Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

[MindTrap028]

The most dominate story right now, is in regards to sexual assault accusations for the Supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
CNN provides a timeline of events that ends on the 17th.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/polit...ine/index.html

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/th...sation-circus/
Provides an alternative time line.

The distinction between these two time lines can effect how we view the situation. The first by CNN is from the point of view of the accuser, and is more a time line of her experience then of ours.
So if we put ourselves in her shoes, then we may be more sympathetic to her claims. The second is more a reflection of how the general public experienced this story, and that may make us less sympathetic to her, and more to Kavanaugh. This is how, from the first time line, this doesn't come out of no where, but was building over time. From the second time line, the timing seem purely political. Opponents waiting till the last possible moment to drop an anonymous bombshell accusation to achieve a delay with political hopes of delaying till power changes.

For me, I take the second point of view. The first view is not established fact, it is gossip, these are unsupported allegations with internal problems, and denial from direct witnesses.
Internal problems because her current story, doesn't line up with the evidence she is offering.
From CNN timeline link

While at couples therapy with her husband, Ford told the Post she described the alleged incident in detail for the first time. Her husband, Russell Ford, recalled to the Post that she talked during their 2012 sessions about the incident, mentioning Kavanaugh's last name and that he was a federal judge who might be on the Supreme Court eventually. Ford provided portions of the therapist's notes to the paper, which described an incident without mentioning Kavanaugh by name. The Post said the notes referred to four boys involved, which Ford said was an error made by her therapist. Ford told the Post four boys at the party, but only two were in the room.

Denied by direct (alleged) witnesses

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/polit...ugh/index.html

"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

Another friend and classmate of Kavanaugh's, Mark Judge, has been named as the other person who was in the room when the alleged incident took place. Judge has also denied the incident happened.

And that is the state of things. We have an accusation, and 3 denials from people supposedly at the event. What can we do with that? Is that enough to ruin a carrier? There are some who say, even if it did happen it doesn't matter because it was so long ago, and wasn't really that big a deal. I don't subscribe to that, if it did happen I agree that it should be one of those things that comes back to haunt you in life. But we don't know that it happened, and I am not fond of public opinion trails.

I would say that due to the nature of the whole event, and some of the ridiculous demands, that I am highly disinclined to believe the event actually occurred. One of her demands is that Kavanaugh defend himself before she makes her accusations. Which is patently absurd, and is a move for maximum political damage. The very first thing that rubbed me the wrong way, was that we were supposed to have a negative reaction and stop the whole proceedings based on an ANONYMOUS accusation. That is more absurd then expecting the accused to defend himself before hearing charges. It should be viewed as a major problem that "justice" and "truth" are thought to be perused in this way. This is how kangaroo courts work, and it is really unworthy of the process for placement on the highest court in the land.


One sympathy I have for those who say it doesn't matter, is that I do believe people can redeem themselves. I believe people can change. It certainly doesn't appear that Kavanaugh currently reflects the kind of person that would do that kind of thing. It is horrible, and it is a bad thing, but I was all for Ben Carson, and he admitted to attempting to stab someone. The reason that was powerful story FOR him being qualified, was specifically because he was no longer that person. My point is, its not like we are currently faced with the possibility of appointing a monster to the highest court. (That is making a lot of assumptions we shouldn't make, just giving worst case scenario IMO).


Not very interesting is a story about the lawyers inconsistency.. Debra Kats is the accusers lawyers.. But who really cares about the moral standard of lawyers?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...n-franken.html

[mican333]

She apparently told her therapist, in 2012, that she was assaulted as a teenager at a party and specifically said Kavanaugh's name.

If we ask ourselves why such a thing was said at the time, the most likely reason is because the event in question actually happened. I can't think of any particularly likely alternative to that. It doesn't seem more likely that she was lying about the incident and it doesn't seem likely that she is sincere but completely mistaken about that event. Either of those alternatives are possible but just not as likely as that she is sincere and correct in her accusations.

And she also wants the FBI to look into it. Would that happen if she didn't think it actually happened? Of course not.

She likewise said another person was in the room. Would someone who was lying about what another person did to her add a witness, who could be questioned about the incident, to the story? Of course not.

So the notion that Ford is just flat-out lying seems extremely unlikely. And given that any modicum of logical examination of the facts of the case should lead one to think that there's at least "smoke", I can see no logical and sincere argument for not wanting to investigate the claim as thoroughly as possible before voting on Kavanaugh.

So can we agree that at at the very least, a full investigation should take place before the vote?

This is how, from the first time line, this doesn't come out of no where, but was building over time. From the second time line, the timing seem purely political. Opponents waiting till the last possible moment to drop an anonymous bombshell accusation to achieve a delay with political hopes of delaying till power changes.

One can credibly accuse Democrats of being sleazy with how they handled the allegation but that does not equate a valid reason to think that the person who made the accusation, including speaking about six years prior to now, is not genuine.

One sympathy I have for those who say it doesn't matter, is that I do believe people can redeem themselves. I believe people can change. It certainly doesn't appear that Kavanaugh currently reflects the kind of person that would do that kind of thing. It is horrible, and it is a bad thing, but I was all for Ben Carson, and he admitted to attempting to stab someone. The reason that was powerful story FOR him being qualified, was specifically because he was no longer that person. My point is, its not like we are currently faced with the possibility of appointing a monster to the highest court.

But then you pointed out a very significant difference. Ben Carson ADMITTED his past misdeeds which does show a level of contrition and owning up to past misdeeds and can be seen as an indication that he is indeed a much better person than his younger self. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, has denied the allegations which means that, assuming he did it, is the kind of person who will lie about his past misdeeds and therefore is committing an immoral action TODAY and is not seeking forgiveness or contrition for past sins.

And let's not forget the stakes here. This about appointing a person who will have a huge influence on our country for likely decades to come. There are lots of qualified people for that role and nothing less than the best of them should be given that seat. So "maybe he's not a monster" isn't reassuring. We need to KNOW he's not a monster or at the least have very good reason to think that he's not a person who sexually assaults a classmate as a teenager and lies about it today.

So again, the notion that this credible claim should not be thoroughly investigated before the vote seems pretty bizarre to me. You can say you aren't convinced that he did it. But I can't imagine that you don't want as much evidence examined as possible before we make a decision either way.

I mean we do want to be as certain as possible either way. If he didn't do it, then we should be as certain as we can be that he didn't do it so he's not under a cloud of suspicion from now on.

[MindTrap028]

She apparently told her therapist, in 2012, that she was assaulted as a teenager at a party and specifically said Kavanaugh's name.

There is no evidence to support that. The notes she provided did not name a person. Her husband says he recalls it I think, and that is the only evidence we have.

If we ask ourselves why such a thing was said at the time, the most likely reason is because the event in question actually happened. I can't think of any particularly likely alternative to that. It doesn't seem more likely that she was lying about the incident and it doesn't seem likely that she is sincere but completely mistaken about that event. Either of those alternatives are possible but just not as likely as that she is sincere and correct in her accusations.

So then we throw out the witness of the other 3 people that were said to be there?

And she also wants the FBI to look into it. Would that happen if she didn't think it actually happened? Of course not.

There is a scenario in which they would. namely if she is lying, making a demand they know will not be met. Such as the FBI investigating something it would not investigate.

She likewise said another person was in the room. Would someone who was lying about what another person did to her add a witness, who could be questioned about the incident, to the story? Of course not.

So then we assume the other two liars? This is the problem with not applying the standard evenly.

So the notion that Ford is just flat-out lying seems extremely unlikely. And given that any modicum of logical examination of the facts of the case should lead one to think that there's at least "smoke", I can see no logical and sincere argument for not wanting to investigate the claim as thoroughly as possible before voting on Kavanaugh.

I would say the same thing about the other two witnesses. We have no reason to call anyone a liar, but we have no reason to think the accusation is truthful.

So can we agree that at at the very least, a full investigation should take place before the vote?

That depends.. if she is not willing to actually make the accusation in a place that it counts .. like under oath. Then there simply isn't anything to investigate.
you have one accusation and 3 denials.

One can credibly accuse Democrats of being sleazy with how they handled the allegation but that does not equate a valid reason to think that the person who made the accusation, including speaking about six years prior to now, is not genuine.

Actually, it does. Because politics are dirty, and if it starts off dirty, it discredits itself. If the senator didn't think it was serious months ago when she first had it, I see no reason for us to suddenly take it serious.
If the accuser doesn't take it serious enough to actually make the accusation for the legal record, then I see no reason why we should take it more serious than that.
Also, don't mistake what she says as "facts". She did indeed speak of AN incident. But we have no evidence to connect it to the judge.

But then you pointed out a very significant difference. Ben Carson ADMITTED his past misdeeds which does show a level of contrition and owning up to past misdeeds and can be seen as an indication that he is indeed a much better person than his younger self. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, has denied the allegations which means that, assuming he did it, is the kind of person who will lie about his past misdeeds and therefore is committing an immoral action TODAY and is not seeking forgiveness or contrition for past sins

That is true. My point is that doesn't make him a monster. Flawed yes. Flawed so that many are justified in denying him the position.. Yes.
Flawed so as to make him the worst possible person to sit on the bench... not so much, he has done an upstanding job for the last 35 years (or whatever).

And let's not forget the stakes here. This about appointing a person who will have a huge influence on our country for likely decades to come. There are lots of qualified people for that role and nothing less than the best of them should be given that seat. So "maybe he's not a monster" isn't reassuring. We need to KNOW he's not a monster or at the least have very good reason to think that he's not a person who sexually assaults a classmate as a teenager and lies about it today.

No my point was that even if it is true, he is not a monster. That is not what is at stake. That is an extreme, and we have no current reason to believe it to begine with.

So again, the notion that this credible claim should not be thoroughly investigated before the vote seems pretty bizarre to me. You can say you aren't convinced that he did it. But I can't imagine that you don't want as much evidence examined as possible before we make a decision either way.

"as much examination as possible". No, not really, because we simply aren't that far into the process. We don't even have a legit accuser yet. If she won't take the stand.. then that is the end of it. No further investigation necissary.

I mean we do want to be as certain as possible either way. If he didn't do it, then we should be as certain as we can be that he didn't do it so he's not under a cloud of suspicion from now on.

I want legitimate reason to doubt. "just cause" so to speak. Right now we don't have that. Without that we are wrong to act in a fashion that is not supported.
What are we to deny him based on how it currently stands?


--------

We need to KNOW he's not a monster or at the least have very good reason to think that he's not a person who sexually assaults a classmate as a teenager and lies about it today.

We already have that.
1) the presumption of incense.
2) The testimony of 2 witnesses
3) His History of integrity, and his denial of the events.

To say we don't currently have that, is to start with the presumption of guilt.

[CowboyX]

Kavanaugh has a problem with the truth:

"Last week, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of repeatedly misleading the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings. “Brett Kavanaugh used materials stolen from Democratic senators to advance President Bush’s judicial nominees,” the committee’s ranking member tweeted. “He was asked about this in 2004, 2006 and this week. His answers were not true.”"

[Belthazor]

So then we throw out the witness of the other 3 people that were said to be there?

@Mican
I am not saying this claim is true, but since you haven't responded to it in your rebut, I must assume you believe it is true. If the accused and the only three witnesses all disagree with the plaintiff story, it dramatically reduces her believability, especially if there is no other corroborating evidence. Sure, he could still be guilty, but the timing of the accusation and apparent lack of anything but her word gives a subtle sense of, as you say, "sleazy" politics.
I would suggest being careful of such types of claims in these situations. After all, even if he was confirmed to the Supreme court, if her accusations were found to have merit, he would still be tried and sentenced if found guilty.

I haven't fallowed the story very closely but if what you both are saying is basically the truth, I think a much more compelling case should be made before stopping the confirmation process.

[MindTrap028]

Kavanaugh has a problem with the truth:

An uninteresting democrat propaganda piece.. Not really relevant here.
Unless you are going to call the other "witnesses" liars as well.
Also, "accusations" =/= an actual crime. Even if it is Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein making the accusations.
Your own link says that kavenaugh never saw any memo's in order to copy them. So.. your link doesn't support the "accusation".

I am not saying this claim is true, but since you haven't responded to it in your rebut, I must assume you believe it is true. If the accused and the only three witnesses all disagree with the plaintiff story, it dramatically reduces her believability, especially if there is no other corroborating evidence. Sure, he could still be guilty, but the timing of the accusation and apparent lack of anything but her word gives a subtle sense of, as you say, "sleazy" politics.
I would suggest being careful of such types of claims in these situations. After all, even if he was confirmed to the Supreme court, if her accusations were found to have merit, he would still be tried and sentenced if found guilty.

I haven't fallowed the story very closely but if what you both are saying is basically the truth, I think a much more compelling case should be made before stopping the confirmation process.

Kavanaugh would not be tried for any kind of assault. The statue of limitations is long over. It is simply too late for him to have any criminal punishment for the actual crime.

The only thing he can be punished for is perjury. Which ..would probably require a trial.. that isn't going to happen, because .. again the limitation on it has passed.


At the very least the lesson is, don't wait 30 years to make accusations.

[Belthazor]

Kavanaugh would not be tried for any kind of assault. The statue of limitations is long over. It is simply too late for him to have any criminal punishment for the actual crime.

The only thing he can be punished for is perjury. Which ..would probably require a trial.. that isn't going to happen, because .. again the limitation on it has passed.


At the very least the lesson is, don't wait 30 years to make accusations.

I heard that Kavenaugh had regression therapy a while back and said he had committed crimes in an previous life! Shoot him, shoot him!

Sarcasm aside, I see this as a possible "tool" for political opposition. So far the case appears to have very limited merit. Keep the nomination going till confirmation/rejection or a more credible reason not to is presented.

I wonder if a third party would help our current state of affairs or would it make it worse (off topic question, sorry)?

[Sigfried]

I was thinking of making a blog post about all this...

I've followed it by headlines more than reading details in articles. Mostly, I'm glad I don't have to make a decision in this case because I think it is not an easy decision to make. Here are some questions and my thoughts on them....

1. What is the significance of the allegation if true?
I'm not sure. The kinds of cases they hear tend not to involve judgments about case facts, guilt or innocence. They rule on the meaning and application of law. Sympathy and pathos can come into decisions, but only tangentially and it isn't supposed to. So I don't think it shows a problem with his ability to do the work of the court.

I could say it shows a disrespect for the law, but drunk college guys tend to not be thinking very clearly or rationally. Thus I don't think it would really bare on his legal views.

Ethically it is very problematic, though a judges ethical character isn't really an essential aspect of the job unless we are talking about political corruption. Still, it is a prestigious office and represents a pinnacle of American political virtue so there is symbolic cause to only elect the most exemplary among us to the bench. But that is about the only reason it bares consideration from that standpoint.

I think its greatest significance is as an example of the greater social movement to reduce sexual violence against women. So far, most of these have been either purely in the political or entertainment world. The legal/judicial world is more serious and sober.

2. What standards of judgment are appropriate?
Innocent until proven guilty is bandied about. It's a good starting point. But we tend to use this in reference to criminal standards, and the "proof" there is a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is a very strong standard. And it exists as a check against the power of the state to oppress innocent people. Partly because the power of the state is near absolute.

But this is not a criminal proceeding. It's a job interview. It involves the government, but it is not passing judgment or punishment, it is considering if this is the right person for a given job. In a job interview, is innocent until proven guilty the standard? And is "beyond a reasonable doubt" the standard of evidence? Generally not. It tends to be that when we get any sence of a candidates weakness or incompatibility we simply disreguard them with hardly any need for proof. The mere suspicion of a problem is enough to turn us away in most cases.

In these social judgments, it really comes down to a level of trust. Who do you trust, why do you trust them? And the standard is much closer to civil court standards which is "a preponderance of evidence". So if one side is a bit stronger than the other, you go with that. No need for complete certainty.

3. Who should we believe in this case?
For starters, we are dealing with human memory here, on both parties. We know for a fact that human memory is pretty unreliable when it comes to precise details. It can be altered, it can be inaccurate, and it can be fabricated. It can also be influenced by drugs such as alcohol with is undoubtedly involved in this case.

Yet, we pretty much have little choice but to rely out our memory in many situations. And most memories are not fabrications. They may be loose on the specifics, but whether you were raped or not is something beyond niggling details. Not to say its rock solid, but it's also not as sketchy as say, remembering an exact license plate or the details of someones clothing, things we are actually really bad at as a general rule.

We also have to weigh the possibility that people are lying. We know that people can and do lie.

So how do we judge these possibilities?

I haven't seen anything indicating either party is a habitual liar. I know some have said Kavanaugh lied in some of his testimony, but from what I saw it wasn't blatant or obvious.

Both Ford and Kavanaugh have corroborating witnesses to some degree. Hers attest that she didn't invent her claim for the current political situation, his include the other person accused saying that the event never happened.

Motivation wise, Kavanaugh has more at stake to lie. He stands to gain one of the highest offices in the nation and his whole career and reputation are partly on the line. That is a lot of motivation. Ford has less at stake here. She doesn't personally gain much here, especially considering she doesn't have a record of seeking fame and attention (which would be a plausible motivation). She might gain monitarily from this, but it's no guarantee. And she'd have to have been planning it far enough back to make the therapist remark... that seems pretty far fetched.

Memory is where Ford has some tricky ground to work with. How sure was she of who assaulted her? She admittedly is foggy on when and where it took place. That's honest, but it does call into question if other details are accurate or are post-event construction.

Kavanaugh is only not-remembering. Mind you, not remembering you did a thing doesn't mean you didn't do a thing. Judge, the other guy he was alleged with, writes extensively about being a drunken frat boy, and Kavanaugh was his buddy and just as into going to parties and getting smashed as he was. Drunk people do all kinds of things they don't remember doing the next day. Drunk guys often smash on girls and act with less moral character than they would when sober.

Judge is Kavanaugh's direct witness and has similar but weaker reasons to lie, but the same or worse relaibility for memory of the incident.

Mind you, Ford was also at this party, and may well have been drunk too, so her memory may be weakened as well. But... she does have a memory, so something happened most likely, exactly what is the difficult part. how was she sure who it was that assaulted her?

On balance, I think that Kavenaugh has a weaker case here because of his reputation as a drinking party animal, his strong motivation to lie, and the fact that no memory is less evidencial than some memory of an event.

That's not exactly a gangbusters case. It would never fly in a criminal court. But... perponderance of evidence is a tipping situation. If I was forced to judge, Id judge it is more likely than not that he did do this. I'd guess that he honestly doesn't remember the incident because he was drunk at the time and it was just a minor moment in the life of a party animal. As where for the girl, it was a frightening moment where she thought she might become a rape victim.

[mican333]

First off, let me make my overall argument.

1. The allegations are CREDIBLE. That does not mean that it's been proven that he did it but that the claim is, well, credible and assuming that him actually committing the alleged result is a reason for concern, then the credible claim is a reason for concern and we need to know, as best as we can learn, how truthful the claim is. Therefore, prior to a vote, there should be a solid investigation which would be the FBI investigation that Ford is asking for.

So in short - there should be an FBI investigation and full hearing on the matter before a vote proceeds.

There is no evidence to support that. The notes she provided did not name a person. Her husband says he recalls it I think, and that is the only evidence we have.

No, named or not, she claimed that a classmate assaulted her to a therapist and the odds that she was lying to her therapist are minuscule. And she has made it clear that she was referring to Kavanaugh who was indeed a classmate of hers. So that is strong evidence that she discussed Kavanaugh assaulting her years before the confirmation hearing and was not lying.

So then we throw out the witness of the other 3 people that were said to be there?

One didn't say that it didn't happen but just that he was unaware of it happening. And the other two, being parties to the alleged assault, have a strong incentive to lie where the accuser, especially back in 2012, had no incentive to lie.

That's not to say that we ignore any and all claims that they didn't do it but we CERTAINLY have to take the claim that it happened seriously. Unless one really does not care if it actually happened (and there are those who apparently think that way and if you are one of those people, then we should just focus the debate here since whether he did it or not would be irrelevant to you), then we need to take the accusation seriously and investigate further

There is a scenario in which they would. namely if she is lying, making a demand they know will not be met. Such as the FBI investigating something it would not investigate.

Since the FBI did investigate Anita Hill's charges against Clarence Thomas, her thinking that an FBI investigation would never happen seems incredibly uniikely.

So again, the fact that she demands an FBI investigation gives her claim great credibility.

So while I don't hold that there's any smoking gun, I have fully supported that her claim is very credible and should be taken seriously and investigated fully.

So then we assume the other two liars? This is the problem with not applying the standard evenly.

While she is more credible than they are (for reasons already provided), if we want to hold that they are equally credible (which is about the best one can do here), we can say the odds that he did it are 50/50. So again, we need to investigate. I mean whether he did it or not, knowing the truth (or at least having a better idea of which side of the story is more likely to be accurate) will be beneficial.

If he did it, knowing that he did it would obviously be a good thing for reasons I don't think need explaining.
If he didn't do it, knowing that he didn't do it would be very beneficial as well since people will be less likely to falsely think that we put someone who committed such an act on the highest court in the land.

The fact that Kavanaugh and Republicans don't want to fully investigate the claim looks suspicious - like they don't want the truth to come out because they fear that it will reveal that the claim against him is true. Whether that is the case or not, that's how it looks to many people and will continue to look even after he's confirmed (assuming he is) and therefore it will taint the SCOTUS in people's eyes and weaken trust in the institution.

Speaking for myself, the opposition to a full investigation on the accusations is one of the reasons I think he probably did it.

I would say the same thing about the other two witnesses. We have no reason to call anyone a liar, but we have no reason to think the accusation is truthful.

Yes we do have reasons. To repeat"

1. She discussed it years prior to now with a therapist.
2. She is calling for an FBI investigation
3. She placed a witness at the event (which a liar is not likely to do)
4. She has no identifiable motive for lying

Maybe that's enough to convince you that the claim is credible (but then as far as I can tell, what it takes to convince anyone in particular is rather subjective) but I think those items give one more reason to think he did than if those things did not exist.

That depends.. if she is not willing to actually make the accusation in a place that it counts .. like under oath. Then there simply isn't anything to investigate.
you have one accusation and 3 denials.

But she is definitely willing to testify under oath. And there is plenty to investigate either way.

I have heard from people that I talked to that she told classmates of the event shortly after it allegedly happened and that her personality identifiably changed after it happened (which would help narrow down the time of the alleged attack). So obviously questioning former classmates could provide corroboration of the alleged assault. Maybe only one other person could have witnessed the alleged incident but there might be many other people that can shed some light on what did or did not happen.

Actually, it does. Because politics are dirty, and if it starts off dirty, it discredits itself. If the senator didn't think it was serious months ago when she first had it, I see no reason for us to suddenly take it serious.
If the accuser doesn't take it serious enough to actually make the accusation for the legal record, then I see no reason why we should take it more serious than that.
Also, don't mistake what she says as "facts". She did indeed speak of AN incident. But we have no evidence to connect it to the judge.

Considering she named the judge we do have evidence to connect him to it. And she is willing to testify under oath that he did it so she is taking it seriously enough for that. And an accusation does not discredit itself based on what politics does with it - if you are going to claim otherwise, you will need to support that claim.

That is true. My point is that doesn't make him a monster. Flawed yes. Flawed so that many are justified in denying him the position.. Yes.
Flawed so as to make him the worst possible person to sit on the bench... not so much, he has done an upstanding job for the last 35 years (or whatever).

Well, how good a candidate he would be regardless of the assault accusation is very much a debatable issue (but that's another debate).

And you don't have to be the worst possible person for the bench for it be a good idea to not confirm. Just falling short of being one of the best possible persons for the bench is reason enough. It's one of the most important positions in the US and we absolutely want the best people on the Supreme Court, both in terms of competence and morality and I hope it goes without saying that a person who commits sexual assault as a teenager and then lies about it today falls far short of being one of the best persons for the job.

So lets get this out of the way. I'm going to forward a premise and if you don't challenge it, then it stand as true for this debate.

PREMISE - A man who has committed sexual assault as a teenager and then currently lies about it cannot reasonably be considered one of the best candidates for a Supreme Court position because there are clearly better candidates available.

"as much examination as possible". No, not really, because we simply aren't that far into the process. We don't even have a legit accuser yet. If she won't take the stand.. then that is the end of it. No further investigation necissary.

She is clearly willing to take the stand so that is not a concern. She just wants the investigation done first so whatever established facts there are in place before she is grilled on the stand.

I want legitimate reason to doubt. "just cause" so to speak. Right now we don't have that. Without that we are wrong to act in a fashion that is not supported.
What are we to deny him based on how it currently stands?

Who are we to deny the US the best possible candidate for the Supreme Court because we aren't willing to investigate a credible claim that, if true, would clearly show that he is not the best possible candidate?

To be clear, the closest real-world scenario that this approximates is a job interview. If one can can gives us reason to believe that he is amongst the very best persons for the job, we should give him the job. If it looks like there are better candidates for the job, then we should turn down the applicant in favor of a better applicant. And it should go without saying that we need to make sure that the current applicant is indeed one of the best persons for the job PRIOR to hiring him.

So as analogy, if you were running a company and needed to fill one of the most important and skilled positions in your company and you have what seems to be solid candidate but someone credibly claim, but has not proven, that he sexually assaulted a co-worker (assume that's a deal-breaker in this analogy), you would want to find out if he actually did it before you hired him. And when you told him that you are considering investigating the claim, he says he doesn't want you to. There's no way that I would hire that guy without first looking into the allegation. Again, I don't owe him that job. He has to show me that he's qualified and I need to be sure that he's qualified before I give him the job and I would feel that I owe it to the company to be as sure as I can be that he didn't commit sexual assault before I hire him.

So I have hard time taking seriously any argument that says that we should not investigate such a claim. I mean this is a decision that will significantly effect the course of this country for decades. We can't take a few days to find out if the candidate is lying about committing sexual assault as a teenager?

We already have that.
1) the presumption of incense.
2) The testimony of 2 witnesses
3) His History of integrity, and his denial of the events.

No, that is not enough for us to KNOW that he's not a monster.

The presumption of innocence is an assumption, not an established fact (you ASSUME one is innocent until prove otherwise, you don't KNOW he's innocent). Conflicting witnesses (some say he did, another says he didn't) likewise don't give us reason to think we KNOW the truth and considering that a vast majority of his papers have not been made available (quite unprecedented and suspicious as well) I don't think we know about his history much at all.

To say we don't currently have that, is to start with the presumption of guilt.

I'm not presuming he's guilty. I'm saying WE DON'T KNOW IF HE'S GUILTY SO LET'S DO ALL WE CAN TO FIND OUT.

[MindTrap028]

@Sig, I think you kinda make a jump at the end there. Or maybe an assumption that isn't really justified. You make great point about how memory can effect this, but you make the faulty assumption that the only two options are her story and his.
It is also possible, that an event did occur between them, but it wasn't an attempt at rape at all. Just two people messing around, and she just took certain actions to be something they were not.

I am more trouble that you think the side with the witnesses (multiple) have the weaker case. She has no witness to the event other than herself. There is a giant gap between "she remembers something, so something clearly happened" and "This man shouldn't get the job because he is guilty of attempted rape".

A possible motivation you may have missed. Even though she made a reference to the event in 2012. She is not inherently clear of political motivation, as he was still in public office at the time. Only if she had recounted the event prior to his political involment could she be cleared of possible monetary motivation.

Finally, you appeal to "preponderance of evidence", but all of the "evidence" that we have so far is on his side. Which is to say, zero hard evidence of the event, and all the witnesses agree with the judge. So I think you are giving undue preference to one witness over the other 3.

--Memory, and missing context.
There is a huge part of the story that isn't available to us. Namely, how did they end up in that bedroom together. Young girls can put themselves in sexual situations they later don't like, and they blaime the men for it.
I mean, the story says she was in a bathing suit... if a girl and a dude end up in bed and all she has on is her underwear on.. chances are pretty good the dude is going to try and get that to come off. That is why he went to the bedroom with her to begin with.
That doesn't paint a deviant rapist picture.
But people are treating this like he was waiting behind the bushes as she walked home from church.

I am really curious to know if she was drinking at the party... that detail seems to be absent so far. Given she can't remember a lot of stuff (like how many people were in the room off of the notes of her past testimony, that she now says are mistaken), I would say it is probably likely.

1. What is the significance of the allegation if true?

yea I think people have placed too much weight on the extreme of he must be a monster if this occurred. Like it would have been a very bad thing, but to me.. if they are all drunk at a party, that is the kind of stuff that happens.

2. What standards of judgment are appropriate?

The "innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with ultimate standard of guilt that we hold too. Be it beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence.
What it means is that we can't simply assume you did things without evidence and reason. If ultimately the reason here is an accusation is made. Then that is very low indeed. And frankly that is all this woman can do.
For a normal job interview, yea I am kinda with the theme of your segment. But I think in the political realm there is just too much going on.

I mean, do you think that at any time in our political history, a woman made a false sexual assault charge for political motivations, such as being paid secretly to falsify evidence and her story?
VS
Do you think that is equally as common to an other profession. Like a guy goes to interview for a job as a plumber, and some woman makes a false accusation to the boss for monetary/fame/ideological gain?

To me, we must at least be aware that politics is dirty, and that it is possible a person would falsify evidence against a political opponent, for fame, money, revenge, or ideological gain. Especially if that "evidence" is nothing more than an accusation.

What sets off my alarms for the latter, is political timing. Which in this case, it is pretty clear that is a motivator, which means the "for ideological gain" has merit.

---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 AM ----------

So in short - there should be an FBI investigation and full hearing on the matter before a vote proceeds.

Nope, that is not the roll of the FBI. The FBI would never investigate such an allegation.

No, named or not, she claimed that a classmate assaulted her to a therapist and the odds that she was lying to her therapist are minuscule. And she has made it clear that she was referring to Kavanaugh who was indeed a classmate of hers. So that is strong evidence that she discussed Kavanaugh assaulting her years before the confirmation hearing and was not lying.

No, you are inserting Kavanaugh into that account, when he was not part of it at the time. Her testimony at the time to the therapist does not include Kavanaugh.
Which means, you may have evidence that SOMETHING happened. But it isn't evidence that it involved Kavanaugh, or that she reference or named him EVER before this point.
Which is a significant detail.

One didn't say that it didn't happen but just that he was unaware of it happening. And the other two, being parties to the alleged assault, have a strong incentive to lie where the accuser, especially back in 2012, had no incentive to lie.

This is troubling.. because it applies to anyone who was ever falsly accused.
If I accused you of raping anyone... you too would have a "strong incentive to lie". Because anyone who actually rapes has a strong incentive to lie.
However, that is not evidence that you are lying. And possible motivation seems to be treated here in the thread ... as actual lying.

So you are right now calling 3 people liars and the woman is the truth teller.. because .. she wouldn't lie or fabricate a story about a political person in 2012?

Since the FBI did investigate Anita Hill's charges against Clarence Thomas, her thinking that an FBI investigation would never happen seems incredibly uniikely.

So again, the fact that she demands an FBI investigation gives her claim great credibility.

So while I don't hold that there's any smoking gun, I have fully supported that her claim is very credible and should be taken seriously and investigated fully.

So, you don't think she had any legal counsel in making the demands? And you don't think the legal counsel would know that the FBI investigated the anita Hill stuff, because Clarence Thomas was a federal employee?
And that this allegation is not covered in that?

While she is more credible than they are

Why is one person more credible than 3?
How does that work?

I mean, I get that she has some credibility here.. where as if she were a prostitute I would throw it out, outright. To say she is more credible than 3 other upstanding citizens? That is simply sexist.

if we want to hold that they are equally credible (which is about the best one can do here), we can say the odds that he did it are 50/50. So again, we need to investigate. I mean whether he did it or not, knowing the truth (or at least having a better idea of which side of the story is more likely to be accurate) will be beneficial.

Your starting from an invalid position, if you are saying there is a 50% chance he did it. You are starting with a presumption of guilt (50%).
Also, see my post to sig. You too are making the mistake of reducing this to only two possibilities. It is also possible that something happened, but it wasn't actually criminal or attempted rape.

The fact that Kavanaugh and Republicans don't want to fully investigate the claim looks suspicious - like they don't want the truth to come out because they fear that it will reveal that the claim against him is true. Whether that is the case or not, that's how it looks to many people and will continue to look even after he's confirmed (assuming he is) and therefore it will taint the SCOTUS in people's eyes and weaken trust in the institution.

Speaking for myself, the opposition to a full investigation on the accusations is one of the reasons I think he probably did it.

Currently, there is nothing to investigate, until an actual charge is legally filled. As there is no place to file any charges, there will be no investigation.
The ONLY place she can post a grievance is with the Senate body, who ARE INVESTIGATING IT, by asking her to come and testify... which she has been unwilling to do.. and as far as I know may not actually do.

So you are simply wrong in your expectations, and that is due to how this has been framed politically by her and her lawyer, and by the democratic senators. Which.. is due to a political motivation, and not a truth motivation.

Yes we do have reasons. To repeat"

1. She discussed it years prior to now with a therapist.
2. She is calling for an FBI investigation
3. She placed a witness at the event (which a liar is not likely to do)
4. She has no identifiable motive for lying

Maybe that's enough to convince you that the claim is credible (but then as far as I can tell, what it takes to convince anyone in particular is rather subjective) but I think those items give one more reason to think he did than if those things did not exist.

To be clear, I think she is credible. I think you are equating that with being the holder of ultimate truth, and I think you are mistaken in that presumption.

But she is definitely willing to testify under oath. And there is plenty to investigate either way.

I have heard from people that I talked to that she told classmates of the event shortly after it allegedly happened and that her personality identifiably changed after it happened (which would help narrow down the time of the alleged attack). So obviously questioning former classmates could provide corroboration of the alleged assault. Maybe only one other person could have witnessed the alleged incident but there might be many other people that can shed some light on what did or did not happen.

First, I don't think it is clear. They wanted him to not be nominated based on an anonymous letter. .. then when she was asked to show up, she was anything but "clearly willing" to show up. There is a lot of dog and pony show going on about this accusation, and it doesn't lend it credibility. It does the opposite.

Considering she named the judge we do have evidence to connect him to it. And she is willing to testify under oath that he did it so she is taking it seriously enough for that. And an accusation does not discredit itself based on what politics does with it - if you are going to claim otherwise, you will need to support that claim.

There is an important distinction I keep trying to point out.

People are pointing to here therapy session as evidence she has accused the judge in the past, and thus it is not new.
The evidence doesn't support that, because the evidence she offers does not NAME HIM. Sure, she is naming him NOW, but the only piece of evidence we have doesn't name him.
It is a subtle distinction.

It is only the HUSBAND, that has said she has spoken of the judge at that thing.

When she testifies, then we can speak to what that means.. so far she has not, and has balked at the chance. I actually do half suspect she is going to back out last minute.

PREMISE - A man who has committed sexual assault as a teenager and then currently lies about it cannot reasonably be considered one of the best candidates for a Supreme Court position because there are clearly better candidates available.

I have already said that this is the kind of thing that should come back and haunt you.

She is clearly willing to take the stand so that is not a concern. She just wants the investigation done first so whatever established facts there are in place before she is grilled on the stand.

Which is unreasonable. She also wanted Kavenaugh to speak first... which is really, really, really, really stupid. She basically desires an unfair trial to be held.
She expects an impossible investigation.

Who are we to deny the US the best possible candidate for the Supreme Court because we aren't willing to investigate a credible claim that, if true, would clearly show that he is not the best possible candidate?

To be clear, the closest real-world scenario that this approximates is a job interview. If one can can gives us reason to believe that he is amongst the very best persons for the job, we should give him the job. If it looks like there are better candidates for the job, then we should turn down the applicant in favor of a better applicant. And it should go without saying that we need to make sure that the current applicant is indeed one of the best persons for the job PRIOR to hiring him.

So as analogy, if you were running a company and needed to fill one of the most important and skilled positions in your company and you have what seems to be solid candidate but someone credibly claim, but has not proven, that he sexually assaulted a co-worker (assume that's a deal-breaker in this analogy), you would want to find out if he actually did it before you hired him. And when you told him that you are considering investigating the claim, he says he doesn't want you to. There's no way that I would hire that guy without first looking into the allegation. Again, I don't owe him that job. He has to show me that he's qualified and I need to be sure that he's qualified before I give him the job and I would feel that I owe it to the company to be as sure as I can be that he didn't commit sexual assault before I hire him.

So I have hard time taking seriously any argument that says that we should not investigate such a claim. I mean this is a decision that will significantly effect the course of this country for decades. We can't take a few days to find out if the candidate is lying about committing sexual assault as a teenager?

I am not arguing that they should not investigate. I am arguing for what kind of investigation is going to take place.
The FBI is not the proper body. Just like the local police are not the proper body. This is partly due to the fact that the accusation is simply too little too late.
If she would have made the accusation 35 years ago, when the indecent allegedly occurred, then the local police would have investigated, maybe the school body.
Now the only body that has authority to investigate, are doing exactly that by asking her to tell them what happened. Right now they have NOTHING that they should act on.
And thus if yesterday they were going to confirm him, nothing has been set before them that should change that. So far, all they have is rumors.. and they should not act on rumors over the evidence of his 30 year service to the country.

No, that is not enough for us to KNOW that he's not a monster.

HAHA.. DUDE we have to ACT like we know. That is what the presumption of innocence is. Yea, we are not God and "know" all things. But by the level you are appealing to, you don't even "know" I exist.
So it doesn't add to the debate to hang upon this.

As to "conflicting witnesses" we have a 1 vs 3 situation here. .. You want to go with the 1, that is fine, but that isn't even a "preponderance of the evidence" approach. That is a personal bias leading the decision.
Like "girls can't be wrong", or it must be he is either a rapist, or she is lying.
both are incorrect assumptions I feel I have addressed.

I'm not presuming he's guilty. I'm saying WE DON'T KNOW IF HE'S GUILTY SO LET'S DO ALL WE CAN TO FIND OUT.

I don't know, I see a lot of presumption of guilt in your post.
Like asserting that we don't "know" he isn't a monster. Which means you don't want to act as though he is innocent.
The 50/50 he is a rapist, is certainly a degree of assuming guilt.

I mean I get you are trying to walk some kind of line, but it is clear that you are willing to ACT as though he is guilty until an investigation proves him innocent of the current rumor. Because you hear some guy at your work coberated that she told someone about her 30 year old story.


---

Just the facts please
---
1) There is an accusation of attempted rape.
2) There are 2 witnesses corroborating the rebuttal of the accused. (Ie that it didn't happen).

I'll be very surprised if any more evidence shows up.

Not facts we have
1) She accused him years ago.
2) Where the event occurred
3) When the event occurred
4) The circumstances under which the event occurred.
5) Intoxication levels.
6) Who was/was not present


Tell me more about what "preponderance of evidence" means.

[CowboyX]

An uninteresting democrat propaganda piece.. Not really relevant here.
Unless you are going to call the other "witnesses" liars as well.
Also, "accusations" =/= an actual crime. Even if it is Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein making the accusations.
Your own link says that kavenaugh never saw any memo's in order to copy them. So.. your link doesn't support the "accusation".

That's what the National Review piece said, not my source

"National Review both misstates the standard for demonstrating that Kavanaugh lied and misstates the facts of the case. First, Kavanaugh said that he never received any memos or any documents that appeared to him to be prepared by Democrats."

"The bar for a lie here is to demonstrate that Kavanaugh had received any memos from Democratic staff or documents from Miranda that appeared drafted or prepared by Democratic judiciary staffers. By the plainest meaning of those words, Kavanaugh received both things.

Documents released last week reveal that in early 2003, Miranda sent Kavanaugh an email with the subject line “Judiciary Dems obstruct on reorganization.”" (same slate source)


If the other witnesses won't testify under oath I sure will call them liars.

and it's relevant since he's a trained lawyer and professional jurist.

---------- Post added at 01:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

The statue of limitations is long over.

You sure about that?

[mican333]

Nope, that is not the roll of the FBI. The FBI would never investigate such an allegation.

Incorrect. They did it before.

"But 27 years ago, when Anita Hill accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, the FBI investigated her claims, interviewed witnesses and completed its report in just two days."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...ent-allegation

No, you are inserting Kavanaugh into that account, when he was not part of it at the time.

That doesn't matter. She told her therapist that she was assaulted by a classmate and assuming that is to be considered evidence, then we have to accept that there is evidence that she was assaulted by a classmate and of course that means that the list of suspects is quite limited. And she has now revealed that the classmate in question was Kavanaugh. The notion that it was actually someone else and she decided to lie about who it was is far-fetched to say the least. So the therapist scenario is evidence that he did it.

This is troubling.. because it applies to anyone who was ever falsly accused.
If I accused you of raping anyone... you too would have a "strong incentive to lie". Because anyone who actually rapes has a strong incentive to lie.

Right. How is this disturbing?

However, that is not evidence that you are lying. And possible motivation seems to be treated here in the thread ... as actual lying.

I didn't say it was evidence that he is lying.

I'm saying that someone just saying "I didn't do it" when accused of something that one would have a strong motive to lie about if they did it is not strong evidence that the accusation is false and therefore should be be significantly factored into whether the accusation should be taken seriously.

Maybe he didn't do it. But the evidence that he did do it is strong enough to warrant further investigation.

So you are right now calling 3 people liars and the woman is the truth teller.. because .. she wouldn't lie or fabricate a story about a political person in 2012?

I didn't call anyone a liar. I'm saying her claim is credible enough to take seriously and investigate further before we consider putting the accused in one of the most powerful positions in the country.

So, you don't think she had any legal counsel in making the demands? And you don't think the legal counsel would know that the FBI investigated the anita Hill stuff, because Clarence Thomas was a federal employee?
And that this allegation is not covered in that?

What do you mean it's not covered. There is nothing barring the FBI from investigating this so the notion that she's bluffing is not at all supported.

Why is one person more credible than 3?
How does that work?

A person saying that they don't know of any such incident is not a valid witness for the side that the event did not happen. The only two actual witnesses for "it didn't happen" are the two who allegedly participated in the assault.

And the numbers aren't the issue. The issue is which side has made a credible case that it or did not happen. I've seen no good evidence that it didn't happen (of course it's hard to prove a negative) beyond just claims from people who would have incentive to lie.

On the other hand, the claim that it did happen is credible. And we don't need to call anyone a liar or whatever - I'm not saying that. I'm saying INVESTIGATE FURTHER TO BETTER LEARN THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

I mean, I get that she has some credibility here.. where as if she were a prostitute I would throw it out, outright. To say she is more credible than 3 other upstanding citizens? That is simply sexist.

It's not an issue of whether the people are credible. It's an issue of whether the CLAIM is credible. Her claim is credible so let's investigate it further before we put someone who may have done what's been alleged on the Supreme Court.

Is there an actual argument for not wanting to learn as much as possible about the alleged incident before confirming Kavanaugh? If so, please present it.

Your starting from an invalid position, if you are saying there is a 50% chance he did it. You are starting with a presumption of guilt (50%).

No. Presumption of guilt is 100%. And I'm not saying whether he did it or not. I'm saying the claim is credible so let's investigate further.

As an analogy, if someone credibly claimed your son did something bad (let's say cheated on a test) but you weren't sure if it's true or not, wouldn't you want to learn as much as possible about the alleged incident before you decided whether to punish your son or not? Or would it be better to just decide that since you aren't entirely convinced that he did it, you aren't going to look into the matter further and let it slide?

Also, see my post to sig. You too are making the mistake of reducing this to only two possibilities. It is also possible that something happened, but it wasn't actually criminal or attempted rape.

If what she said happened is what happened, then it's by definition sexual assault. The only other option is that Kavanaugh did not do what she said he did. So there are only two options. He either pinned her to the bed etc. or he did not pin her to the bed.

Semantic games regarding what the action might be called is irrelevant. If he actually did that and lies about it to this day, he's not a good candidate.

Currently, there is nothing to investigate, until an actual charge is legally filled. As there is no place to file any charges, there will be no investigation.
The ONLY place she can post a grievance is with the Senate body, who ARE INVESTIGATING IT, by asking her to come and testify... which she has been unwilling to do.. and as far as I know may not actually do.

If you are saying that the FBI cannot investigate until she comes testifies before the Senate, you will need to support that because as far as I know, that's not true. Until you do, that argument is ignored as unsupported. And to be clear, since I think your understanding of the issue is flawed, you will need to provide external support for your claim. Just telling further what you think will not suffice.

And even if there is some (very, very) weird rule that someone prohibits the Senate from allowing an investigation into a serious and relevant allegation against a SCOTUS nominee just because they think that the allegation is something that needs to be investigated, such a rule should not exist and therefore I maintain that her claim should be investigated. So saying that they can't do it, even if correct (which I'm sure it isn't), is not a valid rebuttal to my argument that it should be investigated.

So you do agree that the claim should be investigated by a neutral body, right? Even if you don't think it can't be done, you do agree that it should be done, right?

So you are simply wrong in your expectations, and that is due to how this has been framed politically by her and her lawyer, and by the democratic senators. Which.. is due to a political motivation, and not a truth motivation.

Which has nothing to do with how valid her actual claim is or whether we should be concerned whether the person who may have committed the assault should be on the Supreme Court.

While politicians on both sides of the aisle may not be able to deal with the allegation without a hefty dose of political malarky, I'm not one of those politicians.

I have amply supported that the claim is credible and that it's a serious issue and therefore an investigation is warranted.

To be clear, I think she is credible. I think you are equating that with being the holder of ultimate truth, and I think you are mistaken in that presumption.

I think you are equating my argument with a different argument.

To put my argument in a logic chain.

1. Ford's claim is credible
2. If Kavanaugh did as she claimed and is lying about doing it, he should not be given a seat on the SCOTUS
3. Therefore it is important for those who are voting on his nomination to know as much as possible about the alleged incident before voting on him
4. THEREFORE, there needs to be an investigation to help the voters better decide whether he should be given the seat.

Really, if you accept the logic chain, I don't think there's much for us to debate.

First, I don't think it is clear. They wanted him to not be nominated based on an anonymous letter. .. then when she was asked to show up, she was anything but "clearly willing" to show up. There is a lot of dog and pony show going on about this accusation, and it doesn't lend it credibility. It does the opposite.

What games politicians are playing with the accusation has no bearing on the validity of the accusation itself.

And her trepidation about coming forward and testifying and so on has been adequately explained and makes perfect sense. I see no valid reason to doubt Ford herself due to her actions.

People are pointing to here therapy session as evidence she has accused the judge in the past, and thus it is not new.
The evidence doesn't support that, because the evidence she offers does not NAME HIM. Sure, she is naming him NOW, but the only piece of evidence we have doesn't name him.
It is a subtle distinction.

Subtle as in practically irrelevant, yes. There is strong evidence that she was assaulted. I don't see why when she named the particular alleged assailant should make much different in the strength of the evidence.

I mean the only way that one could think that her naming Kavanaugh later is significant is if one thinks that she was referring to an assault by a different classmate to her therapist and then decided to lie about who that particular classmate was later on. That scenario is practically nonsensical. So I find this issue of when he was directly identified to be a non-issue.

So the therapist scenario is pretty strong evidence that her claim regarding Kavanaugh is valid.

I am not arguing that they should not investigate. I am arguing for what kind of investigation is going to take place.
The FBI is not the proper body. Just like the local police are not the proper body. This is partly due to the fact that the accusation is simply too little too late.
If she would have made the accusation 35 years ago, when the indecent allegedly occurred, then the local police would have investigated, maybe the school body.
Now the only body that has authority to investigate, are doing exactly that by asking her to tell them what happened. Right now they have NOTHING that they should act on.
And thus if yesterday they were going to confirm him, nothing has been set before them that should change that. So far, all they have is rumors.. and they should not act on rumors over the evidence of his 30 year service to the country.

It is not a rumor. It's a CREDIBLE ACCUSATION. What should they do regarding the accusation? They should get a competent and independent body to investigate and bring forward the conclusion before they have Ford and Kavanaugh testify so their questions incorporate the best information they can get. And Ford has made it clear that she will testify after the investigation. And the notion that the FBI is not the appropriate body to investigate this has not been supported at all (especially since they've done it before).

And assuming we care if someone who sexually assaulted someone as a teenager and is lying about it now gets on the SCOTUS, it's obvious that all of this needs to happen before they vote on him.

HAHA.. DUDE we have to ACT like we know. That is what the presumption of innocence is. Yea, we are not God and "know" all things. But by the level you are appealing to, you don't even "know" I exist.
So it doesn't add to the debate to hang upon this.

Right. We ACT like he's 100% innocent until he's proven guilty, not that he's just as likely to be guilty as not. So the presumption of innocence works on the concept that the person is 100% innocent until proven guilty. You don't find one "50% not guilty".

But besides that, the presumption of innocence applies to criminal trials only. We don't even use that for civil trials. And we certainly don't use it for confirmation hearings which are basically job interviews (and in a job interview, it's generally a presumption that one is not qualified for a job until they can show that they are qualified).

As to "conflicting witnesses" we have a 1 vs 3 situation here. .. You want to go with the 1, that is fine, but that isn't even a "preponderance of the evidence" approach. That is a personal bias leading the decision.

I'm not using the numbers for my argument and likewise find that a very poor method for weighing competing claims.

I find her claim credible for reasons that I stated and none of them have been shown to be invalid reasons. Therefore her claim should be taken seriously and investigated. The fact that some other people provide contrary claims has no bearing on whether her claim is credible.

Like "girls can't be wrong", or it must be he is either a rapist, or she is lying.
both are incorrect assumptions I feel I have addressed.

I never said girls can't be wrong.

And the only alternative to him not assaulting her is that she's lying or she has a false memory,

I don't know, I see a lot of presumption of guilt in your post.

I can't help it if you misunderstand my argument.

Like asserting that we don't "know" he isn't a monster. Which means you don't want to act as though he is innocent.

If one does not know if one is guilty or innocent, then they don't want to act like they are innocent and they don't want to act like they are guilty.

But besides that, you are really just making person comments here that have no bearing on the validity of my actual arguments. Using my own personal characteristics or beliefs as a source of rebuttal is engaging in the ad him fallacy. So it doesn't matter if I think he's guilty or not. My arguments speak for themselves and are the only things that you should be addressing.

The 50/50 he is a rapist, is certainly a degree of assuming guilt.

And just as much a degree of assuming innocence. Presumption of guilt means that I hold that he IS guilty until someone can show that he's innocent.

But anyway, your comments about me and my debating are a waste of time debate-wise and seem to be uniformly incorrect (which I believe your personal comments usually are), so I'm done addressing them.


---

Just the facts please
---
1) There is an accusation of attempted rape.
2) There are 2 witnesses corroborating the rebuttal of the accused. (Ie that it didn't happen).

I'll be very surprised if any more evidence shows up.

If there is an actual investigation, I'd surprised if we don't learn more about the incident. As I said, I heard that she talked to friend about the alleged incident after it happened and that she displayed a distinct personality change after it. So how about interviewing other classmates of hers and see if she did talk about it if it happened? Maybe some other student was at the party and saw or heard something. Or maybe not. But I just don't see why it would not be a VERY VERY GOOD IDEA to learn as much as possible about the incident before we put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

Not facts we have
1) She accused him years ago.
2) Where the event occurred
3) When the event occurred
4) The circumstances under which the event occurred.
5) Intoxication levels.
6) Who was/was not present

Tell me more about what "preponderance of evidence" means.

It means that the evidence supports one conclusion more than the other. And yes, there is stuff that we don't know. SO LET'S TRY TO FIND OUT.

Don't you think that there ought to be as thorough investigation as possible? Even if you think that there's some weird procedural rule that somehow makes it impossible for the senate to authorize an investigation, don't you think that there ought to be an investigation so they can learn as much as possible about the alleged incident? If not, why not?

[Sigfried]

@Sig, I think you kinda make a jump at the end there. Or maybe an assumption that isn't really justified. You make great point about how memory can effect this, but you make the faulty assumption that the only two options are her story and his.
It is also possible, that an event did occur between them, but it wasn't an attempt at rape at all. Just two people messing around, and she just took certain actions to be something they were not.

So you are saying its possible she was having a grand old time at the party, but later remembers herself almost getting raped? That seems far fetched to me. Memory of details and events can be sketchy, but one thing that generally isn't is the emotional reaction to them. So if I had a great time at the water park, I may mis-remember exactly what I did, but I'm probably not remembering a miserable day as a great time. So someone having fun flirting isn't likely to disremember that as sexual assault.

You can misjudge other peoples intentions. But not likely your own feelings.

I am more trouble that you think the side with the witnesses (multiple) have the weaker case. She has no witness to the event other than herself. There is a giant gap between "she remembers something, so something clearly happened" and "This man shouldn't get the job because he is guilty of attempted rape".

The key is what people claim. The witnesses say "I don't remember an event like that happening." The setting is "A drunken colledge frat party." People not remembering things that happen at drunken colledge frat parties is not exactly surprising. It isn't strong evidence that a thing didn't happen. A witness who said "I remember the event, but that is not what happened." would be more contradictory to what she said.

Take an example....
I say "This is the first time we've eaten here."
My wife says "No it's not, we were hear last year."
I say "I don't remember that, I'd think I'd remember if I had."
My wife says "Well we sat at that booth in the corner and I remember because you had terrible breath that day and it was really embarasing for me."

So, who is more likely correct? The person with no memory of the event, or the person who remembers because of a significant detail that had meaning to them? Knowing the way memory works, we understand that when you have an emotional responce, you are much more likely to remember. But when you were just doing normal stuff you do, then you are a lot less likely to remember. The lack of memory is not a strong indication of the event never happening compared to the specific memory of someone else.

In short: "I don't remember" is not as strong as "I remember" or "I remember differently"

A possible motivation you may have missed. Even though she made a reference to the event in 2012. She is not inherently clear of political motivation, as he was still in public office at the time. Only if she had recounted the event prior to his political involment could she be cleared of possible monetary motivation.

What is her political motivation? So far as I know she is not in politics. She's an accademic.

There is a huge part of the story that isn't available to us. Namely, how did they end up in that bedroom together. Young girls can put themselves in sexual situations they later don't like, and they blaime the men for it.
I mean, the story says she was in a bathing suit... if a girl and a dude end up in bed and all she has on is her underwear on.. chances are pretty good the dude is going to try and get that to come off. That is why he went to the bedroom with her to begin with.
That doesn't paint a deviant rapist picture.
But people are treating this like he was waiting behind the bushes as she walked home from church.

That's where the social significance comes in. Basically, what you are saying just now, is the attitude and beleif system about women and sex that the #MeToo movement is fighting against. Any guy who tries to rip the clothing off a woman is sexually assaulting her. Doesn't matter what she is wearing. It doesn't matter where they are. It doesn't matter how horney he is. What matters is whether or not she gives him the go-ahead to do that. In the story she says she was wearing the swimsuit under other clothing (perhaps there was a pool at the party). She also said he was forcibly holding her down face first on the bed while trying to rip it off.

While some sex play may involve this kind of scenario, its not something you just do and assume the other person is into that. You have to establish what people like first. Otherwise you are just being violent and attacking someone sexually.

The man is 100% to blame in this situation. No one is forcing him to push people onto beds or rip off their clothes. As far as I'm concenred it is just as bad as hiding in the bushes. You don't attack women in any circumstances or for any reason but that they explicitly asked you to.

I am really curious to know if she was drinking at the party... that detail seems to be absent so far. Given she can't remember a lot of stuff (like how many people were in the room off of the notes of her past testimony, that she now says are mistaken), I would say it is probably likely.

I don't know, I only presume it is likely. It would be very unusual to go to a frat party and not drink alchohol.

yea I think people have placed too much weight on the extreme of he must be a monster if this occurred. Like it would have been a very bad thing, but to me.. if they are all drunk at a party, that is the kind of stuff that happens.

Ya, its the kind of stuff that happens, but its the kind of stuff that shouldn't happen. He's not a monster, its a human behavior, but its one we generally deem to be imoral and wrong.

I mean, do you think that at any time in our political history, a woman made a false sexual assault charge for political motivations, such as being paid secretly to falsify evidence and her story?
VS
Do you think that is equally as common to an other profession. Like a guy goes to interview for a job as a plumber, and some woman makes a false accusation to the boss for monetary/fame/ideological gain?

Are you saying that it is more common in politics? I don't think so. It just isn't news when it happens outside of a job that makes you famous.

To me, we must at least be aware that politics is dirty, and that it is possible a person would falsify evidence against a political opponent, for fame, money, revenge, or ideological gain. Especially if that "evidence" is nothing more than an accusation.

He's not her political opponent. She's not in politics.

[MindTrap028]

So you are saying its possible she was having a grand old time at the party, but later remembers herself almost getting raped? That seems far fetched to me. Memory of details and events can be sketchy, but one thing that generally isn't is the emotional reaction to them. So if I had a great time at the water park, I may mis-remember exactly what I did, but I'm probably not remembering a miserable day as a great time. So someone having fun flirting isn't likely to disremember that as sexual assault.

You can misjudge other peoples intentions. But not likely your own feelings.

That isn't quite what I meant, but your not wrong to go there.

Let me tell you a true story I recently heard.. from someone I know.
There was this young woman who was who was kinda nieve, innocent of things sexual. Her and her boyfriend started messing around, and she came away from the experience thinking she was raped. Not like maybe raped, but rapped rape.
She told several people at the time. Now she is 20 years older, and looking back she now says, she wasn't raped, she was just ignorant. They were experimenting and fooling around, she just had no concept of sex and what it was.\

The point is.. what she "felt" and "thought" at the time, was not a reflection of reality, even though her feelings were honest.

Now I'm not saying it occured in the same way, just pointing out that what one thinks happened, and what actually happened is not always the same thing.
For the purpose of the story at hand, I want to ask you.. Do you think she got in that bedroom scantly clad(as swim suits are not really modest) with a boy to not fool around?
I'm not saying in order to have sex.. but It seems to me that the assumption of fooling around is pretty well implied. You don't party at a pool party in the bedroom.

The key is what people claim. The witnesses say "I don't remember an event like that happening." The setting is "A drunken colledge frat party." People not remembering things that happen at drunken colledge frat parties is not exactly surprising. It isn't strong evidence that a thing didn't happen. A witness who said "I remember the event, but that is not what happened." would be more contradictory to what she said.

That is true, and good point. The Friend "mark judge" says that "no such incident occured"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ation-alcohol/

What is her political motivation? So far as I know she is not in politics. She's an accademic.

She sent a letter to fienstien, for a reason that had political implications yes?
I mean, if she is telling the truth, she is revealing it now so that he won't become supreme court justice.. yes?\
That is a political motivation.
If it turns out to be a false claim, then the motivation is still there yes?

I don't know, I only presume it is likely. It would be very unusual to go to a frat party and not drink alchohol.

I don't really want to assume anything. If she was sober, and took a drunk guy to a bedroom.
That is really wrong of her to take advantage of him like that. She could pretty much claim anything she wants then.
I mean.. isn't that what we would think of a sober guy taking a drunk chick to a bedroom? Lets play fair.

Ya, its the kind of stuff that happens, but its the kind of stuff that shouldn't happen. He's not a monster, its a human behavior, but its one we generally deem to be imoral and wrong.

Yea I agree.

Are you saying that it is more common in politics? I don't think so. It just isn't news when it happens outside of a job that makes you famous.

Yea, I'm saying it's more common in politics. Just like being murdered for political gain, is more common in politics.

------------------

Incorrect. They did it before.

I already explained. Thomas was a state employee at the time of the aledged event. Kavenaugh was a civilian kid.
The FBI doesn't have juristiction. Thomas was being accused within a time frame for criminal liability. Kavenaugh is being accused after the statu of limitations is over.
So it simply isn't the FBI's juristicition. You won't find any criminal investigation agency, that will investigate a recongized non-crime. That isn't how it works.
That is why it is the senats job to investigate it..... which they are doing.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...legations.html

The FBI will not launch a criminal investigation into the sexual assault allegations leveled against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, according to highly-placed law enforcement sources.

The sources told Fox News on Wednesday that there were no allegations of a federal crime, therefore the bureau would not open a criminal investigation.

“This is a political issue, not a law enforcement one,” one source told Fox News.

That doesn't matter. She told her therapist that she was assaulted by a classmate and assuming that is to be considered evidence, then we have to accept that there is evidence that she was assaulted by a classmate and of course that means that the list of suspects is quite limited. And she has now revealed that the classmate in question was Kavanaugh. The notion that it was actually someone else and she decided to lie about who it was is far-fetched to say the least. So the therapist scenario is evidence that he did it.

First of all, repeating an accusation, does not become proof of the the accusation's truth.
Second, It is evidence that she believed an event occured, it is not evidence that the event actually occured as she says.
third, it is not evidence that Kavenaugh was the culprite, as he could have been added in at an even later date into the story. Not saying that he was, but it is just a limitation on what this particular fact is "evidence" of.

Right. How is this disturbing?

because you have assumed that he is in fact lying... with only this trumped up motivation that is assumed in the crime as evidence.
... o.k see below.

I didn't say it was evidence that he is lying.

I'm saying that someone just saying "I didn't do it" when accused of something that one would have a strong motive to lie about if they did it is not strong evidence that the accusation is false and therefore should be be significantly factored into whether the accusation should be taken seriously.

Maybe he didn't do it. But the evidence that he did do it is strong enough to warrant further investigation.

O.k. the problem I have, is your attributing a possible motivation.. as an ACTUAL motivation.
You haven't shown support for a motive.

I didn't call anyone a liar. I'm saying her claim is credible enough to take seriously and investigate further before we consider putting the accused in one of the most powerful positions in the country.

I see you assuming he has a motivation to lie.

What do you mean it's not covered. There is nothing barring the FBI from investigating this so the notion that she's bluffing is not at all supported.

See above. I have explained why the FBI nor any other "law enforcment" would investigate this allegation. Which makes the demand unreasonable.
let me know if you have understood the support I have offered in this line.

A person saying that they don't know of any such incident is not a valid witness for the side that the event did not happen. The only two actual witnesses for "it didn't happen" are the two who allegedly participated in the assault.

False, Mark Judge the friend of Kavenaugh and the man supposedly in the room, has said it did not happen.
See my supported link above in my reply to sig.

And the numbers aren't the issue. The issue is which side has made a credible case that it or did not happen. I've seen no good evidence that it didn't happen (of course it's hard to prove a negative) beyond just claims from people who would have incentive to lie.

3 people in a room. 1 says something happened, the other two say it did not happen.
that is all the evidence we are ever going to get.. and the witnesses of 2 has to trump the witness of one.

It's not an issue of whether the people are credible. It's an issue of whether the CLAIM is credible. Her claim is credible so let's investigate it further before we put someone who may have done what's been alleged on the Supreme Court.

Is there an actual argument for not wanting to learn as much as possible about the alleged incident before confirming Kavanaugh? If so, please present it.

I haven't argued to not investigate. Execpt in the case she is unwilling to make the accusation officially... Like under oath.
If she does not.. then there simply is nothing to investigate.

No. Presumption of guilt is 100%. And I'm not saying whether he did it or not. I'm saying the claim is credible so let's investigate further.

As an analogy, if someone credibly claimed your son did something bad (let's say cheated on a test) but you weren't sure if it's true or not, wouldn't you want to learn as much as possible about the alleged incident before you decided whether to punish your son or not? Or would it be better to just decide that since you aren't entirely convinced that he did it, you aren't going to look into the matter further and let it slide?

I think saying there is a 50/50 chance you did something, is very different then saying
Support your accusation, prove your case.
If someone told me you raped your kids, I wouldn't say.. you know.. there is a 50/50 chance he did it, because to make that assumption is an assault on your character.. to say that you are even capable of that.
your doing the same thing here.. starting of by granting an assault on his character. That is why innocent men are destroyed by even the accusation of this kind of wrongdoing.. and that **** happens all the time.

So, no.. I do not accept any 50/50 chance as a valid starting point, and I would pray to God that if you heard such an accusation made against me you wouldn't start there iether.

I am all for investigating it.. get her on the stand, let her make her case, then let him rebut it. But we owe it to innocent people to start with an actual presumption of innocence, and let the process work like it should.
If it really did occure, it is quite possible that she hurt her case so much by waiting 35 years, that her story simply isn't credible enough.

If what she said happened is what happened, then it's by definition sexual assault. The only other option is that Kavanaugh did not do what she said he did. So there are only two options. He either pinned her to the bed etc. or he did not pin her to the bed.

Semantic games regarding what the action might be called is irrelevant. If he actually did that and lies about it to this day, he's not a good candidate.

What if she invited him to the bedroom for sex? .. He is a rappist for going for it?
What if she was sober, and he was off his ass drunk and she invited him in the room for sex... then changed her mind.
suddenly he is the ass-hole? What if they were fooling around together, and then he acted in a way she didn't like. Now he is supposed to be a rapist? Because if you slap a womans ass during sex, and you were too rough or she didn't like it
then your now guilty of sexual assault?
No, that isn't how sex works, and there are other possiblities that don't fall into the two categories you are limiting it too.

Two things can be true at once.. Kavenaugh could be lying, and she could still be mistaken.

If you are saying that the FBI cannot investigate until she comes testifies before the Senate, you will need to support that because as far as I know, that's not true. Until you do, that argument is ignored as unsupported. And to be clear, since I think your understanding of the issue is flawed, you will need to provide external support for your claim. Just telling further what you think will not suffice.

supported above. See link to story quoting the reason FBI would not investigate.

And even if there is some (very, very) weird rule that someone prohibits the Senate from allowing an investigation into a serious and relevant allegation against a SCOTUS nominee just because they think that the allegation is something that needs to be investigated, such a rule should not exist and therefore I maintain that her claim should be investigated. So saying that they can't do it, even if correct (which I'm sure it isn't), is not a valid rebuttal to my argument that it should be investigated.

The senate can. But the FBI can't, and it would be improper for a law inforcement agency to investigate any non crime.
Suppose the police wanted to investigate if you eat Chitos in the nude.. Are you going to argue that they should have the power to search your home with a warrent and guns blazing if necissary? (because that is what happens when the police/fbi break into your house)..
You would be arguing to erase any legal limitation on the Gov ability to violate your constitution right to security of your person.

So you do agree that the claim should be investigated by a neutral body, right? Even if you don't think it can't be done, you do agree that it should be done, right?

See above. No criminal investigative body should be allowed or expected to investigate a non crime.
by law, this is a non crime as it is past the statut of limitation.
The senate/house is free to investigate in the same manner it would for any other position filling investigation... and should do so.

Which has nothing to do with how valid her actual claim is or whether we should be concerned whether the person who may have committed the assault should be on the Supreme Court.

While politicians on both sides of the aisle may not be able to deal with the allegation without a hefty dose of political malarky, I'm not one of those politicians.

I have amply supported that the claim is credible and that it's a serious issue and therefore an investigation is warranted.

I am direclty addressing the expecation of the FBI to investigate. In that, your claims have not been supported as I have argued here.
The more general call to an investigation, should be assumed by both of us to already be occuring the moment the senate asked her to testify and give an account of the event.

I think you are equating my argument with a different argument.

To put my argument in a logic chain.

1. Ford's claim is credible
2. If Kavanaugh did as she claimed and is lying about doing it, he should not be given a seat on the SCOTUS
3. Therefore it is important for those who are voting on his nomination to know as much as possible about the alleged incident before voting on him
4. THEREFORE, there needs to be an investigation to help the voters better decide whether he should be given the seat.

Really, if you accept the logic chain, I don't think there's much for us to debate.

To the extent that "investigation" is equated to the FBI, then I argue against this logic chain.
otherwise.. we should be in agreement that this is already occuring, as the senate is investigating the claim.

What games politicians are playing with the accusation has no bearing on the validity of the accusation itself.

And her trepidation about coming forward and testifying and so on has been adequately explained and makes perfect sense. I see no valid reason to doubt Ford herself due to her actions.

We have reason to doubt, for the same justifcaion that there is a statue of limitations on this sort of claim.
In other words, if you wait long enough, that is equivilant to consent.

In the case here, she has waited so long that the defendant may reasonable not be able to recall his accurate version of the events, while she has the advantage of thinking about it and possibly mis-remebering things as she likes.
Making it better or worse in her own mind. A brush against her lips may morph into a brutal hand covering her mouth.
His weight upon her during consentual hugging, may morph into the crushing weight of being pinned down.

There is a reason for the statut of limitations, and we shouldn't ignore that.

Subtle as in practically irrelevant, yes. There is strong evidence that she was assaulted. I don't see why when she named the particular alleged assailant should make much different in the strength of the evidence.

Bull **** there is "strong evidence". There isn't a lick of evidence presented yet. There is only an accusation.
When she names makes a differene, it is the difference in being able to put someone on trial and not.
IE, you tell a police officer you were just raped by someone you know.. and he says "who" and you say.. I'll name him in 30 years.
You will not get a trial. So, it isn't irrelevant that she didn't name the person in 2012.

I mean the only way that one could think that her naming Kavanaugh later is significant is if one thinks that she was referring to an assault by a different classmate to her therapist and then decided to lie about who that particular classmate was later on. That scenario is practically nonsensical. So I find this issue of when he was directly identified to be a non-issue.

As noted in the link regarding the reasoning behind the statute of limitations, by not naming a person specifically, she leaves open the possibility to insert ANY name.
This weakens her case, and is relevant.
Is it POSSIBLE she was wrong about who? That she was drunk and remembered two guys, and 30 years later settled on the most famous one?

Please see below for more on why the claim as it stands is not credible.

It is not a rumor. It's a CREDIBLE ACCUSATION. What should they do regarding the accusation? They should get a competent and independent body to investigate and bring forward the conclusion before they have Ford and Kavanaugh testify so their questions incorporate the best information they can get. And Ford has made it clear that she will testify after the investigation. And the notion that the FBI is not the appropriate body to investigate this has not been supported at all (especially since they've done it before).

And assuming we care if someone who sexually assaulted someone as a teenager and is lying about it now gets on the SCOTUS, it's obvious that all of this needs to happen before they vote on him.

First, a rumor is what we hear about what happened to someone else. That is all we have so far, until she testifies under oath.
Second, I have addressed the FBI investigation ... I think pretty completly, so I won't repeat that here, I do expect to see some recognition by you (not agreement) that I have addressed and supported that issue.

[QUOTE=MICAN] Right. We ACT like he's 100% innocent until he's proven guilty, not that he's just as likely to be guilty as not. So the presumption of innocence works on the concept that the person is 100% innocent until proven guilty. You don't find one "50% not guilty".

But besides that, the presumption of innocence applies to criminal trials only. We don't even use that for civil trials. And we certainly don't use it for confirmation hearings which are basically job interviews (and in a job interview, it's generally a presumption that one is not qualified for a job until they can show that they are qualified).[/QUOTE
Well, if your talking about a random standard, then we can justly reject your 50/50 on random reasons..
which I do.

I'm not using the numbers for my argument and likewise find that a very poor method for weighing competing claims.

I find her claim credible for reasons that I stated and none of them have been shown to be invalid reasons. Therefore her claim should be taken seriously and investigated. The fact that some other people provide contrary claims has no bearing on whether her claim is credible.

Yes it does. If I say you stole my car, and my buddy says that I still have my car in my garage.
Then my claim is less credible. If you wait 30 years.. it becomes less credible (see the end of post)

I never said girls can't be wrong.

And the only alternative to him not assaulting her is that she's lying or she has a false memory,

I feel I have addressed this above about the multiple scenarios.

If one does not know if one is guilty or innocent, then they don't want to act like they are innocent and they don't want to act like they are guilty.

Not possible.

But besides that, you are really just making person comments here that have no bearing on the validity of my actual arguments. Using my own personal characteristics or beliefs as a source of rebuttal is engaging in the ad him fallacy. So it doesn't matter if I think he's guilty or not. My arguments speak for themselves and are the only things that you should be addressing.

That point wasn't directed at you or your personality. You aren't personally flawed and thus wrong (adhom)
you are a person, and wrong.
People are incapable of acting in a way consitent with neturality in regards to guilt of some crimes. Your approach has not been one of neutrality, but of hidden bias against the accused.
I have pointed that out in several instances.. the 50/50, the acceptance of possiblity of monster and the inhernetly implied attack on a persons character.
I have argued why you should not approach it that way, showing the justification behind the legal limits, and how it deminishes accusations that wait 30years.

If there is an actual investigation, I'd surprised if we don't learn more about the incident. As I said, I heard that she talked to friend about the alleged incident after it happened and that she displayed a distinct personality change after it. So how about interviewing other classmates of hers and see if she did talk about it if it happened? Maybe some other student was at the party and saw or heard something. Or maybe not. But I just don't see why it would not be a VERY VERY GOOD IDEA to learn as much as possible about the incident before we put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

That is what I'm talking about gossip.Geez.
We don't put people in jail based on what kids at a school heard about some event they weren't witness too.

Don't you think that there ought to be as thorough investigation as possible? Even if you think that there's some weird procedural rule that somehow makes it impossible for the senate to authorize an investigation, don't you think that there ought to be an investigation so they can learn as much as possible about the alleged incident? If not, why not?

see points about the FBI.
As I have repeated several times in the post you quoted, and in this one as well that an investigation is already underway by the senate, and I am all for it, maybe you have a false assumption about what I have argued.. or what it means.



-----------------------------
Statue of limitations and why we need them, and how they are relevant to this situation
-----------------------------
https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/24/e...of-limitations

In this case the accusation is too old to be considered credible.

Suppose I am actually innocent, and you accuse me of raping you at 3:30 tuesday morning, and you told all your friends about it thursday, and called the police friday.
If I were actually innocent I may have a receipt showing I just so happen to be at the gas station, and be able to produce video footage showing me pumping gas instead of... well something else.

Now suppose you wait 30 years.
Still supposing I am actually innocent.. what would I be able to produce? A vague memory of a gas station? Maybe not.. maybe I would mistake it for one of the days I was playing D&D with a friend.. and
then my friend would swear I wasn't with him playing D&D.. because he remembers me leaving.. but doesn't remember I went for gas.

If the accusation is made quickly, you should take it as credible, but if it is 30 years later.. you should cast it out of your mind as not credible, because my means for defense are unjustly stripped from me.

...
In this instance the accusation is too vague to be considered credible.

Now suppose, that you accuse me or rapping you, at a party. You don't say what party, or where the party was, or when it was.. just .. a party.

What am I supposed to rebut? What evidence can I offer? If I bring out my call log, you could look at it .. find whatever hole in the timing you like and say..ahh. now I remember.
Those 3 hours he couldn't account for is when it happened!
Now add 30 years, and now I don't even have the call log to account for any of my actions.

This kind of claim too should be discarded as not a credible accusation, because there is no possibility for a reasonable defense.

[Belthazor]

Now suppose, that you accuse me or rapping you, at a party. You don't say what party, or where the party was, or when it was.. just .. a party.

I think a point that just does not get discussed is when the accuser is caught lying about an incident, punishment for the false accusation is usually pretty light if at all, while the falsely accused's life is forever tainted.

---------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 PM ----------

Memory is where Ford has some tricky ground to work with. How sure was she of who assaulted her? She admittedly is foggy on when and where it took place. That's honest, but it does call into question if other details are accurate or are post-event construction.

Well sure she shouldn't have to give the exact time of penetration, but seriously, she doesn't know where she was raped?
(again, I am only fallowing what is here on ODN on this subject, not what may be current in the news)
Certainly I can easily see circumstances where that would be the case but I haven't heard that she was kidnapped or drugged etc in this case.

[mican333]

I already explained. Thomas was a state employee at the time of the aledged event. Kavenaugh was a civilian kid.
The FBI doesn't have juristiction. Thomas was being accused within a time frame for criminal liability. Kavenaugh is being accused after the statu of limitations is over.
So it simply isn't the FBI's juristicition. You won't find any criminal investigation agency, that will investigate a recongized non-crime. That isn't how it works.
That is why it is the senats job to investigate it..... which they are doing.

But President Trump can ask them to do it. In support:

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, could ask President Trump to instruct the FBI to become involved. The bureau reports to him in the organizational structure of the government, and for these purposes acts as a kind of "contractor" for the White House, as former FBI assistant director Ron Hosko told NPR.

"If the White House were to ask the FBI to reopen its file and go conduct the investigation, the FBI could do that," he said. "I think they could do it swiftly, effectively and report back within days."

And we don't need to nit-pick this anyway. All I'm saying is that an independent body (one that is not politically beholden to either side) should investigate her credible claim and present the facts so an informed vote can take place.

First of all, repeating an accusation, does not become proof of the the accusation's truth.
Second, It is evidence that she believed an event occured, it is not evidence that the event actually occured as she says.
third, it is not evidence that Kavenaugh was the culprite, as he could have been added in at an even later date into the story. Not saying that he was, but it is just a limitation on what this particular fact is "evidence" of.

You seem to be arguing that just because it's possible that her claim could be mistaken that it fails as evidence. That is not true at all. If someone believes that something happened, it's almost always because it happened and therefore does qualify as evidence that is happened. The notion that she did not accurately remember one of the most traumatic events of her life is not particularly credible. Just saying "maybe she's wrong" does not invalidate her claim or shows that it fails as evidence.

And again, the relevant burden of evidence is if it's strong enough to warrant an investigation before a vote takes place. A credible claim is strong enough evidence.

because you have assumed that he is in fact lying... with only this trumped up motivation that is assumed in the crime as evidence.

I did not say that he was lying. I have enough to respond to without having to address your response to arguments that I never made.

O.k. the problem I have, is your attributing a possible motivation.. as an ACTUAL motivation.
You haven't shown support for a motive.

So I need to support that a person who did something wrong has a motive to lie about doing that thing in order to avoid the consequences of his actions. I think I'll appeal to common sense as support for that.

And of course one who actually has not committed a crime will deny that they committed a crime for equally obvious reasons. And I'm not saying that it's one or the other in regards to Kavanaugh as I'm not taking a position on whether he actually did it or whether he is lying or not. Really, "I didn't do it" doesn't really show us if the person did it or not as both an honest person and a liar trying to avoid consequences for his actions would say the same thing.

So him saying "I did not do it" does not invalidate a claim that is credible on other levels.

False, Mark Judge the friend of Kavenaugh and the man supposedly in the room, has said it did not happen.
See my supported link above in my reply to sig.

Right. Kavanaugh and Judge are the only two people who could know for sure if the event didn't happen. So that's two witnesses.

And the logic why "I didn't do it" doesn't invalidate a credible claim applies to Judge as well. He allegedly did wrong as well.

3 people in a room. 1 says something happened, the other two say it did not happen.
that is all the evidence we are ever going to get.. and the witnesses of 2 has to trump the witness of one.

That's ridiculous. By that logic, the more people who are involved in a crime and deny the crime, the stronger the case for their innocence is.

We can analyze the likelihood of her accusation being true by other factors. And a MAJOR one is that she told her therapist about it years ago. What is the most logical explanation that she did such a thing. The answer is clearly because the event actually happened. Any other alternatives are so unlikely that they can be discounted. And again, I'm just saying that this makes her case strong enough for us to take it seriously and investigate further.

We can talk to other classmates and find out if she talked about the event the next day and then we would get more evidence. I see no logical reason to not want more evidence to better get to the truth of he matter. Then do get beyond he said-she said which would be a good thing. Right?

I haven't argued to not investigate. Execpt in the case she is unwilling to make the accusation officially... Like under oath.
If she does not.. then there simply is nothing to investigate.

The accusation exists regardless and it should be investigated regardless. Whether the mechanisms of government will allow it or not has no bearing on it.

So here's an idea. How about a private investigator interviews all of the potential witnesses and reports back to the Senate? Or whatever else it might take to cut through the bureaucracy that prevents the Senate from attain further facts about the case.

Regardless of how it happens, you do agree that we should get as much information as possible and that information should be included in the vote on Kavanaugh, right?

I think saying there is a 50/50 chance you did something, is very different then saying
Support your accusation, prove your case.
If someone told me you raped your kids, I wouldn't say.. you know.. there is a 50/50 chance he did it, because to make that assumption is an assault on your character.. to say that you are even capable of that.
your doing the same thing here.. starting of by granting an assault on his character. That is why innocent men are destroyed by even the accusation of this kind of wrongdoing.. and that **** happens all the time.

No, I'm not. Once again, you are misstating my argument. And I could explain to you how you got it wrong but that's a waste of time. So I will say that it's not my position that there's a 50/50 chance that he did it and if you want to hold that prior argument of mine said exactly that, then I retract that argument of mine and its not longer a relevant argument in this debate.

I am all for investigating it.. get her on the stand, let her make her case, then let him rebut it. But we owe it to innocent people to start with an actual presumption of innocence, and let the process work like it should.
If it really did occure, it is quite possible that she hurt her case so much by waiting 35 years, that her story simply isn't credible enough.

But I'm saying before that, there should be as much independent evidence gathered as possible. Having as many facts established prior to their testimony would prevent both of them from making untrue statements (whether the falsity is due to intentional lying or being mistaken on the facts of the case) and therefore their testimony will be more accurate and the Senate will be more likely to learn the truth of the matter. If it's just boils down to he said she said, then everyone will probably just vote along party lines and if Kavanaugh actually did it, he is more likely to confirmed anyway, which would be a very bad thing.

What if she invited him to the bedroom for sex? .. He is a rappist for going for it?
What if she was sober, and he was off his ass drunk and she invited him in the room for sex... then changed her mind.
suddenly he is the ass-hole? What if they were fooling around together, and then he acted in a way she didn't like. Now he is supposed to be a rapist? Because if you slap a womans ass during sex, and you were too rough or she didn't like it
then your now guilty of sexual assault?

But none of that is what she claimed. So if the incident happened like you are portraying above, then her claim is false and she is lying.

And if she's not lying and the events occurred as it happened, then he did, by definition, commit sexual assault.

So there's only two options. She's telling the truth and he committed sexual assault or he did not commit sexual assault and she is lying (or mistaken).

To the extent that "investigation" is equated to the FBI, then I argue against this logic chain.
otherwise.. we should be in agreement that this is already occuring, as the senate is investigating the claim.

the logic chain is not regarding the FBI.

And the investigation should be performed by a non-biased party and include interviewing all potential witnesses and whatever else might be relevant. As far as I know, the Senate is not doing that so either the FBI should do it (and they can if Trump tells them to and I argue that he should if a different independent body isn't going to to it in the FBI's place).

So anyway, you do agree that fellow classmates should be interviewed? And do you agree that Mark Judge, a witness, should testify under oath?

If you do, then I would say that we agree enough to end the debate.

We have reason to doubt, for the same justifcaion that there is a statue of limitations on this sort of claim.
In other words, if you wait long enough, that is equivilant to consent.

In the case here, she has waited so long that the defendant may reasonable not be able to recall his accurate version of the events, while she has the advantage of thinking about it and possibly mis-remebering things as she likes.
Making it better or worse in her own mind. A brush against her lips may morph into a brutal hand covering her mouth.
His weight upon her during consentual hugging, may morph into the crushing weight of being pinned down.

There is a reason for the statut of limitations, and we shouldn't ignore that.

We an include that in the grand scheme. But we can't use a little potential fuzziness to just ignore a credible claim of sexual assault by the nominee.

So again, the claim is credible enough to warrant further investigation.

Bull **** there is "strong evidence". There isn't a lick of evidence presented yet. There is only an accusation.
When she names makes a differene, it is the difference in being able to put someone on trial and not.
IE, you tell a police officer you were just raped by someone you know.. and he says "who" and you say.. I'll name him in 30 years.
You will not get a trial. So, it isn't irrelevant that she didn't name the person in 2012.

And this is not a trial. It's a job interview. You seem to forwarding a very unreasonable standard of evidence.

Again, the issue is the claim credible enough TO WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION, not is the claim credible enough to send a man to jail.

No the latter, yes to former.

As noted in the link regarding the reasoning behind the statute of limitations, by not naming a person specifically, she leaves open the possibility to insert ANY name.
This weakens her case, and is relevant.
Is it POSSIBLE she was wrong about who? That she was drunk and remembered two guys, and 30 years later settled on the most famous one?

Possible yes. Also extremely unlikely. I mean assuming it happened, she certainly knew how did it that night and she almost certainly remember it was him the next day and the following year. So how likely is it that a person who traumatized her to the extent that she went to therapy to deal with it somehow got replaced in her mind with an entirely different classmate? So slim that it's not worth seriously considering. It's only possible in the "well, ANYTHING is possible" way. I mean the notion that someone clever disguised himself as K at the time and tricked her into thinking it was K seems about as likely as she somehow got confused on who did it later on.

First, a rumor is what we hear about what happened to someone else. That is all we have so far, until she testifies under oath.

A rumor, as defined is "a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth." So by calling it a rumor you are sneaking in the premise that he accusation is "doubtful" and therefor not credible.

Since it's my position that the claim is credible, I reject your statement that it's a rumor and will consider further use of the term to be begging the question.

Not possible.

Of course it is. If as me if Joe has committed a crime and I know nothing about it, including who Joe even is, I'm not going to want to act like Joe is innocent nor act like he's guilty.

That point wasn't directed at you or your personality. You aren't personally flawed and thus wrong (adhom)
you are a person, and wrong.
People are incapable of acting in a way consitent with neturality in regards to guilt of some crimes. Your approach has not been one of neutrality, but of hidden bias against the accused.

Which is a personal comment about me (I, me, Mican has a hidden bias) and the point is not that I'm taking any offense at the personal comment but that it's completely irrelevant to the debate.

Using a personal aspect of a person to attack his argument is to engage in an ad hom fallacy. So my response is not "Stop saying stuff about me" but "this type of argument is inherently flawed and does not forward the debate and therefore I am not going to respond to it beyond pointing out the logical fallacy that it employ

I have pointed that out in several instances.. the 50/50, the acceptance of possiblity of monster and the inhernetly implied attack on a persons character.
I have argued why you should not approach it that way, showing the justification behind the legal limits, and how it deminishes accusations that wait 30years.

And I will say that to the best of my knowledge, you are generally wrong in your assessment of my argument (which is often the case when you try to tell me what my argument is). I already addressed the 50/50 argument above. My arguments are right there for you to address so just respond to what I say instead of telling what I'm saying.

That is what I'm talking about gossip.Geez.
We don't put people in jail based on what kids at a school heard about some event they weren't witness too.

And to call it gossip is begging the question as in it posits that what the kids heard (assuming some were told about the incident) was "doubtful".

And we aren't putting K in jail over this. The worst case scenario is that he doesn't get the job. And to be clear, it not at all an accepted premise that he deserves the job (which is not to say that he does not). Again, if you are hiring someone for a very, very, very important job and you hear some disturbing stories that are credible but you don't know for sure are true, you would be justified in being disinclined to hiring the person in general because you don't want to risk putting a person who might have done those things in such an important position and ruining your company as well as ending the employment of all of your workers. Of course it wouldn't be great if you didn't hire the guy and it turned out the stories are false but again, your responsibility is to your company and workers, not the guy who wants the position.

I'm not arguing that K should not get the seat just because there's a story that he did something bad but that if he were to lose the position due to the Senate finding the accusation credible enough to have serious concerns about K, even if the evidence doesn't rise to the level required for a criminal conviction, it's not necessarily a bad decision. Again, their duty is to the US, not K.

As I have repeated several times in the post you quoted, and in this one as well that an investigation is already underway by the senate, and I am all for it, maybe you have a false assumption about what I have argued.. or what it means.

You can correct me on this but I'm kind of assuming that the "investigation" you are referring to would amount to nothing more than a he said-she said scenario and nothing else.

My position is that the FBI or some other independent body should do an investigation, like interview classmates and such, and learn as much as they can before the two people sit down. Having as many facts established prior to the interviews may result in more truth in the interviews. For example, if someone witnessed K and Ford enter the bedroom on a certain date, then that will be established prior to them being interviewed.



-----------------------------

In this case the accusation is too old to be considered credible.

Suppose I am actually innocent, and you accuse me of raping you at 3:30 tuesday morning, and you told all your friends about it thursday, and called the police friday.
If I were actually innocent I may have a receipt showing I just so happen to be at the gas station, and be able to produce video footage showing me pumping gas instead of... well something else.

Now suppose you wait 30 years.
Still supposing I am actually innocent.. what would I be able to produce? A vague memory of a gas station? Maybe not.. maybe I would mistake it for one of the days I was playing D&D with a friend.. and
then my friend would swear I wasn't with him playing D&D.. because he remembers me leaving.. but doesn't remember I went for gas.

If the accusation is made quickly, you should take it as credible, but if it is 30 years later.. you should cast it out of your mind as not credible, because my means for defense are unjustly stripped from me.

I agree that the claim could be considered not strong enough to be used in a CRIMINAL TRIAL.

But then this is not a criminal trial. There is no presumption of innocence. If someone makes a claim and the evidence shows that the person is very likely telling the truth, then the claim is credible enough for people to think that the vent likely happened. And yes "think it likely happened" is not an acceptable burden for a criminal trial but again, that's not what this is.

So for the purpose of this situation, the claim is credible.

In this instance the accusation is too vague to be considered credible.

Now suppose, that you accuse me or rapping you, at a party. You don't say what party, or where the party was, or when it was.. just .. a party.

What am I supposed to rebut? What evidence can I offer? If I bring out my call log, you could look at it .. find whatever hole in the timing you like and say..ahh. now I remember.
Those 3 hours he couldn't account for is when it happened!
Now add 30 years, and now I don't even have the call log to account for any of my actions.

This kind of claim too should be discarded as not a credible accusation, because there is no possibility for a reasonable defense.

And once again, you are referring to a criminal trial. Yes, in a criminal trial, the accusation might be discarded because of that.

Which, for reasons stated above, does not apply here.

Because she has told of the incident to a therapist, it seems very unlikely that she has made up the story. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that she is truthful and accurate. Therefore it is reasonable to consider the claim credible in terms of whether you think it happened (which again, is not the burden for a criminal trial).

[Sigfried]

Well sure she shouldn't have to give the exact time of penetration, but seriously, she doesn't know where she was raped?
(again, I am only fallowing what is here on ODN on this subject, not what may be current in the news)
Certainly I can easily see circumstances where that would be the case but I haven't heard that she was kidnapped or drugged etc in this case.

She was at a party, but she didn't recall who's house it was. That's not too surprising given the span of time and that it was a college drinking party of some kind.

And she wasn't raped, just sexually assaulted. The assailant never got her clothes off. She was held down and groped until the second man intervened. (according to the account I read of what Ford said)

---------- Post added September 24th, 2018 at 12:23 AM ---------- Previous post was September 23rd, 2018 at 11:52 PM ----------

That isn't quite what I meant, but your not wrong to go there.

Let me tell you a true story I recently heard.. from someone I know.
There was this young woman who was who was kinda nieve, innocent of things sexual. Her and her boyfriend started messing around, and she came away from the experience thinking she was raped. Not like maybe raped, but rapped rape.
She told several people at the time. Now she is 20 years older, and looking back she now says, she wasn't raped, she was just ignorant. They were experimenting and fooling around, she just had no concept of sex and what it was.\

The point is.. what she "felt" and "thought" at the time, was not a reflection of reality, even though her feelings were honest.

Without details, the mind boggles. You thought you were raped, but later you thought you weren't? Rape is when you don't want to have sex, and someone goes ahead and has sex with you anyway. So did she change her mind about whether she wanted it or not? Did she realie what they did wasn't actually sex? Without an explination its hard to apply this.

If Ford didn't want to get pushed down on a bed and have her clothes ripped off and didn't give permission, then it's an assault.

For the purpose of the story at hand, I want to ask you.. Do you think she got in that bedroom scantly clad(as swim suits are not really modest) with a boy to not fool around?
I'm not saying in order to have sex.. but It seems to me that the assumption of fooling around is pretty well implied. You don't party at a pool party in the bedroom.

Let me give you the account from Ford...
---
"While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house."
---

I think that answers your questions.

That is true, and good point. The Friend "mark judge" says that "no such incident occurred"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ation-alcohol/

Indeed, he doesn't remember, which is not shocking if you are an alchoholic who routinely drinks until you black out. Which Judge has written about in his own autobiography. How he can claim with certainty any event never happned in that time of his life I don't know.

She sent a letter to fienstien, for a reason that had political implications yes?

She didn't want to see someone who assaulted her become a supreme court justices. Is that poliltical or personal? It sounds mostly personal to me. Political motivations are when you disagree with someones political beliefs and values. This is about someone who attacked you when you were young and whether they are a trustworthy person.

If it turns out to be a false claim, then the motivation is still there yes?

That rather puts the caret before the horse. We are discussing whether it is true so we aren't in a possition to judge post truth implications.

I don't really want to assume anything. If she was sober, and took a drunk guy to a bedroom.

Her claim is that they "corralled her" into the bedroom not that she took them there.

That is really wrong of her to take advantage of him like that. She could pretty much claim anything she wants then.

Look, you are opperating on the idea that this event took place. Her claim is the source of that account. She doesn't claim she lured anyone into a bedroom and took advantage of them. She claims they coerced her into the bedroom and tried to tear off her clothes.

I mean.. isn't that what we would think of a sober guy taking a drunk chick to a bedroom?

No. At least I wouldn't.

Yea, I'm saying it's more common in politics. Just like being murdered for political gain, is more common in politics.

What? You think murder is common in poliics? Like when? When was the last murder for political gain you can point to?

[MindTrap028]

To all, my position has changed a bit so I want to stream line here, while addressing the largest concerns.

1) This woman has failed in her duty to report the crime in a timely manner, and thus has made her claim not credible.
- Support- An accuser has a duty to report a crime in a timely manner, to ensure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted, and that others are not put at risk of her fate. This is what justice demands, without it the possibility for justice is diminished, and makes injustice and damage to the innocent more probable.
2) The claims are not credible because they are too vague and too old for even an innocent man to properly defend himself.
- Justification- An innocent man may have proof of a valid alibi when the event is first alleged, but can not reasonably be expected to still have that evidence 30 years later.
- An innocent man may remember details that would exonerate him, but 30 years late can not reasonably be expected to remember those details, and indeed,may be expected to remember things in such a way so as to incriminate himself. IE he remembers being at one place, but someone neutral claims to remember different, casting him as a liar.
3) If an innocent man could not reasonably defend himself, then any investigation is inherently unfair and unjust.
4) No investigation should take place.

----Some responses---
- Job interview vs criminal.
Mican makes a valid point that the standards applied to a criminal investigation do not apply here. In that case, there is no need for any investigation the interviewer can if they so choose refuse his nomination on the power of a simple accusation if they like. Reasoning within themselves whatever they like, such as it isn't worth the trouble or the risk.
That is however not a just reasoning. Any kind of real justice and fairness demands that we dismiss the charges. Based on the same reasoning as those for a statue of limitations in a criminal setting. Because that reasoning is still valid, and still reflects justice.
Accepting the claim as valid and credible at this point, is unjust. Job interviewers are free to be unjust, but they should not be.

- Micans point An investigation COULD occur -
I am arguing that it should not occur, as it would inherently be unfair to the innocent. So as you earlier argued that even if some magic rule disallowed the investigation it should still occur, i am arguing that even if some special rule or appeal to procedure could allow an investigation, one ought not occur.

- Micans point, If someone believes something happened, then it probably happened-
1) This gives a presupposition preference to an accuser, which is an unfair to the innocent approach to any just investigation or job interview.
2) This is not a reasonable assumption when mind altering drugs are involved, such as alcohol, or when a great amount of time is added. Both of which seem to be the case here.
In this case the earliest report was in 2012, it was a partial report and still fails any reasonable length of time.

That's ridiculous. By that logic, the more people who are involved in a crime and deny the crime, the stronger the case for their innocence is.

We can analyze the likelihood of her accusation being true by other factors. And a MAJOR one is that she told her therapist about it years ago. What is the most logical explanation that she did such a thing. The answer is clearly because the event actually happened. Any other alternatives are so unlikely that they can be discounted. And again, I'm just saying that this makes her case strong enough for us to take it seriously and investigate further.

We can talk to other classmates and find out if she talked about the event the next day and then we would get more evidence. I see no logical reason to not want more evidence to better get to the truth of he matter. Then do get beyond he said-she said which would be a good thing. Right?

Yes, the stronger the CASE would be, that is why they would band together, because it would obscure the truth to a reasonable mind.
See my argument why a case for the truth is not reasonably available to us.
What people not at the event would say is not "evidence", it is gossip and hear say and does not shed light or truth on the event.
As there is no other claimed evidence other than the word of the 3 people in the room, we are not reduced to a simple he said she said.
it is a She said, THEY said. Which to any reasonable person is different.

--------now outside my argument ---

What? You think murder is common in poliics? Like when? When was the last murder for political gain you can point to?

Political reasoning, not necessarily gain.
So, any deaths due to spy activity would count. I recall a guy being poisoned with radioactive material. JFK was shot, Hue P long was shot.
While murder may be one thing, politicians are routinely trapped in sexual scandals.
Trump has his Russian prostitute allegation.. which I mean did you throw that idea out because... man Russia would never use prostitutes to frame a person for political gain?
So women are used as political pawns all the time. If a woman can be paid to have actual sex with a politician, then it is less to have a woman paid to make a false accusation.
Are you assuming that NEVER occurs? If not, then we are only separated by the degree and weight we give to this.

[snackboy]

To all, my position has changed a bit so I want to stream line here, while addressing the largest concerns.

1) This woman has failed in her duty to report the crime in a timely manner, and thus has made her claim not credible.
- Support- An accuser has a duty to report a crime in a timely manner, to ensure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted, and that others are not put at risk of her fate. This is what justice demands, without it the possibility for justice is diminished, and makes injustice and damage to the innocent more probable.

Failed in her duty? If you did some research you would discover that victims of sexual assault rarely come forward because of the very reason that they will not be believed. How do you think that 300 priests got away will sexually abusing over 1000 children in PA over decades?

If a man held down a woman and tried to rape her, then he has no business being on the SCOTUS. We are not talking about the prosecution of a crime. Justice from a legal standpoint is diminished. But we can take the time to hear out Dr. Ford, look at the writings of Mr. Judge, and listen to Judge Kavanaugh recall those days. From there, we can make a decision as to who is more trustworthy.

[MindTrap028]

Failed in her duty? If you did some research you would discover that victims of sexual assault rarely come forward because of the very reason that they will not be believed. How do you think that 300 priests got away will sexually abusing over 1000 children in PA over decades?

If a man held down a woman and tried to rape her, then he has no business being on the SCOTUS. We are not talking about the prosecution of a crime. Justice from a legal standpoint is diminished. But we can take the time to hear out Dr. Ford, look at the writings of Mr. Judge, and listen to Judge Kavanaugh recall those days. From there, we can make a decision as to who is more trustworthy.

yes, failed her duty. Rape and sexual assault victims hurt themselves and society at large when they fail their duty to report the crime in a timely manner. They also forfiet their credibility when they wait 30 years to make an accusation, because we as unknowing an unbiased judges are robbed of our ability to distinguish the guilty from the innocent. Because the actually innocent are robbed of their opportunity of an effective defense. (as already argued. please review).

We should not take the time to hear her out, because her claim is no longer credible.
Demanding Kavenaugh to "recall from those days" 30 years ago is an unreasonable demand. Again review my argument, we could actually expect an innocent man to incriminate himself and come across as a liar by simply sim-remembering.

While you can make a decision as to who you believe, you do not have a reasonable case to make for it. Because any reasonable case for an actually innocent man, has been made impossible by the accuser waiting 30 years.
You would be unjust to believe the accuser over the accused at this point in time 30years later. You would be unjust in your approach, and unjust in your method.

I have offered extensive reason why that is the case. I look forward to any rebuttal you have to offer.

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 AM ----------

http://video.foxnews.com/v/583929126...#sp=show-clips

-- Tainted investigation, taints accusation --
If the people involved in investigating a crime, show a bias against the accused, then it taints the entire case and all that testify against the accused.
That is happening now with Kavenaugh. The democrats have in a partisan manner investigated claims against kavenaugh while denying access to their political opponents. This is going against the bipartisan history of how this sort of thing is handled, and thus discredits the investigation. Cultivating accusations, makes them less believable.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/583929126...#sp=show-clips
From clip
1) These accusations are coming up in an unusual way
2) Committee has professional investigators to investigate discreetly.
3) NYtimes didn't think the story was CREDIBLE enough to even run. (Interesting given the arguments hear for what constitutes credible).