not all of us have our pitchforks at the ready based solely on political affiliation.
There are probably at least 10 conservative judges without the history or baggage of Kavanaugh and could have been nominated but were not. Are you not the company you keep? The Team Trump Treason Administration is a train wreck and some on here want to believe Kavanaugh is somehow “different” than the main players in this train wreck? Laughable.
are you claiming that the Trump admin had knowledge prior to nomination of his college behaviour?
not all of us have our pitchforks at the ready based solely on political affiliation.
There are probably at least 10 conservative judges without the history or baggage of Kavanaugh and could have been nominated but were not. Are you not the company you keep? The Team Trump Treason Administration is a train wreck and some on here want to believe Kavanaugh is somehow “different” than the main players in this train wreck? Laughable.
are you claiming that the Trump admin had knowledge prior to nomination of his college behaviour?
It's reasonable that this didn't come up during the vetting process. It also could be that it came up, but the team didn't think it was credible, likely to come out, etc. Who the hell knows.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
explain to me, if you will, how exactly his life would be ruined by not getting THIS lifetime appointment when he already has one? If its reputation , thats something that can be repaired wth contrition or if tge accusations are false, once the truth is revealed.
what he potentially goes through will fall far far far short of what these women will be forced to endure for speaking up.
I don't know, I just tend to think that sexual crimes reported on at the national/international level would suck pretty bad. And how is the truth revealed in a case of wrongful accusations of this nature? it's like proving there is no god. unless the accuser admits to lying, there is no "truth will come out".
I hate having to say this so often, but it seems to be necessary: I'm not defending this guy. I'm guessing he did what she is accusing him of.
But it just seems to me that no one gives a fuck if she's lying. it's "oh well, he's still a judge, men have been assholes for centuries, so if this one is collateral damage, so be it". I just think that's a dangerous road to go down.
I, for one, DON'T really give a fuck. On a personal level, yeah, I do. But on a broader, philosophical and societal level...nope don't give a fuck. This guy is the epitome of white privilege and advantage. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, none of these accusations are "ruining lives". They are ending the careers of men who have made enough money to live comfortably for generations. I find it hard to care if their reputation takes a hit when they belong to elite societies that will never truly abandon them.
You talk about a dangerous road to go down... What about the dangerous road we've been down for the last few thousand years? The dangerous road where women are raped and then are damn lucky just to avoid punishment and blame for their own victimisation, let alone see justice. We have been on this dangerous road for eons and if we take a different road that's dangerous for the previous benefactors...well...I just don't have many fucks to give.
the goal here shouldn't be to swing all the way the other way. the goal should be to end up in the middle.
I thought justice was supposed to be blind, not "blind unless he's white and rich".
This statement really illustrates the insane level of bias that western society builds into men. First of all, you and the other nervous males are really mixing and matching the meaning of the word justice. There is a stark difference between legal justice and "what people think ought to be right" and you have been blurring that line. On that note... "swing all the way the other way"??? Are you fucking joking? There are tens of thousands of untested rape kits sitting around in America. THAT is one side. According to you the other side "all the way the other way" is a handful of millionaire celebrities who had to quit their jobs and a nominee to the highest appointed moral authority in the free world having to just remain in his already eminent position.
Don't you see how insulting that is? This entire conversation is a slap in the face.
jesus christ. reasoned debate has left the building.
What a cop out lol If you can't hang, don't climb.
really? so this is a dick measuring contest to you?
I am fully aware of the plight of women, and as the father of two daughters, the world they are growing up in scares the living fuck out of me.
I just don't see your position as reasonable. you are so way off base in your assessment of what I've been saying, I can't even bother to respond to it.
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
not all of us have our pitchforks at the ready based solely on political affiliation.
There are probably at least 10 conservative judges without the history or baggage of Kavanaugh and could have been nominated but were not. Are you not the company you keep? The Team Trump Treason Administration is a train wreck and some on here want to believe Kavanaugh is somehow “different” than the main players in this train wreck? Laughable.
are you claiming that the Trump admin had knowledge prior to nomination of his college behaviour?
They should have known, through a thorough vetting process, that he may have had questionable behavior in his past that could potentially open him up to being accused of a lack of judgement or sexual assualt. If they asked him these difficult questions and he lied, he's disqualified. And if he answered truthfully, mentioned the parties and the high jinks, then he should have been dropped from consideration and not nominated. These allegations, along with what we now know of the environment Kavanaugh operated in during high school, college and law school, coupled with the credit card debts, season tickets and gambling issues, at a minimum, show a lack of judgement over time. Someone I don't want sitting in a life time appointment to the Supreme Court. Train wreck of an administration. And yes, they knew of the second instance from law school, hence why they tried to ram him through.
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
I believe the first accuser requested an FBI investigation, prior to testifying. The committee rejected that demand so she relented to testifying Thursday. Because there will be no formal investigation, what is the burden now?
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
I agree with this. If he still maintains his innocence I think he should sit there and listen to his accusers. But the burden of proof goes way down once several people report the same behavior. And if I were a senator, I wouldn’t be able to vote for him.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
explain to me, if you will, how exactly his life would be ruined by not getting THIS lifetime appointment when he already has one? If its reputation , thats something that can be repaired wth contrition or if tge accusations are false, once the truth is revealed.
what he potentially goes through will fall far far far short of what these women will be forced to endure for speaking up.
I don't know, I just tend to think that sexual crimes reported on at the national/international level would suck pretty bad. And how is the truth revealed in a case of wrongful accusations of this nature? it's like proving there is no god. unless the accuser admits to lying, there is no "truth will come out".
I hate having to say this so often, but it seems to be necessary: I'm not defending this guy. I'm guessing he did what she is accusing him of.
But it just seems to me that no one gives a fuck if she's lying. it's "oh well, he's still a judge, men have been assholes for centuries, so if this one is collateral damage, so be it". I just think that's a dangerous road to go down.
Exactly how I feel. If proven to be untrue, it will be talked about for 15 minutes then forgotten. And he will always be known as the judge who didn't get nominated for this. If true I don't feel bad for him at all, but if not, this would be horrible to go through. Yes, abused women had to endure much worse, but that doesn't have anything to do with railroading someone. I don't get the attitude of "o well, he's already a judge so whats the harm." I agree it is a dangerous road.
I have no clue why you think proven false accusations would be talked about for 15 minutes and then forgotten.
But in any case, yup, someone getting hurt by false allegations is horrible. I ABSOLUTELY care about such instances... But I'm not sure what in the world people want here. At this moment there is no reason at all to assume they are false accusations, but the possibility of them being false is the MAIN topic of conversation. If these are not false accusations, which is much more likely than the reverse, that's way, way, WAY more disgusting than Kavanaugh not getting this SCOTUS seat.
So what exactly are you looking for here?? Is there some third option that I'm not aware of, in a dimension where life is always fair?
I do see a third option. Camp A: It seems many have the side of he's been accused, that is enough to disqualify him. Camp B: Another camp is this was long, he was young, its been almost 40 years, let him be a judge.
I actually think Camp B is uncommon. Although that has been cited constantly by those who want him disqualifies, very few are actually saying that. Far more are what I consider Camp C: delay a vote until a hearing takes places and testimony if weighed and the facts are researched. Then decide if he is qualified. I don't think you need the same level of evidence that a criminal case needs to disqualify him, far less. But many seem to want to skip that phase and go straight to disqualifying.
And yes, I do think if they are proven untrue it will make far less news than what it already has. Not even close.
this is what we are saying. not sure how that wasn't clear from the beginning.
You've been clear on that. But there are others who seem to want him gone based on the accusations without any further questioning. The fact he's been accused alone is enough for some.
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
I believe the first accuser requested an FBI investigation, prior to testifying. The committee rejected that demand so she relented to testifying Thursday. Because there will be no formal investigation, what is the burden now?
if it remained at one accuser? that's a good question. I honestly don't know.
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
I agree with this. If he still maintains his innocence I think he should sit there and listen to his accusers. But the burden of proof goes way down once several people report the same behavior. And if I were a senator, I wouldn’t be able to vote for him.
Right, but say it's just one person. What is the burden of proof? Is it "believable", "preponderance of the evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt"? If you were on taht committee, voting for someone to be a SCOTUS for life (not go to jail, not lose your job), what is the burden? For me, it's believable. I think it's a fairly low bar for the accuser to cross. The position is too important. It is essentially the most important long term job in the country.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
explain to me, if you will, how exactly his life would be ruined by not getting THIS lifetime appointment when he already has one? If its reputation , thats something that can be repaired wth contrition or if tge accusations are false, once the truth is revealed.
what he potentially goes through will fall far far far short of what these women will be forced to endure for speaking up.
I don't know, I just tend to think that sexual crimes reported on at the national/international level would suck pretty bad. And how is the truth revealed in a case of wrongful accusations of this nature? it's like proving there is no god. unless the accuser admits to lying, there is no "truth will come out".
I hate having to say this so often, but it seems to be necessary: I'm not defending this guy. I'm guessing he did what she is accusing him of.
But it just seems to me that no one gives a fuck if she's lying. it's "oh well, he's still a judge, men have been assholes for centuries, so if this one is collateral damage, so be it". I just think that's a dangerous road to go down.
I, for one, DON'T really give a fuck. On a personal level, yeah, I do. But on a broader, philosophical and societal level...nope don't give a fuck. This guy is the epitome of white privilege and advantage. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, none of these accusations are "ruining lives". They are ending the careers of men who have made enough money to live comfortably for generations. I find it hard to care if their reputation takes a hit when they belong to elite societies that will never truly abandon them.
You talk about a dangerous road to go down... What about the dangerous road we've been down for the last few thousand years? The dangerous road where women are raped and then are damn lucky just to avoid punishment and blame for their own victimisation, let alone see justice. We have been on this dangerous road for eons and if we take a different road that's dangerous for the previous benefactors...well...I just don't have many fucks to give.
the goal here shouldn't be to swing all the way the other way. the goal should be to end up in the middle.
I thought justice was supposed to be blind, not "blind unless he's white and rich".
This statement really illustrates the insane level of bias that western society builds into men. First of all, you and the other nervous males are really mixing and matching the meaning of the word justice. There is a stark difference between legal justice and "what people think ought to be right" and you have been blurring that line. On that note... "swing all the way the other way"??? Are you fucking joking? There are tens of thousands of untested rape kits sitting around in America. THAT is one side. According to you the other side "all the way the other way" is a handful of millionaire celebrities who had to quit their jobs and a nominee to the highest appointed moral authority in the free world having to just remain in his already eminent position.
Don't you see how insulting that is? This entire conversation is a slap in the face.
jesus christ. reasoned debate has left the building.
What a cop out lol If you can't hang, don't climb.
really? so this is a dick measuring contest to you?
I am fully aware of the plight of women, and as the father of two daughters, the world they are growing up in scares the living fuck out of me.
I just don't see your position as reasonable. you are so way off base in your assessment of what I've been saying, I can't even bother to respond to it.
I don't feel like I should bear the blame for you not thinking through the implications of the things you say. You positioned the Kavanaugh accusation and fallout as "all the way the other way" in contrast to the deplorable situation that women face right now and through history, and I think that's insulting to women.
There is no "burden of proof" in a legal sense, because the confirmation hearings are not a court or tribunal. They are in theory essentially an extended job interview, with a lot of involved parties. Those who will eventually vote on the confirmation do not have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, or upon preponderance of evidence, or any other particular standard; they just need to think he either is or is not fit for the job and can take all relevant information into account. That's why credible accusations are enough, even if never formally proved.
Post edited by oftenreading on
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
explain to me, if you will, how exactly his life would be ruined by not getting THIS lifetime appointment when he already has one? If its reputation , thats something that can be repaired wth contrition or if tge accusations are false, once the truth is revealed.
what he potentially goes through will fall far far far short of what these women will be forced to endure for speaking up.
I don't know, I just tend to think that sexual crimes reported on at the national/international level would suck pretty bad. And how is the truth revealed in a case of wrongful accusations of this nature? it's like proving there is no god. unless the accuser admits to lying, there is no "truth will come out".
I hate having to say this so often, but it seems to be necessary: I'm not defending this guy. I'm guessing he did what she is accusing him of.
But it just seems to me that no one gives a fuck if she's lying. it's "oh well, he's still a judge, men have been assholes for centuries, so if this one is collateral damage, so be it". I just think that's a dangerous road to go down.
I, for one, DON'T really give a fuck. On a personal level, yeah, I do. But on a broader, philosophical and societal level...nope don't give a fuck. This guy is the epitome of white privilege and advantage. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, none of these accusations are "ruining lives". They are ending the careers of men who have made enough money to live comfortably for generations. I find it hard to care if their reputation takes a hit when they belong to elite societies that will never truly abandon them.
You talk about a dangerous road to go down... What about the dangerous road we've been down for the last few thousand years? The dangerous road where women are raped and then are damn lucky just to avoid punishment and blame for their own victimisation, let alone see justice. We have been on this dangerous road for eons and if we take a different road that's dangerous for the previous benefactors...well...I just don't have many fucks to give.
the goal here shouldn't be to swing all the way the other way. the goal should be to end up in the middle.
I thought justice was supposed to be blind, not "blind unless he's white and rich".
This statement really illustrates the insane level of bias that western society builds into men. First of all, you and the other nervous males are really mixing and matching the meaning of the word justice. There is a stark difference between legal justice and "what people think ought to be right" and you have been blurring that line. On that note... "swing all the way the other way"??? Are you fucking joking? There are tens of thousands of untested rape kits sitting around in America. THAT is one side. According to you the other side "all the way the other way" is a handful of millionaire celebrities who had to quit their jobs and a nominee to the highest appointed moral authority in the free world having to just remain in his already eminent position.
Don't you see how insulting that is? This entire conversation is a slap in the face.
jesus christ. reasoned debate has left the building.
What a cop out lol If you can't hang, don't climb.
really? so this is a dick measuring contest to you?
I am fully aware of the plight of women, and as the father of two daughters, the world they are growing up in scares the living fuck out of me.
I just don't see your position as reasonable. you are so way off base in your assessment of what I've been saying, I can't even bother to respond to it.
I don't feel like I should bear the blame for you not thinking through the implications of the things you say. You positioned the Kavanaugh accusation and fallout as "all the way the other way" in contrast to the deplorable situation that women face right now and through history, and I think that's insulting to women.
you should bare the blame for making claims about a person that has no basis in reality.
no, I didn't. I positioned your assertion that you give "zero fucks" if someone is innocent merely because they are priveleged.
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
I agree with this. If he still maintains his innocence I think he should sit there and listen to his accusers. But the burden of proof goes way down once several people report the same behavior. And if I were a senator, I wouldn’t be able to vote for him.
Right, but say it's just one person. What is the burden of proof? Is it "believable", "preponderance of the evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt"? If you were on taht committee, voting for someone to be a SCOTUS for life (not go to jail, not lose your job), what is the burden? For me, it's believable. I think it's a fairly low bar for the accuser to cross. The position is too important. It is essentially the most important long term job in the country.
Yes to this.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
I agree with this. If he still maintains his innocence I think he should sit there and listen to his accusers. But the burden of proof goes way down once several people report the same behavior. And if I were a senator, I wouldn’t be able to vote for him.
Right, but say it's just one person. What is the burden of proof? Is it "believable", "preponderance of the evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt"? If you were on taht committee, voting for someone to be a SCOTUS for life (not go to jail, not lose your job), what is the burden? For me, it's believable. I think it's a fairly low bar for the accuser to cross. The position is too important. It is essentially the most important long term job in the country.
What you are asking is kinda impossible to state because it’s going to be up to each individual voting.
For me - if I were voting. I would need to hear the accuser answer some questions. I want to here right from her. And then here from him (or vice versa I don’t care). I want to ask some questions that would unfortunately be awful for her to have to answer but I need to hear her answers. Then - if it’s still he said she said, Idil have to use my judgement on who I believed.
Personally I would have asked for the fbi investigation as I believe that would provide much better info then just a hearing.
There is no "burden of proof" in a legal sense, because the confirmation hearings are not a court or tribunal. They are in theory essentially an extended job interview, with lot a of involved parties. Those who will eventually vote on the confirmation do not have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, or upon preponderance of evidence, or any other particular standard; they just need to think he either is or is not fit for the job and can take all relevant information into account. That's why credible accusations are enough, even if never formally proved.
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
I agree with this. If he still maintains his innocence I think he should sit there and listen to his accusers. But the burden of proof goes way down once several people report the same behavior. And if I were a senator, I wouldn’t be able to vote for him.
Right, but say it's just one person. What is the burden of proof? Is it "believable", "preponderance of the evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt"? If you were on taht committee, voting for someone to be a SCOTUS for life (not go to jail, not lose your job), what is the burden? For me, it's believable. I think it's a fairly low bar for the accuser to cross. The position is too important. It is essentially the most important long term job in the country.
What you are asking is kinda impossible to state because it’s going to be up to each individual voting.
For me - if I were voting. I would need to hear the accuser answer some questions. I want to here right from her. And then here from him (or vice versa I don’t care). I want to ask some questions that would unfortunately be awful for her to have to answer but I need to hear her answers. Then - if it’s still he said she said, Idil have to use my judgement on who I believed.
Personally I would have asked for the fbi investigation as I believe that would provide much better info then just a hearing.
Yes, I was asking what YOU would have as your burden. I know that Senator Grassley's is 99% true, and Shumer's is 1% true. The investigation isn't happening as you know, but not because of the Democrats or the accuser. Thanks for your answer. I think if there are 2 or 3 people ready to get up there, the nomination is cooked. I think it's 70% cooked now, but I also think the Senators may be willing to lose the majority to get one more person on the court.
Conway claimed that women don't come forward to report actual sexual assault because other women make false allegations. According to her, "it cuts both ways".
What does that bafflegab even mean?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Conway claimed that women don't come forward to report actual sexual assault because other women make false allegations. According to her, "it cuts both ways".
What does that bafflegab even mean?
I'm guessing she means that they won't have any credibility.
Conway claimed that women don't come forward to report actual sexual assault because other women make false allegations. According to her, "it cuts both ways".
What does that bafflegab even mean?
Did she cock her head, smile and bat her eyes after she said it?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
explain to me, if you will, how exactly his life would be ruined by not getting THIS lifetime appointment when he already has one? If its reputation , thats something that can be repaired wth contrition or if tge accusations are false, once the truth is revealed.
what he potentially goes through will fall far far far short of what these women will be forced to endure for speaking up.
I don't know, I just tend to think that sexual crimes reported on at the national/international level would suck pretty bad. And how is the truth revealed in a case of wrongful accusations of this nature? it's like proving there is no god. unless the accuser admits to lying, there is no "truth will come out".
I hate having to say this so often, but it seems to be necessary: I'm not defending this guy. I'm guessing he did what she is accusing him of.
But it just seems to me that no one gives a fuck if she's lying. it's "oh well, he's still a judge, men have been assholes for centuries, so if this one is collateral damage, so be it". I just think that's a dangerous road to go down.
Exactly how I feel. If proven to be untrue, it will be talked about for 15 minutes then forgotten. And he will always be known as the judge who didn't get nominated for this. If true I don't feel bad for him at all, but if not, this would be horrible to go through. Yes, abused women had to endure much worse, but that doesn't have anything to do with railroading someone. I don't get the attitude of "o well, he's already a judge so whats the harm." I agree it is a dangerous road.
I have no clue why you think proven false accusations would be talked about for 15 minutes and then forgotten.
But in any case, yup, someone getting hurt by false allegations is horrible. I ABSOLUTELY care about such instances... But I'm not sure what in the world people want here. At this moment there is no reason at all to assume they are false accusations, but the possibility of them being false is the MAIN topic of conversation. If these are not false accusations, which is much more likely than the reverse, that's way, way, WAY more disgusting than Kavanaugh not getting this SCOTUS seat.
So what exactly are you looking for here?? Is there some third option that I'm not aware of, in a dimension where life is always fair?
I do see a third option. Camp A: It seems many have the side of he's been accused, that is enough to disqualify him. Camp B: Another camp is this was long, he was young, its been almost 40 years, let him be a judge.
I actually think Camp B is uncommon. Although that has been cited constantly by those who want him disqualifies, very few are actually saying that. Far more are what I consider Camp C: delay a vote until a hearing takes places and testimony if weighed and the facts are researched. Then decide if he is qualified. I don't think you need the same level of evidence that a criminal case needs to disqualify him, far less. But many seem to want to skip that phase and go straight to disqualifying.
And yes, I do think if they are proven untrue it will make far less news than what it already has. Not even close.
this is what we are saying. not sure how that wasn't clear from the beginning.
You've been clear on that. But there are others who seem to want him gone based on the accusations without any further questioning. The fact he's been accused alone is enough for some.
No, the fact that there's a pretty good possibility that he's sexually assaulted his accusers is enough for some. This is very reasonable.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
He's a frat boy piece of shit. We've all come across them in our lives.
Maybe he realizes what he did was wrong...but the fucker won't admit that he did it. He thinks enough time went by that he can deny it and enough people will believe him and put him on the court.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
I agree with this. If he still maintains his innocence I think he should sit there and listen to his accusers. But the burden of proof goes way down once several people report the same behavior. And if I were a senator, I wouldn’t be able to vote for him.
Right, but say it's just one person. What is the burden of proof? Is it "believable", "preponderance of the evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt"? If you were on taht committee, voting for someone to be a SCOTUS for life (not go to jail, not lose your job), what is the burden? For me, it's believable. I think it's a fairly low bar for the accuser to cross. The position is too important. It is essentially the most important long term job in the country.
This is where I'm at.
I find both women who have forward so far credible and believable.
with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person.
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
I believe the first accuser requested an FBI investigation, prior to testifying. The committee rejected that demand so she relented to testifying Thursday. Because there will be no formal investigation, what is the burden now?
if it remained at one accuser? that's a good question. I honestly don't know.
if the nominee didn't have evidence of shady behavior than one accuser maybe be ok to allow to pass through. with what has been reported about Kavanaugh and his high school and college history one accuser may have been enough.
of course assholes who do this kind of behavior never do it just once so not even remotely surprising there are now more accusers.
i want to hear him explain his past behavior to his daughters. that would be interesting to hear
By Greg Sargent Opinion writer September 24 at 8:59 AM
Now that another woman has told the New Yorker about another episode alleging sexually belligerent behavior in the 1980s by Brett Kavanaugh, the White House has put out a statement that inadvertently makes a strong argument for, not against, further examination of Kavanaugh’s background by the FBI.
Responding to the new allegation, a White House spokesman dismissed it as a “smear,” and added:
“This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say.”
You know who might do a good job verifying that “all who were said to be present” deny the new allegation, and that it is “wholly inconsistent” with what “many” who knew Kavanaugh at the time say? The FBI would, that’s who. And if the FBI did reopen its background check and confirm these things, it would go great lengths toward exonerating him. So why don’t Republicans want this to happen?
It should be stated up front that the new allegations have not been publicly corroborated by anyone. Kavanaugh’s defenders may argue that if the FBI were called in (which President Trump would have to do), this means anyone can far too easily make that happen by concocting a charge against a nominee on his or her own, thus baselessly casting further suspicion over that nominee. This is not an unreasonable objection. I’ll try to address it below.
The woman, Deborah Ramirez, admitted to the New Yorker that she was “inebriated” at the time and that there are “significant gaps” in her memory. Ramirez claims that when she and Kavanaugh were freshmen at Yale, at a dorm party a young man pointed a gag plastic penis at her, and she recalls that man and another man standing near her as she lay on the floor. New Yorker reporters Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer claim Ramirez identified these two men, but the piece doesn’t name them.
Ramirez then recounts that a third male exposed himself, putting a penis “in front of my face.” Then comes this:
She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ ”
It seems Ramirez is not entirely sure the man who allegedly exposed himself was Kavanaugh, but she claims to remember conduct right afterward by him that strongly suggests this to be the case.
What we still don’t know
The New Yorker piece adds that reporters have “not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party,” despite contacting “several dozen classmates.” What’s unclear is whether this includes the two men whom Ramirez herself identified, and the male who supposedly shouted Kavanaugh’s name. If those two were unwilling to confirm the plastic penis gag or that she lay on the floor after it happened, and if the third male has no recollection of shouting Kavanaugh’s name, it would amount to more than a mere failure to confirm Kavanaugh’s presence. These points will hopefully be clarified in coming days.
More broadly, the story claims that just after Kavanaugh got the nomination, his “college behavior had become a topic of discussion among former Yale students.” One man says Kavanaugh was “frequently, incoherently drunk.” One woman says that Mark Judge — whom Christine Blasey Ford claims was present during Kavanaugh’s alleged assault — is lying when he denies extensive horseplay toward women in the world of Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh’s alma mater.
An FBI examination could help illuminate such things. It might not pass judgment on Ramirez’s claims, but it would conduct numerous interviews and report their content to lawmakers, giving them more information to work with to better assess the claims themselves. Such interviews could confirm to lawmakers what numerous classmates say about the episode itself — or about it not happening — as well as about Ford’s allegation and about Kavanaugh’s general conduct and the atmospherics at Georgetown Prep and Yale.
Kavanaugh’s burden of proof
Kavanaugh, as an individual, is of course entitled to a presumption of innocence. But this doesn’t settle the tougher question, which is what should be his burden when it comes to addressing charges such as these in the quest to be deemed worthy of being elevated to the Supreme Court for life.
Writing at the Atlantic, Benjamin Wittes suggests the burden is on Kavanaugh to dispel any “asterisk” over his name that such allegations have created, to preserve the court’s legitimacy, and because of the far-reaching influence over public affairs such an appointment brings. But who gets to decide whether that “asterisk” has been sufficiently dispelled, or if it has not, how that should weigh on his confirmation?
The answer is that individual senators get to decide this. They decide whether that asterisk has been dealt with, or whether dispelling it in the eyes of the country should even be a precondition for serving on the court at all. Kavanaugh’s testimony this week might be just persuasive enough to make Susan Collins of Maine or Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — or both — feel politically comfortable enough to back him, getting him to 50 or 51 Senate votes. But even if so, that asterisk could remain for much of the country.
Or here’s another approach: Collins and Murkowski could decide to place a high standard on whether this asterisk has been dispelled. The reality is that the standard Kavanaugh must meet is up to them. (It’s amazing that we take it as unremarkable that 49 Republicans will back Kavanaugh no matter what even under these conditions, but put that aside for now.) Thus, Collins and Murkowski could insist that only an FBI reexamination will meet that asterisk-dispelling standard, and refuse to support him until it is conducted. If they do not, it is they who have chosen to set this standard so low, and they should be asked to defend this.
Is it fair that a single person’s uncorroborated allegation can force an FBI investigation? In certain respects, perhaps not, but in this case two women have now alleged this behavior, and again, Kavanaugh is asking to be granted great influence over society and the rest of us.
And here’s the thing: The #MeToo movement is leaving it inescapable that we will need some kind of improved process for dealing with such charges in the context of Supreme Court confirmation fights. Perhaps we should come to see it as ordinary and necessary to re-involve the FBI when allegations like these reach a certain point. As Quinta Jurecic notes, what that point is must inevitably be contested, because it’s a complicated moral question. And a standard might develop in a case-by-case way over time.
But right now, it seems to have plainly been reached. Besides, even if bringing in the FBI risks being unfair to a candidate ultimately found guilty of no wrongdoing, can anyone reasonably say that doing nothing — and leaving the he-said/she-said question mark hovering over a lifetime appointment — is a better course? If so, that view, too, must be defended.
Right now it is on individual senators to decide the answer to that question — that is, to decide how high the standard in addressing that question mark will be. It is on two of them.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
I am fully aware of the plight of women, and as the father of two daughters, the world they are growing up in scares the living fuck out of me.
I just don't see your position as reasonable. you are so way off base in your assessment of what I've been saying, I can't even bother to respond to it.
www.headstonesband.com
with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
You positioned the Kavanaugh accusation and fallout as "all the way the other way" in contrast to the deplorable situation that women face right now and through history, and I think that's insulting to women.
no, I didn't. I positioned your assertion that you give "zero fucks" if someone is innocent merely because they are priveleged.
www.headstonesband.com
Yes to this.
For me - if I were voting. I would need to hear the accuser answer some questions. I want to here right from her. And then here from him (or vice versa I don’t care). I want to ask some questions that would unfortunately be awful for her to have to answer but I need to hear her answers. Then - if it’s still he said she said, Idil have to use my judgement on who I believed.
Personally I would have asked for the fbi investigation as I believe that would provide much better info then just a hearing.
www.headstonesband.com
What does that bafflegab even mean?
my god that thing is a lizard.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Maybe he realizes what he did was wrong...but the fucker won't admit that he did it. He thinks enough time went by that he can deny it and enough people will believe him and put him on the court.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I find both women who have forward so far credible and believable.
of course assholes who do this kind of behavior never do it just once so not even remotely surprising there are now more accusers.
i want to hear him explain his past behavior to his daughters. that would be interesting to hear
Opinion writer
September 24 at 8:59 AM
Now that another woman has told the New Yorker about another episode alleging sexually belligerent behavior in the 1980s by Brett Kavanaugh, the White House has put out a statement that inadvertently makes a strong argument for, not against, further examination of Kavanaugh’s background by the FBI.
Responding to the new allegation, a White House spokesman dismissed it as a “smear,” and added:
“This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say.”
You know who might do a good job verifying that “all who were said to be present” deny the new allegation, and that it is “wholly inconsistent” with what “many” who knew Kavanaugh at the time say? The FBI would, that’s who. And if the FBI did reopen its background check and confirm these things, it would go great lengths toward exonerating him. So why don’t Republicans want this to happen?
It should be stated up front that the new allegations have not been publicly corroborated by anyone. Kavanaugh’s defenders may argue that if the FBI were called in (which President Trump would have to do), this means anyone can far too easily make that happen by concocting a charge against a nominee on his or her own, thus baselessly casting further suspicion over that nominee. This is not an unreasonable objection. I’ll try to address it below.
The woman, Deborah Ramirez, admitted to the New Yorker that she was “inebriated” at the time and that there are “significant gaps” in her memory. Ramirez claims that when she and Kavanaugh were freshmen at Yale, at a dorm party a young man pointed a gag plastic penis at her, and she recalls that man and another man standing near her as she lay on the floor. New Yorker reporters Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer claim Ramirez identified these two men, but the piece doesn’t name them.
Ramirez then recounts that a third male exposed himself, putting a penis “in front of my face.” Then comes this:
She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ ”
It seems Ramirez is not entirely sure the man who allegedly exposed himself was Kavanaugh, but she claims to remember conduct right afterward by him that strongly suggests this to be the case.
What we still don’t know
The New Yorker piece adds that reporters have “not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party,” despite contacting “several dozen classmates.” What’s unclear is whether this includes the two men whom Ramirez herself identified, and the male who supposedly shouted Kavanaugh’s name. If those two were unwilling to confirm the plastic penis gag or that she lay on the floor after it happened, and if the third male has no recollection of shouting Kavanaugh’s name, it would amount to more than a mere failure to confirm Kavanaugh’s presence. These points will hopefully be clarified in coming days.
More broadly, the story claims that just after Kavanaugh got the nomination, his “college behavior had become a topic of discussion among former Yale students.” One man says Kavanaugh was “frequently, incoherently drunk.” One woman says that Mark Judge — whom Christine Blasey Ford claims was present during Kavanaugh’s alleged assault — is lying when he denies extensive horseplay toward women in the world of Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh’s alma mater.
An FBI examination could help illuminate such things. It might not pass judgment on Ramirez’s claims, but it would conduct numerous interviews and report their content to lawmakers, giving them more information to work with to better assess the claims themselves. Such interviews could confirm to lawmakers what numerous classmates say about the episode itself — or about it not happening — as well as about Ford’s allegation and about Kavanaugh’s general conduct and the atmospherics at Georgetown Prep and Yale.
Kavanaugh’s burden of proof
Kavanaugh, as an individual, is of course entitled to a presumption of innocence. But this doesn’t settle the tougher question, which is what should be his burden when it comes to addressing charges such as these in the quest to be deemed worthy of being elevated to the Supreme Court for life.
Writing at the Atlantic, Benjamin Wittes suggests the burden is on Kavanaugh to dispel any “asterisk” over his name that such allegations have created, to preserve the court’s legitimacy, and because of the far-reaching influence over public affairs such an appointment brings. But who gets to decide whether that “asterisk” has been sufficiently dispelled, or if it has not, how that should weigh on his confirmation?
The answer is that individual senators get to decide this. They decide whether that asterisk has been dealt with, or whether dispelling it in the eyes of the country should even be a precondition for serving on the court at all. Kavanaugh’s testimony this week might be just persuasive enough to make Susan Collins of Maine or Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — or both — feel politically comfortable enough to back him, getting him to 50 or 51 Senate votes. But even if so, that asterisk could remain for much of the country.
Or here’s another approach: Collins and Murkowski could decide to place a high standard on whether this asterisk has been dispelled. The reality is that the standard Kavanaugh must meet is up to them. (It’s amazing that we take it as unremarkable that 49 Republicans will back Kavanaugh no matter what even under these conditions, but put that aside for now.) Thus, Collins and Murkowski could insist that only an FBI reexamination will meet that asterisk-dispelling standard, and refuse to support him until it is conducted. If they do not, it is they who have chosen to set this standard so low, and they should be asked to defend this.
Is it fair that a single person’s uncorroborated allegation can force an FBI investigation? In certain respects, perhaps not, but in this case two women have now alleged this behavior, and again, Kavanaugh is asking to be granted great influence over society and the rest of us.
And here’s the thing: The #MeToo movement is leaving it inescapable that we will need some kind of improved process for dealing with such charges in the context of Supreme Court confirmation fights. Perhaps we should come to see it as ordinary and necessary to re-involve the FBI when allegations like these reach a certain point. As Quinta Jurecic notes, what that point is must inevitably be contested, because it’s a complicated moral question. And a standard might develop in a case-by-case way over time.
But right now, it seems to have plainly been reached. Besides, even if bringing in the FBI risks being unfair to a candidate ultimately found guilty of no wrongdoing, can anyone reasonably say that doing nothing — and leaving the he-said/she-said question mark hovering over a lifetime appointment — is a better course? If so, that view, too, must be defended.
Right now it is on individual senators to decide the answer to that question — that is, to decide how high the standard in addressing that question mark will be. It is on two of them.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14