How important is what we did in high school? Kavanaugh accusation

[clwnuke]

"Crying is not corroboration. Anger, however righteous, is not evidence."

That quote from this article pretty much sums up this entire time-wasting political abwasser.

https://www.city-journal.org/ford-kavanaugh-testimony-16199.html

[anatess2]

And Kavanaugh passes the Judiciary Committee.  All the Democrats on the committee walked out before the vote was concluded.

This is the current state of your Democratic Party, ladies and gentlemen.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, clwnuke said:

"Crying is not corroboration. Anger, however righteous, is not evidence."

That quote from this article pretty much sums up this entire time-wasting political abwasser.

https://www.city-journal.org/ford-kavanaugh-testimony-16199.html

To be fair...the anger was less by way of presenting evidence, but by way of condemning the circus that was perpetrated without evidence.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To be fair...the anger was less by way of presenting evidence, but by way of condemning the circus that was perpetrated without evidence.

See, here’s something that maybe someone can help me understand.

Technically speaking, a witness statement *is* evidence.  It is accurate to say that there is no contemporaneous, corroborating evidence.  But Ford’s statement is “evidence”.  Accusations, if made of purportedly personal knowledge and observation,, are evidence.  

Now, the Dems sitting on the info is obviously a hugely gross thing to do.  But what I’m detecting, TFP—and correct me if I’m wrong—but you seem to be working from an assumption that Ford never should have been called to testify at all.

And I guess my question is, what should the Senate have done with Ford?  More generally, what criteria does an accuser of a judicial nominee need to meet before the Senate says “gee, we’d better actually meet with this lady”?

Edited September 28, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

and correct me if I’m wrong

Depends on what you mean. What should have happened is as soon as the Dems got the info it should have been shared and they should have willingly joined the investigation, as the Senate has the right and obligation to do, and when all parties involved swore, as they did, that they didn't know what Ford was talking about, then they (the Dems and Repubs), weighing that against the testimonies of Ford and Kavanaugh, should have concluded that Ford must be mistaken based on the lack of evidence. Whether Ford's testimony should have been the public media circus it was...well that's a different matter. I'm not sure she needed to testify in front of the nation like she did. But that she shouldn't have been called to testify at all? I do not hold that position.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And I guess my question is, what should the Senate have done with Ford?  More generally, what criteria does an accuser of a judicial nominee need to meet before the Senate says “gee, we’d better actually meet with this lady”?

Here's the way it works (yes...I know...patronizing the lawyer...silly me...). The accuser has the burden of proof. Period.

Edited September 28, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

Aaaanndd... the doxxing of Orin Hatch, et al, was traced to Maxine Waters’ office.

Remember, Maxine was that congresswoman that called for the harassment of all Republicans - kick them out of restaurants, their jobs, etc etc.

That woman needs to be investigated.

Edited September 28, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Depends on what you mean. What should have happened is as soon as the Dems got the info it should have been shared and they should have willingly joined the investigation, as the Senate has the right and obligation to do, and when all parties involved swore, as they did, that they didn't know what Ford was talking about, then they (the Dems and Repubs), weighing that against the testimonies of Ford and Kavanaugh, should have concluded that Ford must be mistaken based on the lack of evidence. Whether Ford's testimony should have been the public media circus it was...well that's a different matter. I'm not sure she needed to testify in front of the nation like she did. But that she shouldn't have been called to testify at all? I do not hold that position.

Here's the way it works (yes...I know...patronizing the lawyer...silly me...). The accuser has the burden of proof. Period.

On your first point—I wonder if the Senate even *could* have had a closed camera-free hearing if they’d wanted to; given freedom-of-information acts and whatnot.

On your second point—what standard of proof?  Beyond a reasonable doubt?  Clear and convincing?  Preponderance?  Probable cause to believe misconduct occurred?  Reasonable articulable suspicion?  Scintilla of belief?

And, is that standard of proof (whichever you choose) the same one you’d apply in hiring a police officer?  A DMV worker?  An employee at your local McDonald’s?  A babysitter for your kids?

If Kavanaugh (or any other job candidate) is somehow “entitled” to a SCOTUS seat, why isn’t he “entitled” to be alone with my kids?

Or is he?

Edited September 28, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On your second point—what standard of proof?  Beyond a reasonable doubt?  Clear and convincing?  Preponderance?  Probable cause?  Reasonable articulable suspicion?  Scintilla of belief?

Yes. (Edit: I should be clear. I don't have the lawyer vocabulary to really answer this. I could google each of these and interpret...but I figure we'll hash it out as you go about ripping me a new one in response  ).

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And, is that standard of proof (whichever you choose) the same one you’d apply in hiring a police officer?  A DMV worker?  An employee at your local McDonald’s?  A babysitter for your kids?

With the exception of babysitter for your kids...where I believe one can apply any extra caution no matter how unfair they want... yes. Yes. Yes. YES.

What's the alternative? Anyone who wants to get at anyone for anything at any time only need make the accusation. Boom. Done. Done and done. Oh...and throw in a few tears and some solid acting for good measure. Double boom. Fired. Not hired. Kicked out. Black listed. Burned at the stake. Hanged.

I cannot say this emphatically enough.

YES!!!

Edited September 28, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1]Yes.

[2]With the exception of babysitter for your kids...where I believe one can apply any extra caution no matter how unfair they want... yes. Yes. Yes. YES.

What's the alternative? Anyone who wants to get at anyone for anything at any time only need make the accusation. Boom. Done. Done and done. Oh...and throw in a few tears and some solid acting for good measure. Double boom. Fired. Not hired. Kicked out. Black listed. Burned at the stake. Hanged.

I cannot say this emphatically enough.

YES!!!

1.  Sorry, I think I drifted into legalese there.  When I ask about “standard of proof”, what I’m asking is, “how sure do we have to be?”  The standards I cited are all different levels of certainty and represent the level of proof needed to find someone criminally guilty, versus to take their kids into state custody, versus to compel them to disgorge money in a lawsuit, versus to get a search warrant, versus for a cop to stop and detain someone in the street.  

Put another way—how sure do we have to be that Kavanaugh acted inappropriately, before we deny him a seat?  100%?  99%?  75%?  51%?  25%?  5%?

2.  As a private employer, you’d be ok being *forced* to hire a guy that someone else—another employee, maybe; or your own daughter—claimed had raped her?  

You fear the Scylla that would allow any well-qualified, virtuous candidate to be destroyed with spurious accusations.  I fear the Charybdis wherein personal virtue is deemed irrelevant and rape becomes a de facto permissible activity for persons charged with the enforcement of our laws.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Sorry, I think I drifted into legalese there.  When I ask about “standard of proof”, what I’m asking is, “how sure do we have to be?”  The standards I cited are all different levels of certainty and represent the level of proof needed to send someone to jail, versus to take their kids, versus to win money in a lawsuit, versus to get a search warrant, versus for a cop to stop and detain someone in the street.  

For all of the above: More sure than a single person's claims and crying.

Take McD's, where you, having flunked out of law school, now work. Some girl who works there goes to the manager and claims she saw you spit in a burger. What does the manager do? Ask you? You deny. Asks the other employer who were there? They deny? Your work record is impeccable. So what does he do? Fire you anyway? Of course not.

Now, granted, it's more complicated than that...but the point remains.

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Put another way—how sure do we have to be that Kavanaugh acted inappropriately, before we deny him a seat?  100%?  99%?  75%?  51%?  25%?  5%?

Based on what?

Feelings?

What standard do we use to quantify our confidence? Because that's the core of my complaint. It's less related to how sure we need to be and more related to WHY are we sure -- at...we'll say...92%?

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2.  As a private employer, you’d be ok being *forced* to hire a guy that someone else—another employee, maybe; or your own daughter—claimed had raped her?  

I'm not sure where the "forced" comes into play.

But I stand by my view. The burden of proof (whatever standard applies) still has to be on to the employee/daughter.

The "evidence" for the proof varies. How well do you know the employee? The man accused? The daughter? Etc. (Character counts). But at some level, if you don't have corroborating evidence of some sort, a person should not be denied things on the mere say-so of someone who may be motivated to hurt you or flat out mistaken.

I don't typically say this to you...but I'm legitimately confused. Why isn't this obvious?

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You fear the Scylla that would allow any well-qualified, virtuous candidate to be destroyed with spurious accusations.  I fear the Charybdis wherein personal virtue is deemed irrelevant and rape becomes a de facto permissible activity for persons charged with the enforcement of our laws.

Acting on fear of the Charybdis alone is guaranteed doom. Fear of the Scylla is one of the core principles upon which the rule of law in our great nation has been established. Without it, we crumble.

The rule of law is the rule of law. Would you honestly rather we toss it out?

We must find a way to address both. We cannot cast aside the one for the other, and we morally must not cast out the other for the one.

Why am I suddenly mindful of mercy and justice as taught in the Book of Mormon?

Unfortunately, not having the full wisdom of God, I don't have a perfect solution to two things that seem at odds.

[anatess2]

@The Folk Prophet @Just_A_Guy, why must we bring Sting into this?  He did nothing wrong.

🤗

[anatess2]

@The Folk Prophet @Just_A_Guy

Back to our regular scheduled programming:

I believe in innocent until proven guilty - the bedrock of the US Constitution that elevates it from every other governing body in the planet.

This means - you treat Kavanaugh as innocent until you prove him guilty.  Put the guy in SCOTUS according to regular procedure.  This doesn’t mean Ford et al is done.  This means they move forward with their accusations until they provide credible evidence to prove Kavanaugh guilty at which point Kavanaugh is guilty and needs to be impeached.

There’s a reason we want CONSTITUTIONALIST judges, not liberal, not conservative.  We want to go back to a time when the principles of the Constitution actually mattered.

[Vort]

Just now, anatess2 said:

I believe in innocent until proven guilty - the bedrock of the US Constitution that elevates it from every other governing body in the planet.

This applies to defendants in a court of law, not to people being appointed (or elected) to positions of trust. If Politician X seems like a scummy person and a liar, I have no legal or moral obligation to give her the benefit of the doubt until she is proven guilty. Kavanaugh's public crucifixion is a travesty and a stain on the integrity, not just of our governmental leaders (read: Democrats), but on the American people who accept and even encourage such. But the fact that he is not given a presumption of innocence in this matter is not in itself something bad. I would think that something approaching "preponderance of evidence", or at least "reasonable likelihood", should be the prevailing standard in such a case.

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There’s a reason we want CONSTITUTIONALIST judges, not liberal, not conservative.  We want to go back to a time when the principles of the Constitution actually mattered.

I'm pretty sure the two people you mention agree with you (and me) on this point. Probably most (certainly not all) members of this list think a constitutionalist justice is the only acceptable appointment. But again, that doesn't mean that "innocent until proven guilty" applies here. That is a very high standard of proof, one that has let countless guilty perpetrators walk free because it could not be met. That's not the pool of people I want to select from when deciding who will be sitting on the Supreme Court.

[anatess2]

39 minutes ago, Vort said:

This applies to defendants in a court of law, not to people being appointed (or elected) to positions of trust. If Politician X seems like a scummy person and a liar, I have no legal or moral obligation to give her the benefit of the doubt until she is proven guilty. Kavanaugh's public crucifixion is a travesty and a stain on the integrity, not just of our governmental leaders (read: Democrats), but on the American people who accept and even encourage such. But the fact that he is not given a presumption of innocence in this matter is not in itself something bad. I would think that something approaching "preponderance of evidence", or at least "reasonable likelihood", should be the prevailing standard in such a case.

I'm pretty sure the two people you mention agree with you (and me) on this point. Probably most (certainly not all) members of this list think a constitutionalist justice is the only acceptable appointment. But again, that doesn't mean that "innocent until proven guilty" applies here. That is a very high standard of proof, one that has let countless guilty perpetrators walk free because it could not be met. That's not the pool of people I want to select from when deciding who will be sitting on the Supreme Court.

A Federal Investigation is only done when there’s evidence of a crime.  The Mueller investigation was done with manufactured evidence that’s how it became an investigation SEEKING a crime and therefore unconstitutional.  The Kavanaugh investigation is the same unless you’re going to posit that Ford provided sufficient evidence to investigate a crime.

You don’t use the FBI just because you want to know if a guy is scummy.  That’s what character references and a senate hearing are for to which Kavanaugh has passed (not scummy) for decades as to have served with honor at the 2nd highest court in the land and passed judiciary committee hearings for SCOTUS.  You use the FBI to investigate crimes, therefore, Ford will have to come up with sufficient evidence to trigger an investigation at which time Kavanaugh can be impeached.

Edited September 29, 2018 by anatess2

[Colirio]

Well, lets see then:

 

1. Doesn't know the month. Doesn't know the week.Doesn't know the day of the week. Doesn't know what time of day. Doesn't know what house. Dowsnt know a general location of the house. Doesn't know how she got there. Doesn't know how she got home. Doesn't remember how many people were there. Doesn't remember whether the music was turned down afterwards. Drank some alcohol. Remembers hearing talking downstairs, but then changes mind and just assumes they were talking downstairs because she can't remember if the music was turned down or not. Doesn't tell her parents. Doesn't tell her friends. Finally tells her therapist 30 years later. No corroborating testimony or evidence. All witnesses say they do not remember this having happened. 

 

But yes... 100% certain it was Brett Kavanaugh! 

 

Versus:

 

2. Never been accused of any sexual crimes previously. Hundreds of character witnesses of the opposite sex willing to state under oath that it's not in his character to do something like this. Has calendar logged events of where he was during the summer in question demonstrating that most of the time was spent out of town. No calendar days seem to corroborate going to such a gathering where the incident supposedly took place. Denies it happened under oath. 

 

 

Yessiree. 

That definitely merits a full investigation from the FBI.... 😉

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Well, lets see then:

 

1. Doesn't know the month. Doesn't know the week.Doesn't know the day of the week. Doesn't know what time of day. Doesn't know what house. Dowsnt know a general location of the house. Doesn't know how she got there. Doesn't know how she got home. Doesn't remember how many people were there. Doesn't remember whether the music was turned down afterwards. Drank some alcohol. Remembers hearing talking downstairs, but then changes mind and just assumes they were talking downstairs because she can't remember if the music was turned down or not. Doesn't tell her parents. Doesn't tell her friends. Finally tells her therapist 30 years later. No corroborating testimony or evidence. All witnesses say they do not remember this having happened. 

 

But yes... 100% certain it was Brett Kavanaugh! 

 

Versus:

 

2. Never been accused of any sexual crimes previously. Hundreds of character witnesses of the opposite sex willing to state under oath that it's not in his character to do something like this. Has calendar logged events of where he was during the summer in question demonstrating that most of the time was spent out of town. No calendar days seem to corroborate going to such a gathering where the incident supposedly took place. Denies it happened under oath. 

 

 

Yessiree. 

That definitely merits a full investigation from the FBI.... 😉

[anatess2]

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Take McD's, where you, having flunked out of law school, now work.

By the way, @Just_A_Guy, I hope this came across in the light-hearted messing around way I meant it and not like I was implying you weren't a good lawyer or something. Reading it back it struck me it might be taken wrong.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

A Federal Investigation is only done when there’s evidence of a crime.  The Mueller investigation was done with manufactured evidence that’s how it became an investigation SEEKING a crime and therefore unconstitutional.  The Kavanaugh investigation is the same unless you’re going to posit that Ford provided sufficient evidence to investigate a crime.

You don’t use the FBI just because you want to know if a guy is scummy.  That’s what character references and a senate hearing are for to which Kavanaugh has passed (not scummy) for decades as to have served with honor at the 2nd highest court in the land and passed judiciary committee hearings for SCOTUS.  You use the FBI to investigate crimes, therefore, Ford will have to come up with sufficient evidence to trigger an investigation at which time Kavanaugh can be impeached.

I don't know how to argue against this. I must conclude that you are right. It's all a political puppet show, both the Democrap demands and the White Horse capitulation.

But I'm not bitter! No cynicism here!

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

If Politician X seems like a scummy person and a liar, I have no legal or moral obligation to give her the benefit of the doubt until she is proven guilty.

They have been proven guilty... of seeming like a scummy person and a liar. 

It's not that the standard is higher. It's that the criteria for dis-qualification is much lower.

[Just_A_Guy]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

By the way, @Just_A_Guy, I hope this came across in the light-hearted messing around way I meant it and not like I was implying you weren't a good lawyer or something. Reading it back it struck me it might be taken wrong.

No worries.   I haven’t replied yet because I think my reply will be a bit lengthy and I’m posting with a phone at present.  Will hopefully be in front of a laptop tomorrow morning. 

[anatess2]

USA Today folks.  They got a week to cook up a pedophilia allegation.

[SpiritDragon]

I feel that this article expresses my current feelings on the matter quite well.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-most-obvious-creeps-in-the-kavanaugh-circus-are-the-journalists

I just wish more people would wake up to the fact that journalism is in a sad sad state.

 

[mordorbund]

On 9/28/2018 at 7:01 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

On your second point—what standard of proof?  Beyond a reasonable doubt?  Clear and convincing?  Preponderance?  Probable cause to believe misconduct occurred?  Reasonable articulable suspicion?  Scintilla of belief?

Can you comment on where in the spectrum "preponderance-of-the-evidence" falls? Is that the line for taking a criminal accusation to trial? Is that the line for disqualifying a candidate from joining your law practice? The line for disqualifying a neighbor from watching your kids?

ETA: forgot to add context: https://www.scribd.com/document/389844826/Analysis-of-Christine-Ford-Allegations-and-Timeline-Rachel-Mitchell-Nominations-Investigative-Counsel

Edited October 2, 2018 by mordorbund

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Can you comment on where in the spectrum "preponderance-of-the-evidence" falls? Is that the line for taking a criminal accusation to trial? Is that the line for disqualifying a candidate from joining your law practice? The line for disqualifying a neighbor from watching your kids?

ETA: forgot to add context: https://www.scribd.com/document/389844826/Analysis-of-Christine-Ford-Allegations-and-Timeline-Rachel-Mitchell-Nominations-Investigative-Counsel

That's a really interesting read (your link) thanks!