Brett Kavanaugh - this can't be right

[Jon]

Having watched the recent attempted nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, I am appalled at the tactics used by the Democrats. To me, the smearing of a good man's name to further their own ends is disgusting.

The "victims" appear to be unreliable and politically motivated. Take the first accuser. She cannot say what year it happened, the address, the 4 people she says were there denied it. She has no idea how she got to the party or left. Even someone who says she is a lifelong best friend denied she was at the party and that she ever brought the issue up with her. She raises it JUST before a vote for Brett to be nominated, 36 years later.

Victim number 2, by sheer coincidence comes out a few days later. She is making accusations from over 30 years ago, just like the last accuser. She was very drunk, lying on the floor, claiming they were poking a "fake p****" at her, but then was allegedly told it wasn't fake, even though there was one at the party.

Victim number 3 comes out a couple of days later and sounds even more extreme, saying Brett was facilitating gang rape. Political lawyers have been hired.

How can you believe any of these people?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I can only speak for myself here, but I have to offer my opinion that if anyone actually brought these cases to court, the state's attorney would decline the charges. In our system, we require "beyond reasonable doubt" and you have mentioned several HUGE doubt factors.

This is just another example of extremist politics. The Democrats don't care whether they smear someone all across the floor in bloody patches as long as they get their way. The Republicans weren't much better when Barack Obama was still in office. The politicians of the USA have forgotten that word "compromise." What is worse, particularly in this case, is that Brett Kavanaugh is considered a moderate, not a far-right religious war hawk. He might actually represent a level of moderation.

I also feel really sorry for the accusers because when the questioning begins, they will HAVE to be skewered on the issues you have mentioned, totally without regard to the veracity of the claims. The Romans enjoyed their "bread and circuses." Right now, DJT's revocation of various regulations has made the USA economy very "hot" to the point of REALLY low unemployment - so everyone has their bread. And these hearings WILL be a circus. So style has changed, but the fact remains - we like our bread and circuses.

 

[Jon]

I haven't heard the expression "bread and circuses" before. Reading between the lines, I presume this means money and controversy?

My knowledge of US politics is only since the presidential race, so I have no idea what the Republicans did or didn't do.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

No, it is a historical commentary from Juvenal, a Roman poet (1st/2nd century AD), about how Romans of two millennia ago would be kept satisfied as long as they were fed and entertained. Try at least the early parts of the linked article, which is relatively short.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

 

[Jon]

Ok, so a form of appeasement according to Wikipedia.

I am looking forward to either a) the testimony of the first accuser, or b) perpetual delay in testimony.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The (b) option really isn't an option since the next term of the court opens on Oct. 1, and they know they have a looming deadline. Their inability to bring forth a timely decision reflects badly on all of them.

 

[Jon]

I suppose it all depends on who wins the mid-terms. If the Republicans lose, Kavanaugh won't get it.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Not going to make a prediction, but timing-wise, you have the cart before the horse. It is possible that if enough people dislike the result of today's hearings, the mid-terms won't go so well for the folks who took the unpopular side of the argument. The mid-terms will come after the confirmation hearing.

 

[Jon]

I have heard that some of the Democrats might find this whole process distasteful and side with Kavanaugh. But others want to drag things out so the midterms will come before the confirmation. Then, if they get a majority, Kavanaugh will never get in. That is my reading of it. Then again, I am just a Brit who seems more interested in American politics nowadays that his own!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The "good" side of the issue is that one of the qualifications to get on the Judiciary committee is that you must have been an active lawyer. Many members of the committee are ex-judges, ex-district attorneys, and defense lawyers. Therefore, they are full and well aware of the issues of due process and witness credibility. I am seeing things on-line from my USA news favorites that a couple of the accusers are being deemed unreliable. The testimony for Dr. Ford is also being examined more closely due to the gaps in her memory of date, time, and location of the event.

As I have stated before, no woman should have to endure rape, molestation, or whatever other specific acts occurred to traumatize them. But in the USA, there are multiple reasons why quickly filing charges is such a good idea. The memory of the accuser will still be fresh enough to give details about location, timing, etc. Evidence might still remain, having not been immediately cleaned. The memories of others who were there would still be clear enough to support or repudiate a statement. IF the victim is to get closure, a delay serves no good purpose. And a 30-year delay is ludicrous.

 

[Jon]

I am watching the whole show on YouTube at the moment. There is so much testimony, you really need a good summary to extract the juice from it. I am sure just the spectacle will put doubts in some people's minds of the innocence of Kavanaugh.

 

[Jon]

Doc, do you think Dr Ford will get undue credit for her testimony because she is a Doc?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Cannot say. But her testimony was sketchy in many places. Poor testimony can be offset only so much. We will have to wait and see.

 

[Jon]

It seems people are believing based on what she says and how she says it. But what about evidence?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Evidence? After 30 years? Hell, she can't even furnish good witnesses.

 

[Jon]

Her lifelong friend said she believes her but has no recollection of the party. Isn't that a contradiction of terms?

 

[Jon]

Watching something on YouTube about Dr Ford's statement of when it all happened. In a text to the Washington post, she said it happened in the "mid 1980s". In a letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the "early 80s." So who did she lie to? (Or were both lies!)

She told the Washington Post she was assaulted when she was 15. But the notes from her individual therapy session said it happened in her "late teens". So which was true, since they can't both be true? Maybe she decided to settle on age 15 because that sounds much worse.

Edit: Actually there is a ton more inconsistencies in the testimony. Check out this video which points them out very well. Oh my word!

 

[Bee]

I am currently having a debate on FB with 2 women who are advocating that alleged victims of sexual assault should be automatically believed. Their argument is that currently the scales are tipped in the favour of the accused.

They simply can't see that automatically believing the alleged victim simply tips the scales in the opposite direction. I'm arguing anonymity and neutral treatment of both parties. I'm also banging my head on the desk. [If the Mod would let me swear, then I would at this point.]

 

[Jon]

This is the most stupid thing I have heard since the last stupid thing I have heard on this topic. Let us examine the consequences.

1. Person A alleges sexual assault from Person B. Person A must be believed. Person B is therefore guilty and goes straight to prison. No trial required. Just stupid.

2. Person A alleges sexual assault from Person B. Evidence later comes up that it was a false accusation. Doesn't matter. They MUST be believed. Innocent Person B goes to prison.

Stupid.

Do this...

You: "You sexually assaulted me a week ago."

Them: "I haven't seen you for a month and I never did it. I am innocent."

You: "But you believe accusers must be believed. Do you normally like to contradict yourself?"

 

[Bee]

I've given up. The woman in question has trained to be a paralegal(!) so she can right wrongs.

The irony is heavy.