Kavanaugh Hearing

That was Eric Stratton, Rush Chairman, and he was damn glad to meet you.

 

Ahh... So you believe the FBI is this "Super Police."

Any cases that are tremendously important with significant ramifications... we need the FBI handling it... Doesn't matter if it's a state crime or a federal crime... Yup... that's totally how the law works...

Also, how is the FBI supposed to investigate an event that allegedly took place forty years ago, with a year that may or may not be correct, no specified location, no specified time.

I don't believe the FBI handles rape cases, generally speaking, she's asking them to find evidence for arguably the most difficult potential cases to investigate... in a crime where it is difficult to find evidence even when searching the area, promptly...

You probably couldn't even write a believable fictional crime drama where the FBI finds anything in such a case...

 

If society is supposed to believe you just because you cried, "rape"... I guarantee it'll be harder for the accused than it will be for the accuser...

 

It's a classic he said/she said scenario. Only three people were in the room that night, presumable, Dr. Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge. What exactly happened? We may never know for sure, and as they say, there are three sides to every story. The best we can do is inference based on the information we do have. For example, Dr. Ford's address and phone number have been published and since she has come forward, she has been harassed, received death threats, and been forced into hiding for the time being. Is possibly delaying a confirmation that could still go through even with her testimony worth the trouble, especially if she were lying?

There's also the fact that she discussed the incident with a therapist and her husband six years ago. While the timing of coming forward as the accuser is a little suspect, it would have to be a brilliant plan to six years prior to Kavanaugh's nomination to the SCOTUS that Dr. Ford set everything in motion.

There is also Dr. Ford's behavior the last 35+ years. Only a very small percentage of people are truly psychopaths and can lie with impunity. The rest of us usually get caught eventually. By all accounts, Dr. Ford is a solid citizen, good mother, and also shows signs of being an abuse victim. For example, she needs to stay in a bedroom with at least two exit points so she doesn't feel trapped.

All this could be a very elaborate scam, and if it is, it will likely fall apart sooner than later. Or, we can believe Dr. Ford is telling the truth when she tells her side of the story. Is her side 100% accurate? Again, three sides...

 

And then there's the judges behavior & impeccable reputation for the last 35 years with not even a hint of sexual impropriety which you forgot to include. Bottom line is if the guy is on the other team he's guilty, if he's on your team, he's innocent.

 

So let's have a hearing next week?

She rejected it...

Okay, moving on, then...

But... but... the FBI?

1. The FBI doesn't normally investigate sexual assault...
2. Even if they did, what do you expect them to find in an investigation of an incident from roughly 1982, without a specific time or place to go on?

Providing such a ridiculous condition for the hearing tells me all that I need to know...

 

True, there is no way for some men to prove their innocence, and sometimes false accusations happen. But given the nature of such an accusation, dismissing it as just a little dogpiling doesn't seem to be the right way to go. Seems that is treating the accusation as a lie without knowing that it is.

Let's say someone--call him mutz--stole 10k in cash from you. You accuse mutz of robbery. Police investigate but can't find the 10k and you have no physical evidence of mutz taking the 10k from you. But the truth, even if it can't be proven, is that mutz robbed you of the 10k. Should you simply be treated as a liar because you don't have the physical evidence of mutz robbing you? Should you be dismissed because some other 715s falsely claimed to have been robbed of their 10k even though you--715--have never been known to falsely accuse another person?

In any case, how do you get to me suggesting that society should "believe the lie" when if I suggested anything is that we can't dismiss the accusation simply because some people lie and falsely accuse or because the accuser doesn't have physical evidence? After all, many crimes don't have evidence of a particular accused offender other than the accuser's word.

 

In the hypothetical you gave, we know the truth... In the case in point, we don't...

And if we don't know the truth... Kavanaugh shouldn't be considered as a rapist in any way... and his accuser shouldn't be treated as a liar in any way.... That's what inconclusive evidence is supposed to result in... We don't know... All we can do is move on...

How should we react to the accusation? She was offered a hearing and she denied it... Nothing else to see here.

 

1. However:
Can the FBI investigate the allegation against Brett Kavanaugh?
Additionally, some in the FBI, says a source familiar with their thinking, are annoyed by President Trump's statements that the FBI doesn't do this or this "is not really their thing" when there are FBI agents who do nothing but interview sex crime victims.
2. Anita Hill, who has some experience with this type of thing, makes that quite clear:
Anita Hill says it's "the right move" to have FBI probe Kavanaugh allegation
"Absolutely, it's the right move," Hill told ABC News' "Good Morning America." "The hearing questions need to have a frame and the investigation is the best frame for that -- a neutral investigation, that can pull together the facts, create a record, so that the senators can draw on the information they receive to develop their question."

It's quite weird that the people who distrust her allegation are opposed to it being investigated. Having an impartial investigator interview all the relevant parties and review the evidence will lead to a record being created that can be compared to the testimony made before the Senate. In addition, there's also the possibility that the investigation reveals something significant that lends credence to one side or the other.

What's the fear here? What's the rush? You'd think the people who want to get to the truth would want this investigated . . . . But apparently, asking for an investigation is "ridiculous" and tells you all that you need to know. Suuuuuuuuuure.

 

Why does an alleged victim have to face a Monday ultimatum?

I mean I get that we can't investigate for months and months. But they can't wait a week or two to do some real independent investigation? How many people would they even need to interview to at least determine if Kavenaugh was "at the party" that he denied attending?

They should at least offer this woman a little more time, she wants an investigation first. So do at least a preliminary investigation. Just saying "Monday or get out" isn't a great look Imo.

 

What are we supposed to get out of an investigation? What can possibly be found?

 

What you are missing in your hypothetical is time. If the accusation of the 10k theft came 40 years after the fact with admitted haziness, than yes you can treat them as a liar.

 

What? We don't know, so let's just move on? How about we investigate it? Naaaah. That's just crazy. As you said, it's "ridiculous" to investigate something we aren't sure about.

 

I'm done engaging you... You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. It wasn't just the fact that she was asking for an investigation, but the fact that she demanded it being the FBI before testifying is what made it ridiculous... Also, again... what do you expect to find from an investigation, genius? We have a possible year and no time or place... There's nothing to go on to investigate... All we have is testimonies... which can be addressed in a hearing... which she denied....

If she wants to be heard... let's give her an opportunity... fine... testify.... Hell, tell me what date works for you... if you want 2 weeks, fine... But don't make these demands and say we didn't give you an opportunity... You denied it... that's on you...

 

In the hypothetical you and mutz would know the truth, not anyone else.

Disagree that all we can do is move on (though great choice of words since you sound like the dems with Clinton--indeed, that is how moveon.org came to be). But I digress...I disagree because serious accusations should be treated seriously, as a general rule. Often is the case--as here and as with my hypothetical--that physical evidence doesn't exist. But it would be wrong to then "move on" out of hand because of it. Invoking the "offer" when doing nothing to investigate the claim firsthand is to basically offer nothing but mainly a bunch of men who seem to reflect the sentiment of many men, which is to dismiss out of hand such accusations. Move on because, ya know, accusations of rape without any evidence means the accuser is a liar.

 

A delay on the confirmation vote.

Swing votes for mid-term Democratic Senate candidates.

 

Again, misrepresenting what I said...

If you're just going argue on the premise that I said something I didn't say... we're done, here...

 

So this will set precedent that anyone can make an accusation and everything will come to a halt for further investigation. Every job opening will be met with unprovable accusations.

 

You realize that there are untold numbers of women who have been sexually assaulted and/or raped, some multiple instances (particularly young women) who take years, decades, if ever to come out and say something. This we know as an absolute certainty. And yes, the passage of time and sometimes drugs or alcohol will make for some loss of clarity and specificity, but in no way does this ipso facto demonstrate lying.


But let me ask, if someone attempted to rape your partner 40 years ago, would your response be to call her a liar because she never said anything before?