so low at this point and yet the evidence outside of Ford's personal testimony failed to clear it. I don't know what else there is to say. I can't imagine a society where that standard is accepted still being able to consider itself just.

[_honorentheos]

To your other point, I wouldn't take what is possible with what is plausible. It is quite unlikely that Ford was assaulted and is simply lying about the part where it is a familiar assault. Is it possible? Sure. Any number of exotic theories are possible, but that isn't normal enough to act as though anyone has a basis to conclude that's likely what happened.

Give me one piece of reasonable evidence that comes from someone other than Ford's own testimony and I would be right there, too. I was hoping the investigation would turn something up, get a word out of Judge that warranted a deeper look, got a confirming piece of information from Leland that could lend support...I wasn't looking for video or a signed confession.

It sincerely bothers me that when multiple avenues for potentially corroborating evidence were looked into, they failed to turn even the smallest tidbit up. I wouldn't go so far as to imagine that this is Pandora's box and all men are soon to be subjugated through rape accusations or whatever the latest crazy idea is being floated by the alt right women-haters club. But come on. I'm not being unreasonable.

[_Some Schmo]

Here's the thing, Schmo. I don't know either Ford nor Kavanaugh and neither is asking to date my daughter. I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter, but I'm also not in the camp that views the results of the investigation as completely without merit. They interviewed the people most likely to have something - anything - that could have added a bit of outside support to the claim. And nothing supportive has been reported to have come from that.

Dude, if I wanted to paint a picture of climate change not happening, I'd only talk to people who support that claim. How can that be considered a real investigation?

Several people came forward saying they had something to tell the FBI related to the investigation, and the FBI ignored them (probably reluctantly). Without everyone's testimony, the investigation is without merit.

You want a piece of evidence he's guilty outside Ford's testimony? How about everyone in his corner with power blocking a real investigation? Seems highly suspicious to me.