Kavanaugh hearing

[laklak]

The word "rape" was being bandied about, so I thought I'd look up the definition in Maryland, the state where the alleged assault might possibly have occurred. Now, whether an alleged misdemeanor while a juvenile is sufficient to deny his nomination is a matter of personal opinion, and I imagine the answer would tend to follow party lines.

[Animavore]

The word "rape" was being bandied about, so I thought I'd look up the definition in Maryland, the state where the alleged assault might possibly have occurred. Now, whether an alleged misdemeanor while a juvenile is sufficient to deny his nomination is a matter of personal opinion, and I imagine the answer would tend to follow party lines.

Ok. He's not a rapist. Just a sexual assaulter. Thanks for sorting that out. We can now rest easy.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm not suggesting that we just take Ms Blasey Ford's word for it. I'm saying that her allegations can't be ignored, downplayed, or Kavanaugh's behaviour excused, based on speculation about her character and motives due to her historical silence, and her breaking of that silence now. I think that is not only disingenuous, but it puts her on public trial charged with proving that she's not the motivated liar you just implied she is. Sure, some women lie - but can we safely use that fact to imply that we should assume that everyone who claims to be the victim of historical abuse is liar until they prove otherwise (Or is that judgement uniquely reserved for Ms Blasey Ford?). If true, the allegation would act as a powerful motivator for Mr Kavanaugh to lie also - and some men do lie, don't they? IMO an FBI investigation is a more appropriate vehicle for examining this allegation than a public grilling from right-leaning commentators or even a Senate committee. Do you agree, and do you think we also can't take Mr Kavanaugh's word for it either, or assume that he's an honest agent in this matter? If we cannot take Mr Kavanaugh's word for it then what do you think that does for his nomination?

Far from her allegations being ignored, they are being championed by powerful people. All the Senate Committee members are treating this carefully and they've invited her to sit down and tell her story, which is how Senate committees gather evidence. It's their job to investigate. She doesn't have to come forward and do anything - she's free to leave her allegations where they are. However, there isn't much anyone can do with those allegations, if the demand is that they not be questioned.

As for Kavanaugh's behavior being excused - that begs the question. His behavior is alleged, not proved. So, we still have the question ahead of us to answer - did he engage in that behavior? If he did not, then of course it's excused. Everyone is excused from the consequences of behavior they didn't engage in. At this time, our normal thinking process when it comes to any assertion of the truth of a fact or event is that the assertion is not itself evidence or proof of it occurring.

You said "Sure, some women lie - but can we safely use that fact to imply that we should assume that everyone who claims to be the victim of historical abuse is liar until they prove otherwise (Or is that judgement uniquely reserved for Ms Blasey Ford?). " Nobody is implying that everyone who claims to be victim of historical abuse "is" a liar until they prove otherwise. Back up for a minute. She's not being treated any differently than anyone else, except she is being treated with more courtesy, not less.

Whenever a negative allegation is made against anyone, corroboration is sought. Why? Because we cannot take anyone's word for negative allegations. It's not reserved just for Blasey Ford. It's reserved for everyone. That doesn't mean everyone who makes negative allegations about other people are liars. It recognizes that some people will be lying, and we don't know which allegations are true just based on the allegation. Women are not exempt - it's not that women are being treated harsher than everyone else, it's that some factions of people out there are asking that their allegations be treated as more credible than everyone else's allegations because "women don't lie" about stuff like this.

By saying "you've made an allegation, is there any proof for it?" we aren't assuming she's a liar until she proves otherwise. We're examining the allegation like we would any other. And, she doesn't have to be "lying" in order to be wrong - add that to the mix. 30 years later, memories fade. It is not unusual for a person to be sure that they attended a party with someone ages ago, and it turns out that person was never there. It's not unusual for people's memories to fade, to change, to be mistaken. She could be sincerely holding a view which is just wrong. And that's not a comment about women - that's everyone.

Eyewitness testimony - even by people directly involved in an incident - is notoriously bad. Even when people are reporting events close in time, people can sincerely believe they saw something, and be certain of it, and be dead wrong. People have been sent to prison on eyewitness testimony that turned out to be wrong. People have picked perpetrators out of a lineup and been flat out wrong. People have even been manipulated into a sincere belief that people committed heinous acts, and they were wrong.

This has nothing to do with assuming anything about Blasey Ford - sure, we don't know if she was motivated by political interests to come forward now. And, it's possible that even if she is motivated by politics now, her allegations are still true. All that I said on that note is that bias and politics are motives to fabricate. And, they are. We don't know. The timing of the release of information is relevant to determining whether a possible motive exists. So, when I say that it would be better if the matter is reported when there is no possible political motive, it's to rule that out. Saying that there is a possible motive is not to say it must be the assumed motive. It's a possible motive.

I think there's a difference between Ms Blasey Ford being championed for coming forward and people championing her allegations. People actually have been making excuses for this kind of behaviour based on age, hormones, alcohol, and the decades between then and now...

“We’re talking about a 17-year-old boy in high school with testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn’t done this in high school. Please, I would like to know.” -- Gina Sosa, CNN

"There was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Really?" -- Irina Vilareño, CNN

"The thing happened—if it happened—an awfully long time ago, back in Ronald Reagan’s time, when the actors in the drama were minors and (the boys, anyway) under the blurring influence of alcohol and adolescent hormones. No clothes were removed, and no sexual penetration occurred. The sin, if there was one, was not one of those that Catholic theology calls peccata clamantia—sins that cry to heaven for vengeance." -- Lance Morrow, Wall Street Journal

"“If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.” — Whitehouse lawyer, Politico

I'm curious why you have to keep repeating the fact that some people lie, and some people lie about things like historical sexual abuse...

It has often been stated that keeping the matter to oneself is consistent with what some women do when they've had an incident like this happen. I'm not denying that. However, it is also true that not saying anything about an incident for 30+years is also consistent with that incident not happening.

You imply that there's more to this than just acknowledgement of the fact that 'some people lie'. You imple a kind of equivalence between lying about being a victim of historical sexual abuse and lying about being a victim of history sexual abuse - that given the "30+years" it's just as likely to be a lie as not. When it comes to allegations of historical sexual abuse what proportion of accusers do you think are actually liars?

What kind of corroboration do you think might support a "30+years" allegation of sexual abuse? Do you think the high standards of evidence required to secure a criminal conviction are appropriate here, or do you think just having reasonable cause to believe the allegations, just enough to cast doubt on Mr Kavanaugh's denial that he didn't try and rape a 15 year old when he was 17 would suffice? The Senate committee rooms are not criminal courts, so what might be the appropriate standard of evidence and and level of examination for Senators to undertake?

I accept that Ms Blasey Ford "doesn't have to be lying to be wrong", but doesn't that apply to Mr Kavanaugh's denials as well? You didn't address the point about applying the same 'all people lie' statement to Mr Kavanaugh, about whether we can be assured by the same measures applied to Ms Blasey Ford that he's not a liar himself, and if we cannot then what do you think that does for his nomination? If we are to acknowledge the possibility that Ms Blasey Ford's motives are political, again, can we not apply the same kind of acknowledgements to Mr Kavanaugh's denials also?

[laklak]

Ok. He's not a rapist. Just a sexual assaulter. Thanks for sorting that out. We can now rest easy.

Alleged sexual assaulter. Accusation =/= guilt.

[Animavore]

Ok. He's not a rapist. Just a sexual assaulter. Thanks for sorting that out. We can now rest easy.

Alleged sexual assaulter. Accusation =/= guilt.

Probably not. I just don't get why you thought that posting a link that shows it's not technically rape, if anything, helps anything.

[Cunt]

Ok. He's not a rapist. Just a sexual assaulter. Thanks for sorting that out. We can now rest easy.

Alleged sexual assaulter. Accusation =/= guilt.

I think an accusation of sexual assault is equal to a conviction of rape, to Animavore. Not joking here, either. I doubt Animavore will change their mind about this Kavanaugh fellow, or the events, no matter what is discovered as far as evidence goes.

Why not ask Animavore what they think of the Jian Gomeshi case? That should make it clear how rational they are about this subject.

[laklak]

Well, there's a pretty big difference in the two. The same difference, under Maryland law, as simple assault and murder. If someone was defending themselves against a simple assault accusation, I wouldn't characterize them as a murderer, nor say their supporters were apologizing for murder.

Just to be clear, I'm not a Kavanaugh "supporter". I don't know what, if anything, happened between Ms. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh, I'm waiting for her testimony and his response. But I don't like the rush to judgment, and I particularly don't like the idea that a witness in a Senate investigation is trying to dictate terms for her testimony, particularly when her unsupported (and denied by all other parties) accusations are the cause for this circus in the first place. I would certainly not be given that latitude, they'd issue a subpoena and armed men would physically drag me into the chamber.

[Cunt]

Well, there's a pretty big difference in the two. The same difference, under Maryland law, as simple assault and murder. If someone was defending themselves against a simple assault accusation, I wouldn't characterize them as a murderer, nor say their supporters were apologizing for murder.

Just to be clear, I'm not a Kavanaugh "supporter". I don't know what, if anything, happened between Ms. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh, I'm waiting for her testimony and his response. But I don't like the rush to judgment, and I particularly don't like the idea that a witness in a Senate investigation is trying to dictate terms for her testimony, particularly when her unsupported (and denied by all other parties) accusations are the cause for this circus in the first place. I would certainly not be given that latitude, they'd issue a subpoena and armed men would physically drag me into the chamber.

As with other victims of false accusations, she will be able to withdraw, go back to her job and life, with no consequences. Kavanaugh may lose, but she won't. It's a 'no-lose' situation for the democrats. Nearly 'no-lose' for the accuser, too.

What kind of consequences should false accusers face?

[laklak]

Would depend on the accusation and why it was false. It it's a mistake or faulty memory or other non-vindictive reason then it's one thing, but if it's a calculated lie then I'd subject them to the same penalties as the alleged offense. But I can get a bit Old Testament at times.

[laklak]

Or I might shoot them and drop them in 10,000 feet of water tied to a bunch of concrete blocks. Depends on my mood at the time.

[Animavore]

Well, there's a pretty big difference in the two. The same difference, under Maryland law, as simple assault and murder. If someone was defending themselves against a simple assault accusation, I wouldn't characterize them as a murderer, nor say their supporters were apologizing for murder.

Just to be clear, I'm not a Kavanaugh "supporter". I don't know what, if anything, happened between Ms. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh, I'm waiting for her testimony and his response. But I don't like the rush to judgment, and I particularly don't like the idea that a witness in a Senate investigation is trying to dictate terms for her testimony, particularly when her unsupported (and denied by all other parties) accusations are the cause for this circus in the first place. I would certainly not be given that latitude, they'd issue a subpoena and armed men would physically drag me into the chamber.

Fair enough.

[Svartalf]

                      

!!1!	NOTMOD C'mon boys and girls, take five and calm down.

[Tero]

Kavanaugh will just go back to his lower court job and keep ruling in favor corporations and Jesus against the citizens. He’ll be the same asshole he was before. Nothing lost.

[Svartalf]

shit... well, I still am not so sure they won't get him confirmed before the elections.

[Cunt]

I expect that he will be confirmed. It isn't because he deserves it that I think so, it's because his critics have failed to make a case against him.