RJF
Well-Known Member
I take it you’re in the camp that doesn’t care if a good man’s reputation is tarnished by false accusations if it means bringing down the patriarchy?
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire
- Thread starter Zombie
- Start date
- Status
I take it you’re in the camp that doesn’t care if a good man’s reputation is tarnished by false accusations if it means bringing down the patriarchy?
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Again, you’re wrong.
It’s not a “won’t somebody think of the men” issue. It’s an issue of “we must believe the accused is a filthy sex pervert even when there is no evidence.”
Not one witness that Judge has mentioned can corroborate the story, not even her lifelong friend. There were supposedly 5-6 people at this house party, and yet all of them say it wasn’t at their house, and it wasn’t at Judge’s house. I always want to believe the accuser, but there has to be some semblance of proof or evidence. In this case, there is absolutely none. Not one first hand witness. Not one.
But I’m not saying Kavanaugh is innocent either! I’m saying, let’s wait. Let’s let both of them testify. The people rushing the gun claiming they know...that’s the larger problem.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
As you've no doubt noticed, no one here is calling for this guy to be strung up. We just want an investigation. And, yeah, actually there is a first hand witness, the woman who was assaulted. Anyway, we've gone the rounds regarding why Kavanaugh has less credibility, eg lying under oath. At this point it's obvious unless there's an actual photo or video of the assault occurring you right wingers are going to continue to pretend that this is all just so unfair. Even though all we are asking for is for these women to be taken seriously, and for this confirmation not to be rushed though for political reasons.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
I feel like this detail about the Martinez accusation is getting lost in the noise a bit. From the New Yorker magazine article:
The classmate said that he is “one-hundred-per-cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez, including that a male student had encouraged Kavanaugh as he exposed himself. The classmate, like Ramirez, recalled that the party took place in a common room on the first floor in Entryway B of Lawrance Hall, during their freshman year. “I’ve known this all along,” he said. “It’s been on my mind all these years when his name came up. It was a big deal.” The story stayed with him, he said, because it was disturbing and seemed outside the bounds of typically acceptable behavior, even during heavy drinking at parties on campus. The classmate said that he had been shocked, but not necessarily surprised, because the social group to which Kavanaugh belonged often drank to excess. He recalled Kavanaugh as “relatively shy” until he drank, at which point he said that Kavanaugh could become “aggressive and even belligerent.”
The classmate said that he is “one-hundred-per-cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez, including that a male student had encouraged Kavanaugh as he exposed himself. The classmate, like Ramirez, recalled that the party took place in a common room on the first floor in Entryway B of Lawrance Hall, during their freshman year. “I’ve known this all along,” he said. “It’s been on my mind all these years when his name came up. It was a big deal.” The story stayed with him, he said, because it was disturbing and seemed outside the bounds of typically acceptable behavior, even during heavy drinking at parties on campus. The classmate said that he had been shocked, but not necessarily surprised, because the social group to which Kavanaugh belonged often drank to excess. He recalled Kavanaugh as “relatively shy” until he drank, at which point he said that Kavanaugh could become “aggressive and even belligerent.”
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Who’s supposed to investigate it?
The FBI has said they’re not going to. They don’t want to. They don’t have to.
There is no proof. There is no evidence. 4 of the 5 first hand witnessed by Ford’s account have testified under the threat of perjury that they don’t recall the event, the party, and one said they’ve never met the accused. The only first hand who hasn’t testified under oath? The accuser.
The isn’t about being left wing or right wing. It’s the idea that accusations should have some credibility to them in order to be investigated.
You continually ignore that nobody, not even her friend, can or will corroborate her story. That doesn’t concern you? Like...doesn’t concern you at all? It concerns me! And luckily, I can say that I’ve never been sexually assaulted. It has happened to immediate family though. I’m not blind to the reality of what happens. But there needs to be some proof! Other credible accusers. Unfortunately, there is none of that. There’s nothing, but that still doesn’t bother you.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
The FBI can't investigate unless directed to reopen Kavanaugh's background check by the white house, which they can absolutely do.
The very nature of the crime means that the vast majority of sexual assaults take place without additional first hand witnesses.
Now, like I said I don't think he should be locked up, but her testimony in addition to the second accusation, which does include independently confirmed details, should be enough for us to say, yeah maybe this guy shouldn't get a lifetime appointment.
Last edited:
In order for anyone to investigate (whether police, FBI, etc.), some basic details would have to be alleged, including time and place, one or more corroborating witnesses, or other facts that could be verified or disproved. The problem with this allegation is that there aren't any facts that can be verified. No one seems to know the time or place. No one is corroborating. There's no possibility of forensic evidence from so long ago (e.g., marks, bruises, etc.). There's nothing definitive for an investigator to go on. It's just one person's hazy memory vs. another person's denial. No investigation is going to be conclusive, and this will end in a stalemate.
So either you apply the principle that Kavanaugh is presumed innocent until shown to be guilty, or you just end his nomination in an abundance of caution because a woman said so.
The people who are going to vote against Kavanaugh's confirmation are likely the same people who have opposed it from day one. The people who support Kavanaugh probably still support him. In either case, this has become a political circus.
So either you apply the principle that Kavanaugh is presumed innocent until shown to be guilty, or you just end his nomination in an abundance of caution because a woman said so.
The people who are going to vote against Kavanaugh's confirmation are likely the same people who have opposed it from day one. The people who support Kavanaugh probably still support him. In either case, this has become a political circus.
Last edited:
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Is it surprising to anyone that Ronan Farrow did a better job of finding this story than the NYT?
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
But...but I thought y’all didn’t want Trump to tell the FBI what to do?! I guess that’s just situational.
Typically everything sexually is second hand. Fortunately, the accuser gave us 4 first hand accounts. Each one of them has, under oath, denied it.
As for the second accuser...the New York Times wouldn’t even run it. Again, another situation with multiple parties present and zero first hand corroboration. The accuser herself recently had to be convinced it happened. To call it credible seems premature.
Again, despite stories having multiple first hand witnesses, some of them the friends of the accusers, we have absolutely zero first hand corroboration of the stories. Even you have to admit that’s odd.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Don't be a dumbass, of course it's appropriate for the president to have the FBI do background checks on its Supreme Court nominees. That's standard practice. I don't know that it's all that odd that Ford doesn't have any corroborating witnesses, half of the people allegedly at the party are implicated in the accusation (all of them are in the case of Martinez), and everyone was drinking. My understanding wasn't that Martinez wasn't sure she got assaulted, she just wasn't sure it was Brett. Other students at Yale who heard about this happening have pointed the finger at him, and independently offered up corroborating details. His own college roommate found it plausible. Again, I agree this is not enough evidence for a criminal trial, but Supreme Court noms have been pulled for far, far less.
Last edited:
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
It is standard practice for the FBI to do a background check! They already did one! They have said they’re not going to investigate this. The only person unwilling to go under oath so far has been...Ford.
Ford’s story just doesn’t add up. The people she said were there, deny it. Including her friend. Her friend, who is not implicated in anything. For there to be an investigation there needs to be credibility.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Trump needs to not tell the FBI who or what to investigate or not investigate!!!
Trump needs to tell the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh!!!
Trump needs to tell the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh!!!
Red
Well-Known Member
I think you mean not one witness that Ford has mentioned? Anyway, Ford said there was one eyewitness. Mark Judge. He denies being a witness to any such thing. He also says he does not want to testify. But what makes him so special that he cannot be called to testify via a subpoena? Republicans will not call him via subpoena. Personally, I can't prove it, but I suspect he does not want to testify because he does not want to lie under oath. If he's telling the truth, inconvenience the poor man. Make him make his statement under oath.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
And the White House, as has been done before, can order the FBI to reopen their background check investigation. Learn some history.
Her friend doesn't deny it, she actually says she doesn't recall it, not surprising after 35 years, after all no one's memory is perfect. What I don't understand, is if you think Ford is making it up, why would she add a bunch of details that complicate things for her, like admitting to being drunk, placing another witness in the room. Someone who was just making **** up wouldn't do that.
Smart enough to realize Ford put her reputation at risk, and signed on for years of harassment, to make this testimony. That's a lot to risk for a lie.
That Ford has described what happened to her is a fact. If you are waiting for DNA evidence, there will be none. Outside of that, what sort of facts are you waiting for?
- Status