What's new
By:
Filters

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stars Fan said:
No one wants to validate a smear job. Where ugly accusations are used to undermine an honorable character. That said, not all accusations are smears. Dr Blassy_Ford is, to me, a credible witness. Several things make me believe that.
1. Her initial disclosure was not to the media or even to the Senator. Hey initial disclosure was to a marriage counselor in 2012.
2. She puts a third person in the room who could verify or discredit her account. And that third person is a friend of the guy she is accusing.
3. Her willingness to stand up for her accusations publicly. She initially asked the Senator to keep her name confidential. That is consistent with most trauma victims. Once the committee had outed her, she was willing to put her name to it and stand behind it. Together, those facts make me think she is credible.

Im not sure if a drunken grope at a teenage beer bash is an indictment that should totally discredit the judge though. But if he lies about it, and the friend corroborates it... what does that say about his current character. There are plenty of teenage foibles that people grow out of. However, to take the offensive against the accuser is more worrisome. Own it and apologize. Or stand your ground. Which would you prefer the judge do?

Presume he is guilty. What should he do?

Now presume he is innocent. What should he do?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
You find her claim more credible because she said there was another person in the room, even though that person claims they were never in a room where any such thing happened? I don't see how that helps her case at all.

If this attempted rape happened it's a terrible thing, but memory is not reliable. She can't remember when it happened, she can't remember where it happened, how do we know that she isn't mis-remembering who it happened with? It's unfortunate when justice cannot be served, but this is part of the reason that the statute of limitations exists. There is literally no evidence other than a 30+ year old memory, and anyone who thinks memory (even of important events) is reliable over that length of time is lying to themselves.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
You find her claim more credible because she said there was another person in the room, even though that person claims they were never in a room where any such thing happened? I don't see how that helps her case at all.

If this attempted rape happened it's a terrible thing, but memory is not reliable. She can't remember when it happened, she can't remember where it happened, how do we know that she isn't mis-remembering who it happened with? It's unfortunate when justice cannot be served, but this is part of the reason that the statute of limitations exists. There is literally no evidence other than a 30+ year old memory, and anyone who thinks memory (even of important events) is reliable over that length of time is lying to themselves.
Click to expand...
That person claims they spent their youth in a state of perpetual blackouts, and said they have no recollection of it. I suppose it's possible that she is misremembering, but the same could be said of Kavenaugh. I find it interesting that the faulty memory argument only seems to be applied in one direction. In any case I think there's reasonable doubt that he's innocent and that is enough for me to say he shouldn't be sat on the highest court in the country for life.

Remember this isn't a court of law, this man's freedom isn't at stake, so the burden of proof ought to be much lower, imo. What evidence we do have, eyewitness testimony that had been related to her therapist (with notes taken) many years ago, is strong enough for me to find her credible.
 
Zombie said:
Actually, the FBI is responsible for background checks of Supreme Court nominees.
Click to expand...

Right you are! The FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information.
 
JustTheTip said:
Right you are! The FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information.
Click to expand...
Evidence of sexual assualt that could plausibly be used as blackmail seems to fit the bill.
 
JustTheTip said:
The burden of proof shouldn’t change based on what is at stake.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it should. The standard we use for crimes is guilty beyond reasonable doubt because individual liberty is at stake. This guy is simply up for a promotion. C'mon.

Edited to add, as I was typing this Trump said himself there shouldn't be any doubt. I know his word isn't often worth much, but I'm happy to follow that standard.
 
Last edited:
Zombie said:
Evidence of sexual assualt that could plausibly be used as blackmail seems to fit the bill.
Click to expand...

1) That’s a pretty big stretch.

2) He’s already been accused. That essentially takes the blackmail away. Usually the blackmail comes before the media attention buddy. It’s not like the Russians have a videotape of the alleged rape.
 
JustTheTip said:
1) That’s a pretty big stretch.

2) He’s already been accused. That essentially takes the blackmail away. Usually the blackmail comes before the media attention buddy. It’s not like the Russians have a videotape of the alleged rape.
Click to expand...
It's certainly within the realm of possibility that if indeed he did attempt to rape Ford, it wasn't an isolated incident. I think it makes sense for federal investigators to take another look.
 
Zombie said:
It's certainly within the realm of possibility that if indeed he did attempt to rape Ford, it wasn't an isolated incident. I think it makes sense for federal investigators to take another look.
Click to expand...

It is within the realm of possibility!

Much like Nassar, Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, etc.

One would certainly think that with the amount of media attention, with the stakes at hand, that somebody would’ve come forward by now. Obviously a very hard thing to do, but as recent history has shown us, something that has happened in recent allegations against high profile people.

Some could argue that the lack of other women coming forward is some type of evidence. I don’t think I would argue that, but some people could.


Anyways, Feinstein didn’t ask the FBI to look for other cases. The FBI was asked to look into a specific case. Your argument doesn’t hold up.
 
JustTheTip said:
It is within the realm of possibility!

Much like Nassar, Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, etc.

One would certainly think that with the amount of media attention, with the stakes at hand, that somebody would’ve come forward by now. Obviously a very hard thing to do, but as recent history has shown us, something that has happened in recent allegations against high profile people.

Some could argue that the lack of other women coming forward is some type of evidence. I don’t think I would argue that, but some people could.


Anyways, Feinstein didn’t ask the FBI to look for other cases. The FBI was asked to look into a specific case. Your argument doesn’t hold up.
Click to expand...

I'm not terrible invested in it either way, but it doesn't seem too crazy to have a federal agency investigate claims of a violent crime involving a Supreme Court candidate.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
You find her claim more credible because she said there was another person in the room, even though that person claims they were never in a room where any such thing happened? I don't see how that helps her case at all.

If this attempted rape happened it's a terrible thing, but memory is not reliable. She can't remember when it happened, she can't remember where it happened, how do we know that she isn't mis-remembering who it happened with? It's unfortunate when justice cannot be served, but this is part of the reason that the statute of limitations exists. There is literally no evidence other than a 30+ year old memory, and anyone who thinks memory (even of important events) is reliable over that length of time is lying to themselves.
Click to expand...
That she relates her memory of this traumatic experience as she remembers it, without regard for the potential negative consequences of having an unsupportive witness is compelling to me. If she were making this up, too smear the judge, why add that detail? To me it says that is how she remembers things going down.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Stars Fan said:
That she relates her memory of this traumatic experience as she remembers it, without regard for the potential negative consequences of having an unsupportive witness is compelling to me. If she were making this up, too smear the judge, why add that detail? To me it says that is how she remembers things going down.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
I think you are probably right. That is how she remembers it. That doesn't mean it is how it actually happened. The same can be said for Kavanaugh. I think he is likely being honest about what he remembers, but I'll bet there is a ton about his teenage years which he no longer remembers accurately.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
You find her claim more credible because she said there was another person in the room, even though that person claims they were never in a room where any such thing happened? I don't see how that helps her case at all.

If this attempted rape happened it's a terrible thing, but memory is not reliable. She can't remember when it happened, she can't remember where it happened, how do we know that she isn't mis-remembering who it happened with? It's unfortunate when justice cannot be served, but this is part of the reason that the statute of limitations exists. There is literally no evidence other than a 30+ year old memory, and anyone who thinks memory (even of important events) is reliable over that length of time is lying to themselves.
Click to expand...
As for faulty or incomplete memory, that's how it works with trauma. I work with vets, many of whom suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Injuries. (I generally oppose the use of the commonly used PTSD tag as it stigmatizes the issue. ) Many of them have vivid images and memories of specific parts of the event, e.g. the smell in the air, the color of the car etc., and yet not remember other things like why they were on the mission or in that location in the first place. Sexual trauma is very similar, from the limited people I have worked with that have experienced it, and from the literature I have read. I would not discount her story based her not recalling whose house the party was at.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Zombie said:
I probably shouldn't have just trusted you were right when you said the FBI only does background checks as they relate to national security. Turns out that's not the case at all.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pb...nvestigation-behind-supreme-court-nominations
Click to expand...

1) I’m just quoting the US DOJ. That’s exactly what they said.

2) The FBI does a background interview, as detailed in the article you quoted.

3) “White House lawyers are scouring a life's worth of information about President Barack Obama's potential picks for the Supreme Court, from the mundane to the intensely personal.”

Notice who’s doing the investigating. It’s the justice department.



But honestly, I’m not a legal expert. I’m just going by what the DOJ says, which I’m sure you won’t agree with. That’s fine.
 
JustTheTip said:
1) I’m just quoting the US DOJ. That’s exactly what they said.

2) The FBI does a background interview, as detailed in the article you quoted.

3) “White House lawyers are scouring a life's worth of information about President Barack Obama's potential picks for the Supreme Court, from the mundane to the intensely personal.”

Notice who’s doing the investigating. It’s the justice department.



But honestly, I’m not a legal expert. I’m just going by what the DOJ says, which I’m sure you won’t agree with. That’s fine.
Click to expand...
The FBI is a part of the justice department. TMYK.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I think you are probably right. That is how she remembers it. That doesn't mean it is how it actually happened. The same can be said for Kavanaugh. I think he is likely being honest about what he remembers, but I'll bet there is a ton about his teenage years which he no longer remembers accurately.
Click to expand...
You are right of course. It does not prove that it did, or did not, happen. I doubt we will ever have definitive proof on something like this.

I also think he has more to gain by misremembering than she does. There may be others who remember her at the party (or the judge) and can remember or add to the picture. There is little chance they come forward if this gets rushed through. Is it worth taking time to investigate the story? Or do we rush to judgement with the incomplete picture we have now?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top