Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2018, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you actually saying that Kavs testifying under oath to respond to a accusation shouldn't be given the presumption of innocence or are you just talking out your ass?

I don't think there should be either a "presumption" or "assumption".  I think everyone should have waited until the information was in before making any kind of judgement.

Just like the babysitter accused of raping a child.  She might be entitled to a presumption of innocence in a criminal trial, but I am not going to do that.  She would not be alone with my child until I had facts that proved her innocent.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think there should be either a "presumption" or "assumption".  I think everyone should have waited until the information was in before making any kind of judgement.

Just like the babysitter accused of raping a child.  She might be entitled to a presumption of innocence in a criminal trial, but I am not going to do that.  She would not be alone with my child until I had facts that proved her innocent.

Your notion that someone testifying under oath should not be extended the presumption of innocence when they are accused of a crime has been noted. I suppose this also means you feel that the burden of proof does not lie with the accuser.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-05-2018, 12:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I did not assume her guilt.  I just refused to presume her innocent in order to protect my child.

You are right.  Not everyone would do that.  Just parents who care about their child getting sexually assaulted.

Actually, I think parents would care more about their child NOT getting sexually assaulted.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2018, 02:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: You do realize you said all the words that meant that but didn't say "the exact words".

So, you were wrong.  I didn't say what you accused my of saying.  Thank you for the apology.

Quote:You, for purely partisan reasons, did not think any of this was true and therefore no need for investigation...until the THIRD accusation (which I acknowledged).    

Many of those posts came before we knew the extent of the first allegation.  I gave Feinstein way too much credit in thinking she wouldn't have sat on an allegation that was so serious for political purposes.  My bad on that one.

Quote:And even if there was was all on the Democrats that there was "no time" to do a good one.

Feinstein, not all Democrats, but yeah.  She clearly thought playing political gotcha was more important than actually addressing the allegations.  She blew it.  You should be upset with her.

Quote:And you "know" he is innocent because, you.

I'm starting to think you don't read well. I flat out said he could be lying, but that would make him a good actor.  I merely pointed out that his anger was in no way a reflection of a the way a guilty person would react, as your ilk attempted to assert.

Quote:It's sad, but I didn't expect you to admit what you said, just deny what you didn't "exactly say".

I always own what I say, I just don't get involved when the two headed ogre of obfuscation and word twisting comes out to play.  You want ownership, try actually calling people out on what they said, not what you think you can score E points with.

[*michaelsean*]

So did Ford say at one time it was in her late teens, or is that rumor? I hear that's what she said to her therapist, but I thought nobody has seen those notes.

[Goalpost]

Susan Collins giving her speech. Fairly obvious she is going to be a yea vote.

[GMDino]

(10-05-2018, 04:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, you were wrong.  I didn't say what you accused my of saying.  Thank you for the apology.

(10-05-2018, 04:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Many of those posts came before we knew the extent of the first allegation.  I gave Feinstein way too much credit in thinking she wouldn't have sat on an allegation that was so serious for political purposes.  My bad on that one.




Feinstein, not all Democrats, but yeah.  She clearly thought playing political gotcha was more important than actually addressing the allegations.  She blew it.  You should be upset with her.



I'm starting to think you don't read well. I flat out said he could be lying, but that would make him a good actor.  I merely pointed out that his anger was in no way a reflection of a the way a guilty person would react, as your ilk attempted to assert.

On that last one you "merely pointed out":

(09-27-2018, 11:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seriously, I've interviewed thousands of people during investigations, Kavanaugh's reactions were not that of a person who is guilty.  He may be guilty and be a great actor, but anyone couching his anger as proof of his guilt hasn't got a clue what they're talking about.

(10-05-2018, 04:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I always own what I say,

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2018, 04:50 PM)GMDino Wrote:


On that last one you "merely pointed out":

I'd seriously reply, but you don't seem capable of grasping the nuances of the English language required to actually do so.  Enjoy your half truths and word pretzels.  


Oh, and crap gifs too, continue to enjoy them. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-05-2018, 03:55 PM)Benton Wrote: Unfortunately, that's not what happens these days. Anywhere, for anybody.

Take the Kav accusations. An hour after the first story, GOP lawmakers were firing off press releases on what a swell guy he was. Within the first day, you had liberal lawmakers ready to condemn him. And any call for the only reasonable solution — an outside, nonpartisan look at the events and possible inconsistencies in either person's story — was slandered as political. By both sides. 

And it's the same here.
Within hours people had already chosen a side with out concrete evidence, and even though none still exists, many are still sticking to their original stance and doing a lot of work twisting things to fit their side.

My stance is I believe she was groped by someone, but not by Kavanaugh.
Her story claiming it was Kavanaugh has more holes in it than the Red Light District does on a Saturday night.

[Goalpost]

And... Manchin now says yes too. That was quick, right after Collins committed.

[masonbengals fan]

Senator from Maine gave an outstanding speech.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2018, 04:56 PM)Goalpost Wrote: And... Manchin now says yes too.  That was quick, right after Collins committed.

Wow, Morrissey nailed that call.  Still have to wonder if this last minute decision will hurt him come election day.  It will also be interesting to see what fallout Murkowski will deal with from within the party.  Probably none as the confirmation will still go through without her vote. 

[GMDino]

(10-05-2018, 04:56 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And it's the same here.
Within hours people had already chosen a side with out concrete evidence, and even though none still exists, many are still sticking to their original stance and doing a lot of work twisting things to fit their side.

My stance is I believe she was groped by someone, but not by Kavanaugh.
Her story claiming it was Kavanaugh has more holes in it than the Red Light District does on a Saturday night.

And many of us said the accusation isn't even the best reason to vote again him.  (It just allowed us to see the other side of him later on.)

And most of us said he would be confirmed anyway.

[Dill]

(10-04-2018, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dill Wrote: 5. You appear not to have noticed that Kav's yearbook helps substantiate Ford's claims--and certainly that he lied under oath.  Asked if he had ever attended a party such as that described by Ford, with "PJ" and Judge and heaving drinking, he said unequivocally 'NO.'  But his own calender puts him at such a party with the afore-named partiers.  That's why they "spent time talking about his year book."
..................................................................................................................................................................................
5. I saw screenshots of Kav's yearbook and as I've offered to others. Share your empirical evidence that he lied or else quit trying to push opinion off as fact.

6. It can "sound like" to you all you want. What you "sound like" to me is that you could give 2 shits about the rule of law. You've made up you mind and no lack of evidence is going to change it. It's that cognitive dissonance I was referring to earlier.   You and others just cannot admit to yourselves how despicable you've been throughout this process. 

Have you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird ?

Haven't read To Kill a Mockingbird, but I saw the movie.  And you speak of "lack of evidence." If a man is falsely accused of rape in a movie/book, is that "evidence" that Kavanaugh is falsely accused as well?

"Cognitive dissonance" refers to holding incompatible beliefs. No point in bringing up the term unless you can specify the incompatible beliefs. Danger there, for Trump defenders who claim to be "conservatives."

I have answered your questions about the importance of an FBI investigation, how it specifically differs from Senate questioning. Your replies to my explanation were simply petulant ("They just didn't need Ford to tell them again that she doesn't remember anything.") So YOU decide I'VE made up MY mind and "nothing is going to change it."  Can't admit how "despicable" I have been, explaining how to sort out relevant evidence.  And all these opinions you don't bother to substantiate, you demandI "share empirical evidence" and "quit trying to push off opinion as fact."
................................................................................................
LOL opinions and facts. Do the following points rest upon OPINION, FACTS or EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE?

From the transcript of Kavanaugh's testimony under oath:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.5a60edc21f0b

MITCHELL: Have you reviewed every entry that is in these calendars of May, June, July and August of 1982?

KAVANAUGH: I have.

MITCHELL: Is there anything that could even remotely fit what we’re talking about, in terms of Dr. Ford’s allegations?

KAVANAUGH: No.

...........................................................................................................

It is my opinion that Kavanaugh said "NO" to Mitchell's question.  What is your opinion?

And it is my opinion that the July 1st event described on Kavanaugh's calender below does "remotely" fit a description of a house where boys were drinking--including PJ and Judge as Ford alleged.  It's my opinion that Kavanaugh can read his own calender. What does the calender say in your opinion?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-is-pressed-key-july-entry-his-calendar-only-point/?utm_term=.067fe704b005

[Benton]

(10-05-2018, 04:56 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And it's the same here.
Within hours people had already chosen a side with out concrete evidence, and even though none still exists, many are still sticking to their original stance and doing a lot of work twisting things to fit their side.

My stance is I believe she was groped by someone, but not by Kavanaugh.
Her story claiming it was Kavanaugh has more holes in it than the Red Light District does on a Saturday night.

To the first part, agreed.

To the second, no idea. I honestly have no idea what happened between the two. And, for me at least, it doesn't matter. I don't like the guy's body of work, so the rest is (to me) moot. But I do understand the concern both ways.

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2018, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your notion that someone testifying under oath should not be extended the presumption of innocence when they are accused of a crime has been noted. I suppose this also means you feel that the burden of proof does not lie with the accuser.

Actually I have said about 5 times that a person in a criminal trial is entitled to a presumption of innocence.  Don't know what that has to do with a senate confirmation hearing.  The only reason the presumption of innocence applies in criminal trials is because the defendants liberty and maybe even life is in jeopardy.

Funny how we have had civil trials all of these years with neither side entitled to an assumption of innocence without destroying the fabric of this country.

Also have no idea what that has to do with burden of proof.  Seems you are just saying all kinds of crazy shit out of total desperation.

[Dill]

(10-05-2018, 09:08 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think it's the presumption of innocence as much as it is zero corroborating evidence.  I'm surely not going to state this didn't happen, but there is zero evidence it did.  Add in the lack of detail so that someone can defend themselves, and it's tough.

I wouldn't say there was ZERO evidence.  Ford's testimony is evidence. The question is only how much weight it can be given and to what degree it can be corroborated.  That is why questions can be legitimately asked about Ford's background, when she made the allegations, to whom, whether there are inconsistencies in her account over time, etc.

And it is not true that Kavanaugh cannot defend himself.  He can deny the allegation outright, point to his record, call on character witnesses, and the like.  "Lack of detail," to the degree there is such, is to Kavanaugh's advantage.

[Bengalzona]

(10-05-2018, 01:00 PM)jj22 Wrote:  I didn't agree with the stolen seat tactic, but I don't think Gorsuch hurt his candidacy and gave a real reason why he wasn't fit for the Supreme Court the way that Kav (even without the accusations) did during his hearing.

That was sort of my take on Gorsuch. While I personally didn't/don't like him, there was nothing outstanding saying he would not be a good pick for SCOTUS.

Quote:Votes do matter, and Republicans were rewarded for their "we'll steal a seat" tactic from these same people crying foul over Kav. You have to respect the ability of the POTUS to pick their supreme court nominee (no matter the party Trump supporters).

Not really. IMO he picked a guy with good credentials, but several possible warts here. When people called out the possibility of warts, Trumpists started vehemently denying they needed to be examined. Blind partisanship.

[Bengalzona]

(10-05-2018, 01:06 PM)Benton Wrote: According to McConnell, Congress, the White House and every justice on the SC has to be conservative before they can make the world a utopia. Until then, all they can do is pass tax cuts on big businesses and the rich, and increase the national debt trillions at a time. So, the answer is: all of them.

The GOP-SCOTUS block has voted for big business rights over individual or small business rights consistently over the past 38 years.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 05:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually I have said about 5 times that a person in a criminal trial is entitled to a presumption of innocence.  Don't know what that has to do with a senate confirmation hearing.  The only reason the presumption of innocence applies in criminal trials is because the defendants liberty and maybe even life is in jeopardy.

Funny how we have had civil trials all of these years with neither side entitled to an assumption of innocence without destroying the fabric of this country.

Also have no idea what that has to do with burden of proof.  Seems you are just saying all kinds of crazy shit out of total desperation.

You've been asked a point blank question and perhaps you could provide a point blank answer: Should Kavs testifying under oath before the senate to answer allegations of sexual assault be extended the presumption of innocence? 

It does take a red herring and it doesn't take a smilely thingy: It takes a yes or no. 

Even though a civil case (what's that red birdy thing called) has nothing to do with the Kav situation; let me make sure I understand what you are saying on the last part counselor. Are you saying there is no presumption of innocence in civil cases? If you say No (I sincerely doubt you will provide a straight answer) then why must the plaintiff prove the preponderance?