Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

Senator Orrin Hatch was asked how he thought senators would react if it turns out that what Kavanaugh's accuser has alleged is true.

``If that were true, I think it would be hard for senators not to consider who he is today,'' he said.

— Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) September 17, 2018

[Millhouse]

(09-18-2018, 01:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This just seems like the type of case that innocence should be presumed.

In the #metoo era, there is no such thing as being presumed innocent.

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2018, 01:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In most case, a few use the clear and convincing standard. So in this case they would be assessing if Kavanagh was responsible for her assault, instead of Guilty of it? Seems unusual. This just seems like the type of case that innocence should be presumed.

Matt and SSF were discussing civil juries, so in this hypothetical scenario there's a civil case where presumably they're suing for damages as a result of the alleged assault (whether medical or suffering). 

One of the most famous civil cases from an alleged crime is the civil case against OJ where the victims families won after he was found responsible for the murders even after he was declared innocent. Doesn't necessarily SEEM right, but totally different stakes between the criminal and civil cases.

[GMDino]

(09-18-2018, 02:11 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Senator Orrin Hatch was asked how he thought senators would react if it turns out that what Kavanaugh's accuser has alleged is true.

``If that were true, I think it would be hard for senators not to consider who he is today,'' he said.

— Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) September 17, 2018

35 years ago Grassley was 50 years old. https://t.co/y4fuVzrA6B

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) September 18, 2018

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2018, 02:25 PM)Millhouse Wrote: In the #metoo era, there is no such thing as being presumed innocent.

There has never been a presumption of innocence outside of criminal court room, and that has not changed.  If your babysitter was charged with molesting children then you would never say "I will let him keep baby sitting until he is convicted because we have to presume he is innocent."  Not even BEFORE the "#metoo era".

Kavanaugh is not facing a criminal charge so there is no "presumption of innocence".

Some people here seem to think that a person can not be held responsible for improper actions unless there is DNA or a video recording of the misconduct, but that is not true.  A lot of improper actions are committed without any evidence except the testimony of the victim.  At that point the people setting in judgement have to look at a lot of information to determine what should be done.  They look at the motives each party has to lie.  They look at past actions by both parties.  They look at each persons record of veracity.  It is a very complicated, but if you are the victimof a crime and the only direct evidence is your own testimony there can still be a conviction. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2018, 01:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: I had to requote this paragraph after reading this tweet:

"She was drunk, this rape is her fault."

"He was drunk, this rape isn't his fault.

— Chloe Angyal (@ChloeAngyal) September 18, 2018

Not sure why considering the statement has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2018, 03:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There has never been a presumption of innocence outside of criminal court room, and that has not changed.  If your babysitter was charged with molesting children then you would never say "I will let him keep baby sitting until he is convicted because we have to presume he is innocent."  Not even BEFORE the "#metoo era".

Kavanaugh is not facing a criminal charge so there is no "presumption of innocence".

Some people here seem to think that a person can not be held responsible for improper actions unless there is DNA or a video recording of the misconduct, but that is not true.  A lot of improper actions are committed without any evidence except the testimony of the victim.  At that point the people setting in judgement have to look at a lot of information to determine what should be done.  They look at the motives each party has to lie.  They look at past actions by both parties.  They look at each persons record of veracity.  It is a very complicated, but if you are the victimof a crime and the only direct evidence is your own testimony there can still be a conviction. 

Put on your defense attorney hat really quick Fred.  What would be your tactic against the accuser in court given the entirety of what we know at this point?

[Benton]

(09-18-2018, 02:25 PM)Millhouse Wrote: In the #metoo era, there is no such thing as being presumed innocent.

(09-18-2018, 03:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There has never been a presumption of innocence outside of criminal court room, and that has not changed.  ...  Not even BEFORE the "#metoo era".

Kavanaugh is not facing a criminal charge so there is no "presumption of innocence".
 

Agreed. 

Slander has been around forever because it's effective. People believe it, or at least have a doubt, until proven otherwise. That has nothing to do with the #metoo movement. Defamation laws in this country date back to the early 1700s.

[GMDino]

(09-18-2018, 10:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly how will you know if that occurs?  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the accuser's story is 100% true.  By her own account Kavanaugh was "staggering drunk".  he could truthfully say he has no memory of it ever happening even if it did.  Which leads us back to the original question, how are you even going to determine if the story is true?

(09-18-2018, 01:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: I had to requote this paragraph after reading this tweet:

"She was drunk, this rape is her fault."

"He was drunk, this rape isn't his fault.

— Chloe Angyal (@ChloeAngyal) September 18, 2018

(09-18-2018, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not sure why considering the statement has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made.

I typed that slower for you.

Did you not say sir that even if her story was 100% true it still couldn't be proven because he was drunk?

That is exactly what the tweet says:  If he's drunk he can't be held responsible.
 
Good day sir.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2018, 03:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: I typed that slower for you.

Instead you should have read it "slower" to yourself.

Quote:Did you not say sir that even if her story was 100% true it still couldn't be proven because he was drunk?

Nope, not even a little.

Quote:That is exactly what the tweet says:  If he's drunk he can't be held responsible.

That is what the tweet says.  It's not what my exchange with Fred says.
 

Quote:Good day sir.

Actually read the exchange and then go feel bad about yourself.

[GMDino]

Edit: I don't even care if you won't own your own words.

You have to live with yourself.

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2018, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Put on your defense attorney hat really quick Fred.  What would be your tactic against the accuser in court given the entirety of what we know at this point?

Find a motive for her to lie.

Don't know of one, but that is always my course of action.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2018, 04:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Edit:  I don't even care if you won't own your own words.

You have to live with yourself.

Still having problems with the English language?  Quite sincerely, go back and read Fred's post, then my response.  If you still don't realize how your entire attempt to score E points was flawed from the start then let the class know what's confusing you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2018, 04:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Find a motive for her to lie.

Don't know of one, but that is always my course of action.

What else?  Your client is on trial for a significant crime.  His accuser's statement is the only evidence against him.  Given what we know about these circumstances what other tactics would you use, because I've been n court many times.  You're not being even remotely thorough with your answer.

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2018, 04:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What else?  Your client is on trial for a significant crime.  His accuser's statement is the only evidence against him.  Given what we know about these circumstances what other tactics would you use, because I've been n court many times.  You're not being even remotely thorough with your answer.

I don't have enough facts to know what I have to work with.

I don't know of any evidence she has lied like this before.  Other than that all I look for is a motive for her to lie.

What do you think I am missing?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2018, 04:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't have enough facts to know what I have to work with.

I don't know of any evidence she has lied like this before.  Other than that all I look for is a motive for her to lie.

What do you think I am missing?

I'm a little disappointed, Fred.  I realize why you're giving such a halfarsed answer but I had hoped you'd have to courage to actually state how you'd approach such a case in real life.  It's fine for us to leave it at this, I know you won't be anymore forthcoming.

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2018, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm a little disappointed, Fred.  I realize why you're giving such a halfarsed answer but I had hoped you'd have to courage to actually state how you'd approach such a case in real life.  It's fine for us to leave it at this, I know you won't be anymore forthcoming.

I don't understand.  I have handled a lot of cases where victim testimony is pretty much all of the evidence.  In those cases I look for a motive for the victim to lie and examples of other times he/she has lied.

How can you accuse me of not being forthcoming without saying what I am holding back?

[ballsofsteel]

Hi boys. Trump is a great judge of character. He met Kavanagh one time three weeks ago. He said " he is one of the finest individuals I have ever known ". " An incredible individual" with " impeccable credentials ".

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2018, 04:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't have enough facts to know what I have to work with.

I don't know of any evidence she has lied like this before.  Other than that all I look for is a motive for her to lie.

What do you think I am missing?

She doesn't know where the party was

She doesn't know how she got there

She doesn't know how she got home

She was drinking

Her political views are completely contrary to the way Kavs has adjudicated in the past

She never mentions a name in the Dr's notes, but husband clearly remembers her saying a name

Just to name a few


Note to self: Never hire Fred if I'm in a bind.

[Belsnickel]

Saw something on Twitter that I thought was pretty appropriate to all of this. If Kavanaugh is "punished" by not being confirmed to the SCOTUS due to a sexual misconduct allegation, that is the same "punishment" that Merrick Garland faced for merely being appointed by a Democrat.