Keith Ellison

[*bfine32*]

(12-13-2018, 09:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a lie.

That is all you have since everyone can go back and see for themselves that you were the one who picked sides without knowing any evidence and I was the one who said I would not decide until I heard the evidence.

It is all there in black and white for everyone to read.  You picked sides with no evidence and I refused to.

So now you have no way to attack me other than to just make up blatant lies.  Your Donald would be proud of you.

If believing in the presumption of innocence is "picking a side" then I am proud to have "picked a side". I made no assumption other that that.

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2018, 09:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If believing in the presumption of innocence is "picking a side" then I am proud to have "picked a side". I made no assumption other that that.

Exactly.  That is where we differ.  I don't pick sides without hearing some evidence.  That is why I can look myself in the mirror.

If my decision carried the weight of taking away a persons rights to freedom then I might impose a presumption of innocence without any evidence, but since I am not in that position I feel it is ridiculous to pick a side without hearing any evidence first.  That is pretty much the opposite of "fairness". 

[*bfine32*]

(12-13-2018, 10:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.  That is where we differ.  I don't pick sides without hearing some evidence.  That is why I can look myself in the mirror.

If my decision carried the weight of taking away a persons rights to freedom then I might impose a presumption of innocence without any evidence, but since I am not in that position I feel it is ridiculous to pick a side without hearing any evidence first.  That is pretty much the opposite of "fairness". 

As I said if believing in the presumption of innocence is "picking a side" then I am proud that we differ in this area. 

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2018, 10:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said if believing in the presumption of innocence is "picking a side" then I am proud that we differ in this area. 

We both agree a "presumption of innocence" is a proper burden placed on the government when attempting to convict a person of a crime and take away his liberty.

In most other situations it is kind of silly.  In fact criminal courts that recognize a presumption of innocence will also issue ex parte orders of protection based on nothing but allegations that are binding against the accused until the matter comes before a judge.  

[*bfine32*]

(12-14-2018, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We both agree a "presumption of innocence" is a proper burden placed on the government when attempting to convict a person of a crime and take away his liberty.

In most other situations it is kind of silly.  In fact criminal courts that recognize a presumption of innocence will also issue ex parte orders of protection based on nothing but allegations that are binding against the accused until the matter comes before a judge.  

Yep, I'm just willing to extend it in my day to day life.

It's OK Fred, we know which one of the accusers you, as the beacon of neutrality, view as the bigger liar. 

[fredtoast]

(12-14-2018, 07:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's OK Fred, we know which one of the accusers you, as the beacon of neutrality, view as the bigger liar. 

Not sure what your point is.  There is a difference between the actions of the two accusers.  I explained why one seems to be more likely lying than the other.  I provide facts to back up my position, not just political bias.  The woman claimed to have a video that would PROVE SHE WAS NOT LYING and refused to provide the video.

On the other hand you are so deep in your right wing echo chamber that you kept arguing that Ford's witnesses contradicted her claims when in fact Leland Kiaser told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she believed Ford's claim 

I don't think either woman had enough evidence to punish either of the men, but at least I waited until I heard the evidence to decide, and I based my decision on facts instead of speaking points from the echo chamber of my party.

[fredtoast]

(12-14-2018, 07:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, I'm just willing to extend it in my day to day life.

Except when your Donald tells you not to, like with Mexican immigrants.

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2018, 09:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If believing in the presumption of innocence is "picking a side" then I am proud to have "picked a side". 

I bet you are really proud of all the posts you made defending Ellison when he was falsely accused.

Care to share some of them with us?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-17-2018, 11:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what your point is.  There is a difference between the actions of the two accusers.  I explained why one seems to be more likely lying than the other.  I provide facts to back up my position, not just political bias.  The woman claimed to have a video that would PROVE SHE WAS NOT LYING and refused to provide the video.

On the other hand you are so deep in your right wing echo chamber that you kept arguing that Ford's witnesses contradicted her claims when in fact Leland Kiaser told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she believed Ford's claim 

I don't think either woman had enough evidence to punish either of the men, but at least I waited until I heard the evidence to decide, and I based my decision on facts instead of speaking points from the echo chamber of my party.

If we're being fair, and I would hope we would be, we'd have to admit that the woman accusing Ellison did release evidence corroborating her abuse.  You are correct that she didn't release the video she claimed she had, but it would be wholly incorrect to say she provided no evidence to back her claim.

Btw, it's interesting that you phrased it as her having to prove she wasn't lying.  I guess we know which side of the "we believe survivors" line you fall on.

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 11:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what your point is.  There is a difference between the actions of the two accusers.  I explained why one seems to be more likely lying than the other.  I provide facts to back up my position, not just political bias.  The woman claimed to have a video that would PROVE SHE WAS NOT LYING and refused to provide the video.

On the other hand you are so deep in your right wing echo chamber that you kept arguing that Ford's witnesses contradicted her claims when in fact Leland Kiaser told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she believed Ford's claim 

I don't think either woman had enough evidence to punish either of the men, but at least I waited until I heard the evidence to decide, and I based my decision on facts instead of speaking points from the echo chamber of my party.

I think the point is quite simple. Ford had nobody back her allegations of assault; matter of fact every "witness" she pointed to has no idea what she is talking about. She also doesn't know where or when the assault occurred, nor mentioned Kavanaugh by name when discussing the assault with medical professionals.

But Fred finds her more believable that someone who claimed they had a video and didn't release it, but has provided medicals records where she shared where, when, and by whom she was assault and somehow Fred expects onlookers to believe he is a beacon of neutrality.

[GMDino]

(12-17-2018, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the point is quite simple. Ford had nobody back her allegations of assault; matter of fact every "witness" she pointed to has no idea what she is talking about.

Except for the ones that said they heard about it but can't confirm it happened or that they believe it could have happened.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/accuser-s-schoolmate-says-she-recalls-hearing-alleged-kavanaugh-incident-n911111

Quote:A former schoolmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser wrote a Facebook post saying she recalls hearing about the alleged assault involving Kavanaugh, though she says she has no first-hand information to corroborate the accuser’s claims.

"Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me," wrote the woman, Cristina King Miranda, who now works as a performing arts curator in Mexico City. "I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen."

She added, "Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine's vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true."

In an interview with NPR Thursday, King Miranda was more equivocal than she was in her Facebook post.

"That it happened or not, I have no idea," she told NPR's Nina Totenberg. "I can't say that it did or didn't."

"In my [Facebook] post, I was empowered, and I was sure that it probably did. I had no idea that I would have to now go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over [MSNBC] and Twitter.”

But King Miranda did not back off her assertion that she recalls hearing about an incident involving Kavanaugh at a party.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/politics/ford-friend-cooperate-fbi/index.html

Quote:Leland Ingham Keyser, a friend of the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault when they were at a party in high school, does not refute the veracity of the allegation, although she does not remember the alleged incident, her lawyer said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, claims that during a party in the early 1980s at which Keyser and several others were present, Kavanaugh drunkenly pushed her into a bedroom, pinned her down and attempted to remove her clothes before she was able to escape. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegation.

"Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account," Keyser's attorney, Howard Walsh, wrote in the letter, which was sent to the committee overnight Friday. "However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question."

Walsh also said in the letter that Keyser will "cooperate fully" with an FBI investigation into the allegation.

"every witness" indeed.  

(12-17-2018, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: She also doesn't know where or when the assault occurred, nor mentioned Kavanaugh by name when discussing the assault with medical professionals.

https://youtu.be/gGho7Ked-FI

Maybe I was wrong and you aren't a Trump supporter but are really DJT himself.

Nah, Trump never served in the military.

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 01:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Except for the ones that said they heard about it but can't confirm it happened or that they believe it could have happened.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/accuser-s-schoolmate-says-she-recalls-hearing-alleged-kavanaugh-incident-n911111


https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/politics/ford-friend-cooperate-fbi/index.html


"every witness" indeed.  





https://youtu.be/gGho7Ked-FI

Maybe I was wrong and you aren't a Trump supporter but are really DJT himself.

Nah, Trump never served in the military.

Hell, Fred believes Ford's story. Does that make him a witness?

Enough about me. Do you have any views on the topic at hand, such as why Ellison's accuser should be considered more likely a liar?

[BmorePat87]

Do you ever feel like two people having a back and forth are talking about different things?

[GMDino]

(12-17-2018, 01:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, Fred believes Ford's story. Does that make him a witness?

Enough about me. Do you have any views on the topic at hand, such as why Ellison's accuser should be considered more likely a liar?

That's not what you said.  You said:

(12-17-2018, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the point is quite simple. Ford had nobody back her allegations of assault; matter of fact every "witness" she pointed to has no idea what she is talking about. She also doesn't know where or when the assault occurred, nor mentioned Kavanaugh by name when discussing the assault with medical professionals.

So I showed two people who "she pointed to" that did indeed have an "idea what she was talking about".

Then I provided a link to a video that showed that she did indeed know where and had answers to other questions (not posed).

But admitting that evidence was presented to prove your statement false would almost like be admitting you were wrong...not something I expect to happen.

As to you're next diversion question I've already commented on Ellison's accuser.  She made claims that her injuries were caused by him.  She claimed she had video and two witnesses to the abuse.  She did not provide the video and the witnesses refused to cooperate.

That's doesn't make he a "liar" it makes her someone who claimed she had evidence and did not present it.  Whether she is lying or not I cannot say.

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 02:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Do you ever feel like two people having a back and forth are talking about different things?

And some just ask arbitrary questions to no one in particular.

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 02:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's not what you said.  You said:


So I showed two people who "she pointed to" that did indeed have an "idea what she was talking about".

Then I provided a link to a video that showed that she did indeed know where and had answers to other questions (not posed).

But admitting that evidence was presented to prove your statement false would almost like be admitting you were wrong...not something I expect to happen.

As to you're next diversion question I've already commented on Ellison's accuser.  She made claims that her injuries were caused by him.  She claimed she had video and two witnesses to the abuse.  She did not provide the video and the witnesses refused to cooperate.

That's doesn't make he a "liar" it makes her someone who claimed she had evidence and did not present it.  Whether she is lying or not I cannot say.

Yes they know nothing of the incident, to which, MS Ford is referring. The fact that they believe her, doesn't change that fact.  Like many here they may be biased in their beliefs.

So talking about the Ellison accuser in a thread about Ellison's accuser is a diversion?

I didn't asked was she lying or not. I asked what made MS Ford's accusation to be less likely a lie. Hell maybe Pat was on to something.

[GMDino]

(12-17-2018, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes they know nothing of the incident, to which, MS Ford is referring. The fact that they believe her, doesn't change that fact.  Like many here they may be biased in their beliefs.

Except that the first one did indeed "know" of the incident.

"fact"

(12-17-2018, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So talking about the Ellison accuser in a thread about Ellison's accuser is a diversion?

I consider it be a diversion from admitting you were wrong and perhaps biased yourself in your statement.

(12-17-2018, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't asked was she lying or not. I asked what made MS Ford's accusation to be less likely a lie. Hell maybe Pat was on to something.

You mean like saying she had video proof and then refusing to show it to anyone? I mean if Dr. Ford had said she had hard evidence and then refused to show ti we would be talking apples and apples. Instead we have one woman who claims it happened (with friends that remember the incident willing to cooperate in an investigation) and another who said she has witnesses who refused to cooperate and also did not provide the evidence she said she had.

Again, does that make her "liar"? I guess we would have to see if the evidence ever comes out.

Again, you seem fixated on defending Kavanaugh/attack Ford with a false equivalency and predetermined bias on your part.

[BmorePat87]

(12-17-2018, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And some just ask arbitrary questions to no one in particular.

Oh, everyone here knows it's not arbitrary, yourself included.

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 03:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: Except that the first one did indeed "know" of the incident.

"fact"




I consider it be a diversion from admitting you were wrong and perhaps biased yourself in your statement.


You mean like saying she had video proof and then refusing to show it to anyone?  I mean if Dr. Ford had said she had hard evidence and then refused to show ti we would be talking apples and apples.  Instead we have one woman who claims it happened (with friends that remember the incident willing to cooperate in an investigation) and another who said she has witnesses who refused to cooperate and also did not provide the evidence she said she had.

Again, does that make her "liar"?  I guess we would have to see if the evidence ever comes out.

Again, you seem fixated on defending Kavanaugh/attack Ford with a false equivalency and predetermined bias on your part.

Can't click links at work so I simply went by the investigation findings. I'll respond to you link about who knew and how they knew that Kavs sexually assaulted Ford later. Obviously if Ford has a witness the benefit of the doubt leans in her favor.

[jj22]

So this lady is to be believed while the lady whose life was ruined for having the courage to stand in front of congress and testify under oath punishable of perjury was lying?

Only Trump supporters think that makes much sense. You guys do yourselves no favors. When she publicly testifies under oath I'll believe her too.