Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_Res Ipsa]

Quick!! Grab the fainting couch!! Here's another liberal assassinating an innocent man's character:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... 2bf6965120

Oh, wait. Never mind.

[_Res Ipsa]

Look at all these lying leftists. Shame on them all.

https://Twitter.com/hashtag/WhyIDidntRe ... trending-1

[_moksha]

Two women who actually dated and remained friends with this vile monster:

https://youtu.be/HUPjXPatyEM

- Doc

This idea is further expanded by Trevor Noah:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0jXqKXoHTQ

[_DoubtingThomas]

Why did Feinstein sit on this letter fir six weeks?

Those who find this accusation credible enough to destroy this man's life are reprehensible, and I pray they never, not one time, find themselves on a jury. I'm totally astonished at what I'm seeijg on this board. Crazy.

- Doc

To repeat

I’m interested. How do you distinguish between a leftist character assassination and a right-wing covering for an old friend? Or even a right-wing faulty memory? In my opinion, that’s why this should be handled by the professionals who have some training and experience at investigation. Instead, we have carefully crafted press releases and amateurs with an agenda running around mucking things up.

Exactly! But investigators with at least some training in peer-reviewed science, psychology, and memory.

Nobody here is saying Kavanaugh did it, we simply do not know.

[_Res Ipsa]

DT, take that clip of Orrin Hatch and just substitute the word "Bishop" for "Judge" in a case where a Bishop has been accused of molesting a teenager. All of his friends will rally around him to defend him as a good, upstanding man. Because that's the man they have known. That's why all these statements about what a good man he is aren't reliable as evidence. It's a natural thing that people do, even when it turns out the accused is guilty.

And thanks for your bolded sentence. That's exactly right.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Some sanity from Reddit:

https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscus ... ?context=3

A man has been accused of a crime that happened before he was a legal adult, with no evidence, 35+ years later, when the accuser doesn't even have clarity on any of the details: She doesn't know what day, month, or even YEAR it happened in, she doesn't remember how she got there or how she got away, she doesn't seem to remember the identities of any of the other kids (which makes one wonder how she identified Kavanaugh and Judge), they didn't go to the same school, there's no evidence they were friends or knew each other, and the DOJ has actually refused to investigate because they say there's nothing FOR THEM TO INVESTIGATE, even though Democrats are demanding the FBI get involved, with the FBI saying even if they COULD investigate the issue, it was a local crime involving teenagers, so no federal law was violated?

The accuser, Ms. Ford, doesn't even know the location it happened at, meaning even if the FBI wanted to, they could not go there to verify if there was some phiscal evidence left over 35-36 years later. And the only other witness to the alledged crime, Mark Judge, says it never happened.

​This is a BIG deal. Imagine if I said "about 20 years ago, I don't remember if it was 1997 or 1998 or 1999 or 2000, but I remember I was in a big city, I don't remember which one, I don't remember how I got there or how I got away, but you cornered me in a back alley and attempted to mug me. You only failed because your friend stumbled into your drunkenly and I was able to get away. I didn't tell anyone about it until a counseling session 15 years later, but I didn't use your name at the time. Your friend, the only other witness, now denies it. All of your friends and coworkers over the years point out you've never behaved that way. There are no other accusations. And I took a polygraph a month ago and retained a lawyer even though I'm saying that at that time I had no intention of going public.

​How do you defend yourself against that if we "believe the victim/accuser"? There's NO EVIDENCE to even begin to investigate!

This is a disservice to women, to real rape victims everywhere (who people will now doubt more), and shows that even ACCUSATIONS OF (attempted) RAPE are not safe from naked politicization.

...because make no mistake: This is a political assassination attempt.

And it isn't even a good one - the Moore alegations at least had some backing. Some of the accusers talked about their accusations at the time they happened. There was some sketchy, but at least physical, evidence (the yearbook). And most of the accusations included specifics.

Senator Feinstein sat right next to Chairman Grassley during all three days of the Kavanaugh hearings and, we now know, was sitting on this letter the ENTIRE TIME. She didn't bring it up then. She didn't bring it up when she first got it. The entire point it was held until now was that it is a naked attempt to "run out the clock", and that's absurdly clear.

Further, this whole process is an abject denial of "innocent until proven guilty", which is issential in any free society.

Worse, it's an entirely new standard: If you did anything wrong in your past, even as a teenager/kid, it counts against you as a 50 year old.

And an even worse standard: You don't have to even have DONE anything wrong, you merely need to be ACCUSED of doing something wrong that there is no way to prove or disprove decades later.

That is absolutely insane.

And the defense from the anti-Kavanaugh left is "this isn't a trial, judicial standards of evidence and proof do not apply".

Excuse my French but: Why the “F” not?

We're looking at a candidate for the Supreme COURT! If there's ANY time that judicial and legal standards should be at play in America - THIS IS THE TIME. There's nothing absurd in demanding that judicial requirements be maintained FOR A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE! It is, in fact, the most rational and logical thing to ask for.

Further, we're entering a VERY dangerous time if people can be slandard and denied employment (and voters be disenfranchised, as voters in Alabama were when the Moore accusations surfaced 3 weeks before the general election instead of during the primary) on the simple ACCUSATION of something, with a fuzzy memory, no physical evidence, and no way to address or disprove it DECADES later.

Seriously, this current circus is shocking and dangerous. As noted, if I accused you like that, how would you defend yourself against it? How would you ever run for office, or even GET A JOB if it was held against you as definitive? No one, not a single one of us, is safe if this is the new standard. If "guilty until proven innocent" is the standard, and people are willing to make accusations that cannot be disprove (as a great many cannot be).

It's like the Cardassians in Star Trek, when asked what if the accused is guilty, said: "Of course he's guilty. It would be unjust to bring an innocent person to court/trial."

That is a place we should not, we CANNOT go. Yet the liberals, in naked power grab mode, do not realize the dangerous path they want us to walk. This Pandora's Box will not somehow close just because power changes hands and the liberals return to power. This weapon can be turned against them just as easily, and in their hubris, they do not realize it.

I hope to god that Kavanaugh sticks with this and doesn't bow out (if he does, we will simply never again get any good nominees because no one will be willing to drag their family and reputation through this minefield of potential unprovable accusations from their teenage years), and I hope to god that liberals, progressives, and Democrats realize the dangerous situation they're putting us all in and back away from this precipice.

Republicans are at least conducting some sense of reasonable doubt and structured investigation here, but I've been worried about us becoming a "guilty until proven innocent" society, particularly in the court of public opinion, for a decade and a half. This is terrifying to me, and I'm shocked that liberals are, instead of equally shocked, reveling in it.

One thing is for certain to me, though: If this derails Kavanaugh (or even if it doesn't), it's going to send Republican voter enthusiasm/anger to come out and vote in November through the roof. I was on the fence before as a libertarian, but I'm 100% in for Republicans now after this attempted abortion of justice. And I hope there are a lot of others like me out there.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Straw man. You're arguing against a position that I don't think anyone here has taken. And the notion that there is "nothing to investigate" is horse manure. And the Republican's "investigation" was apparently to frame some innocent middle school teacher.

Let the people who have some experience and training do what they're good at.

[Guest]

Investigate what exactly, and how are they going to do that? Magically timewarp back to 1980, or 1981, or 1982 (you know, like, whenever) and show up at Tommy's, I mean Timmy's, I mean Janice's house (or, you know, wherever man), and talk to Bob, or Mark, or Randy or Marsha (or, you know, whomever)?

Is this where we're at these days? Some partisan makes a slanderous accusation against a political opponent and it's taken seriously enough to derail their career? This is total BS, and you know it.

This won't stop his nomination, but, in the future, don't you dare clutch your pearls when the Repubs pull another Kenneth Starr investigation on our guy/girl. Take the high road my ass...

eta: And before you suggest, once again, that no one gets hurt from this kind of thing, yes they damned do:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru ... d-of-rape/

Col. David “Wil” Riggins, after a highly decorated Army career that included tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, was on the verge of promotion to brigadier general in July 2013 when he got a phone call at the Pentagon from the Army’s criminal investigation division to come in for a meeting. Once there, he learned that a blogger in Washington state had just accused him of raping her, when both were cadets at West Point in 1986. An investigation was underway.

Riggins waived his right to an attorney and immediately gave a statement denying any sexual assault of the woman, Susan Shannon of Everett, Wash. Shannon also cooperated with the CID investigation, which could not “prove or disprove Ms. Shannon’s allegation she was raped,” the CID report concluded. But in the spring of 2014, with the armed forces facing heavy criticism for their handling of sexual assault cases, Secretary of the Army John McHugh recommended removing Riggins from the list for promotion to general. Riggins promptly retired.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Nobody here is saying Kavanaugh did it, we simply do not know.

No crap you don't know. No one will ever know because it's impossible to prove guilt or innocence with this accusation. So. What are we supposed to do with it? She said this thing happened. He categorically denied it. But thanks for the lessons in civics, I guess?

- Doc

[_Chap]

Those who find this accusation credible enough to destroy this man's life are reprehensible, and I pray they never, not one time, find themselves on a jury.

There is no evidence here sufficient to be put before a jury in a criminal prosecution.

But we are not discussing a criminal prosecution. We are discussing whether or not it is a prudent act to invest the man in question with the immense privilege and power of a justice of the US Supreme Court for the rest of his life.

Nor is there evidence here sufficient to justify destroying somebody's life.

But we are not discussing destroying anybody's life. We are discussing whether or not it is a prudent act to invest the man in question with the immense privilege and power of a justice of the US Supreme Court for the rest of his life - in which role he will have great and lasting influence over the lives of many, many men and women. And many of the former, as well as of the latter, fear that in that role his rulings may destroy the lives of many people who will in future no longer have the rights they enjoyed to control over their own bodies as provided by Roe vs Wade, and possibly in many other ways too.

In such cases, the appropriate barrier to pass for a negative decision on his nomination is not the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test of criminal prosecution, but the precautionary principle of not drinking water from a source that may be polluted, if it is concluded that there is a material possibility of that being the case. There is, after all, no shortage of possible alternative candidates for the Supreme Court vacancy.