Kavanaugh Hearing

Accusations without evidence are meaningless from a societal perspective... Doesn't mean the accuser is a liar... I just don't see what fair way there is of going about it...

 

I doubt it can be proven one way or the other. But without an investigation who knows? It's possible the woman's account could be discredited. Maybe it was actually somebody else, maybe it never happened, or happened but not exactly as described. Kevenaugh I believe I have seen claim he "wasn't even there". What if investigation finds he was there?

Shouldn't take too many interviews to determine if he was at least "there" or not. I don't expect much more than that could be proven, that's why I said they should drop the ultimatum and at least offer the woman a later date after at least offering some pretense of an independent investigation. Like another week or two basically. Just long enough to get a few people on the record.

 

We'll never see a male president again if that's the standard...

One person makes an accusation, they can't take office until an "investigation" is complete... Then we have whatever law enforcement investigating basically choosing the president because they decide when the investigation is over... For all we know... is never...

 

You called her request for an investigation ridiculous and then said since we don't know what happened, we should just move on. I'm taking you at your word.

There's a lot to investigate. She told her husband. She told friends. And she told her therapist. There are notes from the therapist. There's her account. There's Kavanaugh's account. There's Judge's account. There's the accounts from the other two people named. And then there's the possibility that the issue was discussed at her school, as a former classmate appeared to allege. The FBI can meet with all of these people, press them on the details, and compare accounts/review evidence. All of that is very possible. It may not lead to a resolution, but it's certainly better than doing nothing.

She wants to testify. But she wants an investigation with a record first. It makes perfect sense.

EDIT: And her lawyer already said that if the FBI won't do it, they're willing to accept an impartial investigator from elsewhere.

 

Where is where? She has refused to give any additional details of the event so what event are we looking for, here?

 

Slippery slope BS that has no basis in fact. I bet you people argued this in 1991.

 

All I see is verbal accounts... you didn't point out any evidence... and verbal accounts can be discussed in a hearing... which she rejected...

You're not taking me at my word... You can say that a million times, it doesn't make it true...

 

You just created a *fact* from whole cloth. Indeed, rape is a prime example of a crime where often there is no physical evidence of "rape" or it can't be distinguished from consensual intercourse, yet people are convicted, and the victim believed. But it's not the only, many if not most crimes can have instances where there is no physical evidence, or at least that which demonstrates guilt of a particular person, and it's not meaningless.

 

Bahahahahaha. It's not an issue with Presidents. They're voted into office and don't have life tenure. But if you really want to go down this road, Bill Clinton was investigated by Congress for a lot less than attempted rape.(despite him actually being a rapist)

 

It also doesn't demonstrate truth. Telling me privately, no I wouldn't call her a liar. Stating publicly without proof, I would question her story.

 

You'll have to ask Kevenaugh. He denied being at the party, even though the alleged victim couldn't even name the party. So how does Kavenaugh know? He seems to know the accuser. Presumably HE had a date in mind for his denial.

Know what would probably get to the bottom of those details? An investigation.

 

Verbal accounts can't just be discussed in the hearing. There's no record for comparison, and the proposed hearing would only be her and Kavanaugh. That's not an investigation. She also never rejected a hearing. She said she's willing to testify in a hearing IF an investigation is done prior to it.

 

You people? You sound like one of Judge's pajama boys.

 

I'm not sure how they would go about even doing that with the level of detail they have, unless Kavanaugh is denying having ever been to any party.

Where exactly at your supposed to go to flesh out the investigation?

Investigator 1: "Okay, we need to figure out whether Brett Kavanaugh attended one specific party."

Investigator 2: "Alright, what do we know about the party in question?"

Investigator 1: "Not much."

Investigator 2: "When was it?"

Investigator 1: "Sometime in the early 1980s."

Investigator 2: "Uh, okay. Well, where was it?"

Investigator 1: "Some house somewhere in Maryland."

Investigator 2:

 

Exactly!

 

Anyone can make an accusation already. Not sure how this would create a precedent.

 

Oh look, here's somebody arguing it for Roy Moore:
http://www.southcarolinaliberty.com/18107-2/

Told you, @96Gatorcise

 

And, how does the FBI have jurisdiction over this?

 

If we start taking sexual assault accusations seriously, it sets a dangerous precedent that women will be believed if they come forward. We obviously can't have that.

 

It might not demonstrate proof, but making a public accusation isn't demonstrative of lying either.