Kavanaugh hearings- now with sexual misconduct allegations.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't know why you feel Feinstein facing a challenge from the Left is relevant here, but I think there were good reasons for her not to come forward with it right away- those being the desire to investigate further first, and the accuser's understandable desire for anonymity. I also think there were good reasons to bring it forward, though- that being that the public needs to know that the Supreme Court Justice the GOP (Greedy Old Rapists) are shoving down their throat may be a sexual predator.

Listen you ignorant little shit. Senator Fienstein had this for months (She got the letter in JULY) and didn't hand it over to the FBI right away. If she held on to it for 'investigation' purposes, why didn't she mention it at the hearings? Why are we only hearing about it now, when functionally all it will do is look like a smear campaign instead of being brought up when she got it.

TimothyC: bravely jumping to the defense of the probable rapist by smearing the person who brought the story forward.

Mods: please let it be noted that I made a civil and reasoned response to TimothyC's argument, and that he responded by immediately calling me an "ignorant little shit." Any subsequent flaming on my part is purely in response to his flaming me. Let it further be noted that his entire argument here consists of making vague insinuations about the motives and character of one person (note even the person actually making the allegation against Kavanaugh).

Answer me straight up: do you believe that the allegation is false? If so, why? Is this anything more than it appears to be, which is yet another Right-wing man resorting to the "the women are lying" defense like a pissy little coward?

[TimothyC]

TimothyC: bravely jumping to the defense of the probable rapist by smearing the person who brought the story forward.

Smearing them for the way in which it was brought forward. Professor Ford wanted to remain nameless, but also did send the letter to her Congresscritter, who forwarded it to the senior Senator from California. Said Senator's office then leaked it, after having held onto it for weeks, only leaking it at the last moment and then forcing the senator to release the letter to the FBI for investigation.

Answer me straight up: do you believe that the allegation is false? If so, why? Is this anything more than it appears to be, which is yet another Right-wing man resorting to the "the women are lying" defense like a pissy little coward?

I don't know, what I do know is that there is one allegation from over 35 years ago, and the claimant didn't make said claim, even in private until roughly 30 years after it happened. What I (unlike you in your infinite wisdom) can't say is that he's probably guilty of raping someone (which is exactly what you did above). What I can say is that I don't think the accusations are provable this long after an alleged event.

[Ralin]

What I can say is that I don't think the accusations are provable this long after an alleged event.

Most rapes can't be proven. Can you say why we shouldn't believe her and act accordingly? Because Trump appointees deserve negative benefit of the doubt.

[Crazedwraith]

Benefit of the doubt and by extension presumption of innocence (in courts) have to apply to everyone or they apply to no-one.

[Ralin]

Benefit of the doubt and by extension presumption of innocence (in courts) have to apply to everyone or they apply to no-one.

None of us are judges or jurors here and we're not even talking about a criminal trial. So I repeat, is there any reason we shouldn't default to believing any and all people who claim to have been sexually assaulted by the guy Trump is trying to stack the court with until proven otherwise?

[Simon_Jester]

It shouldn't be that hard for the Republicans to find Supreme Court nominees who definitely haven't committed sexual assault, especially not when the nominees in question are long-service Republican operatives.Who vetted this guy, anyway?

[Patroklos]

The FBI. Over six separate background investigations at this point. Not to mention the corresponding defensive and muck racking media and partisan trawling over his last appointment. None of them yielded anything, and given what we know from the accuser thus far there is no reason they could have either because it never happened or the only person with any motivation to leave indications intentionally left no clues or evidence.

[Vendetta]

Benefit of the doubt and by extension presumption of innocence (in courts) have to apply to everyone or they apply to no-one.

None of us are judges or jurors here and we're not even talking about a criminal trial. So I repeat, is there any reason we shouldn't default to believing any and all people who claim to have been sexually assaulted by the guy Trump is trying to stack the court with until proven otherwise?

Because it's intellectually lazy and over time will make you just as stupid as the Republican base.

There's no excuse not to practice critical thinking just because it's politically inconvenient, and to understand that there's an intermediate state that all claims start in where they aren't dismissed, they might be true, and you should investigate them to find out before making a decision.

In this case whilst the claim is in contention it is probably appropriate for the confirmation to be delayed whilst the DA in the relevant jurisdiction investigates to decide whether a prosecution is possible (which would be difficult because there won't be any physical evidence after all this time, and memories of what people did at a party 30 years ago are going to be difficult to reconstruct. If the person making the allegation can also identify the friend/accomplice that would be an avenue of investigation, or others who were there who might have seen them take her off to the room).

If the evidence isn't strong enough to pursue a prosecution though, this is dead in the water. Overplaying a weak hand makes you lose.

[Block]

What I can say is that I don't think the accusations are provable this long after an alleged event.

Most rapes can't be proven. Can you say why we shouldn't believe her and act accordingly? Because Trump appointees deserve negative benefit of the doubt.

Believe, no. Take seriously, yes. You can't believe the accuser and provide a presumption of innocence as is required. The accusation should be taken seriously, and investigated as fully as possible, and if he did it he shouldn't be a judge let alone on the Supreme court.

Edit : Sorry, basically what Vendetta said.

[The Romulan Republic]

TimothyC: bravely jumping to the defense of the probable rapist by smearing the person who brought the story forward.

Smearing them for the way in which it was brought forward. Professor Ford wanted to remain nameless, but also did send the letter to her Congresscritter, who forwarded it to the senior Senator from California. Said Senator's office then leaked it, after having held onto it for weeks, only leaking it at the last moment and then forcing the senator to release the letter to the FBI for investigation.

I will acknowledge that the way it was handled by Feinstein's office may not have been ideal, though I also feel that its premature to assign any sinister motives to it, at least based on what I have read.

But this has nothing to do with the accuser, or weather her allegation is credible, and should not be used to undermine the credibility of her allegations or to defend Kavanaugh.

I don't know, what I do know is that there is one allegation from over 35 years ago, and the claimant didn't make said claim, even in private until roughly 30 years after it happened.

Stop right there. This is classic rape apologist victim-blaming rhetoric- there are good reasons why an accuser might take years to come forward, including fear, PTSD/psychological trauma, and social shame/stigma from people like you immediately rushing to insinuate dishonesty or lack of credibility on their part. This should not be interpreted to say anything about their credibility.

I would also note that the fact that she related the incident in private years ago to a psychiatric professional would strongly suggest that it is not something that she came up with to smear Kavanaugh,and that fact, combined with her initial reluctance to make her case in public, would suggest that she is not seeking any personal gain from this allegation. Both of which strengthen, rather than diminish, her credibility.

What I (unlike you in your infinite wisdom) can't say is that he's probably guilty of raping someone (which is exactly what you did above). What I can say is that I don't think the accusations are provable this long after an alleged event.

I don't think you can honestly make a blanket statement on weather allegations are provable after this long- it would depend on the case and the amount and type of evidence available. Nor do I think that it is why to put a statute of limitations on one of the most horrific and scarring crimes a person can commit, though unfortunately many jurisdictions have done exactly that.

I can't prove Kavanaugh is a rapist. However, the nature and circumstances of the complaint lead me to think that it is most likely credible. So yes, I stand by my statement that Kavanaugh is probably a rapist.

[The Romulan Republic]

Benefit of the doubt and by extension presumption of innocence (in courts) have to apply to everyone or they apply to no-one.

As Ralin so aptly noted, this is not a courtroom, nor is a Supreme Court nomination hearing. That said, I am normally for the presumption of innocence, but this is a serious enough allegation, especially given the post to which Kavanaugh aspires, that it warrants putting his nomination on hold or voting it down outright while further investigation occurs.

[Ralin]

Because it's intellectually lazy and over time will make you just as stupid as the Republican base.

Nowadays I'm much less concerned about the stupidity of the Republican base than how fucking evil they are

There's no excuse not to practice critical thinking just because it's politically inconvenient, and to understand that there's an intermediate state that all claims start in where they aren't dismissed, they might be true, and you should investigate them to find out before making a decision.

People keep taking it as a given that we should default to some sort of neutral position on any claim we don't have direct proof of. That's not a neutral sentiment: it places a much heavier burden on the rapist than on their victims, and the unspoken justification for that is that being fair to the accused matters more than being fair to the accuser. When someone says they've been raped there isn't an 'intermediate state' where it might or might not be true in equal proportion. I believe any rape allegation I hear that hasn't been actively been proven false by default, and so should the rest of you.

In some situations that might change like if I was a judge or juror, but here? The consequence of putting the burden of doubt on the accused isn't him going to jail or even losing his job or getting kicked out of school. It's him not being given a lifelong appointment to one of the highest offices in the United States government. If every single Supreme Court candidate who can't disprove every single person who accuses them of raping them (quick check, how many times has that happened to you?) was rejected for the position out of hand our government and legal system wouldn't be any worse off for it. It would probably be a significant improvement.

[Crazedwraith]

Benefit of the doubt and by extension presumption of innocence (in courts) have to apply to everyone or they apply to no-one.

As Ralin so aptly noted, this is not a courtroom, nor is a Supreme Court nomination hearing. That said, I am normally for the presumption of innocence, but this is a serious enough allegation, especially given the post to which Kavanaugh aspires, that it warrants putting his nomination on hold or voting it down outright while further investigation occurs.

Point out where I said it was. That's why I added "(in courts)" to presumption of innocence acknowledging that before hand.

So basically, your holier-than-thou shtick means 'i give benefit of the doubt except when it's someone i don't like and don't want to get a position', real generous there.

[Ralin]

So basically, your holier-than-thou shtick means 'i give benefit of the doubt except when it's someone i don't like and don't want to get a position', real generous there.

Sure, if by 'someone I don't like' you mean 'a rapist being nominated by a fascist' and by 'get a position' you mean 'be appointed to the Supreme Court for life for the purpose of undoing Roe vs Wade and other things protecting fundamental rights.'

Again, why are we acting like this is some sort of neutral situation where we should assume all allegations are false until proven otherwise? There is every reason to be biased against Kavanaugh and believe people accusing him. What has the administration nominating him done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?

[Crazedwraith]

That's just the argument; 'he has bad politics and therefore must be a rapist' in more detail.

eta: I'm not saying the accusations aren't troubling, I'm not saying it shouldn't be taken into account in the Supreme Court nomination or shouldn't be investigated.

All I'm saying is that the exact same process should take place as for any one else in that position accused of those things.

[Ralin]

That's just the argument; 'he has bad politics and therefore must be a rapist' in more detail.

No, it's the argument "We know he's a rapist because someone he rapes said so, and we know that sort of thing is normal for people from the misogynistic fascist party so we should proceed under the assumption that it's true."

All I'm saying is that the exact same process should take place as for any one else in that position accused of those things.

No it shouldn't. Proceduralism isn't neutral and pretending that a Trump (the rapist president of the woman-hating, Hispanic-hating, Muslim-hating fascist party) nominee is just another person entitled to the same benefit of the doubt as anyone else because of ~fairness~ is harmful because it works against his victims past and future and spreads the idea that this is all normal.

[Civil War Man]

All of this talk about "innocent until proven guilty" is moot because a) he has not yet been indicted for anything, and b) not all courts use that standard. I would argue that since the argument is that his nomination should be put on hold while these accusations are investigated, this is more akin to a Grand Jury deliberation, which explicitly does not use the innocent until proven guilty standard, but a preponderance of evidence standard.

And one thing which usually doesn't work in favor of the accused in those deliberations is when they repeatedly change their story. First, it was that Mike Judge could attest to Kavanaugh not doing anything, but then information came out that they were both binge drinkers during that time, which didn't help Kavanaugh's case since Ford's account was that he was extremely drunk when it happened. Then, yesterday, he claimed he was never at the party, even though we currently don't know any details about the exact date, time, and location of the party. Plus, that claim conflicted with the previous one, since apparently Judge could confirm that Kavanaugh didn't do anything at the party he didn't attend. Then, immediately after that, he started backpedaling and claiming that he didn't remember whether he attended the party.

And that's not getting into how currently most of his defenders have been focusing on Ad Hominem attacks, questioning the motives of Ford or Feinstein. Or how Ford discussed the incident in private years ago with her husband and therapist. Or that weird letter signed by 65 women who claimed to know Kavanaugh in high school that came out soon after these allegations came to light, so soon that it got people wondering how long Kavanaugh's team was preparing for this to come out.

It's not enough to convict in a court of law, but there is enough shady behavior surrounding this whole debacle to support the argument that the confirmation should be put on hold until the allegations can be properly investigated. But that goes against the goal of McConnell, Grassley, et al, to ram the nomination through as quickly as possible before the midterms.

[Vendetta]

Because it's intellectually lazy and over time will make you just as stupid as the Republican base.

Nowadays I'm much less concerned about the stupidity of the Republican base than how fucking evil they are

If anything in the character of large groups of people should be described as "evil", it is the tendency to accept without question information which fits a preexisting conception of reality.

That is what the Republican base is built of, people who accept what they are told by people who can seem confident and authoritative enough because it fits in their existing world view. Whether what they're being told is "God doesn't want people to have abortions" or "Obama is coming for your guns vote for me" or even "Zoe Quinn slept with journalists for good reviews", they accept it and even actively defend it based on the authority of the person that told them.

And that is what you're doing here. Someone said that a Trump nomination did a bad thing, and you are defending to the hilt not the idea that this should be treated as a serious criminal matter and investigated with all due process, but that it is definitely a true thing that happened and he is, was, and forever will be a rapist.

Critical thinking is your only shield from becoming exactly what you call "evil".

People keep taking it as a given that we should default to some sort of neutral position on any claim we don't have direct proof of. That's not a neutral sentiment: it places a much heavier burden on the rapist than on their victims, and the unspoken justification for that is that being fair to the accused matters more than being fair to the accuser. When someone says they've been raped there isn't an 'intermediate state' where it might or might not be true in equal proportion. I believe any rape allegation I hear that hasn't been actively been proven false by default, and so should the rest of you.

When someone says they've been raped, you should extend them the credit of belief. When they say they've been raped by this specific person here then you should not change how you deal with the accused person until the claim is substantiated (and if that happens in real life you should also report it to the police). Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In some situations that might change like if I was a judge or juror, but here? The consequence of putting the burden of doubt on the accused isn't him going to jail or even losing his job or getting kicked out of school. It's him not being given a lifelong appointment to one of the highest offices in the United States government. If every single Supreme Court candidate who can't disprove every single person who accuses them of raping them (quick check, how many times has that happened to you?) was rejected for the position out of hand our government and legal system wouldn't be any worse off for it. It would probably be a significant improvement.

Be wary before you establish the precedent that accusation is guilt, the people you are so exercised by are far more willing to use it to get what they want. "Lock her up!" Remember? You are displaying exactly the same thought process that had that being chanted at Trump rallies before they all got distracted. Accusation is not guilt, it doesn't matter that you aren't in a court right now, lazy thinking is what gives rise to what you call evil, and by indulging in it you become a tool for evil.

[Crazedwraith]

I think Vendetta has posted what I was trying to say with much more eloquence and would like to bow out on discussing this further.

[Vendetta]

All of this talk about "innocent until proven guilty" is moot because a) he has not yet been indicted for anything, and b) not all courts use that standard. I would argue that since the argument is that his nomination should be put on hold while these accusations are investigated, this is more akin to a Grand Jury deliberation, which explicitly does not use the innocent until proven guilty standard, but a preponderance of evidence standard.

Legal point of order: "Innocent until proven guilty" is not an evidentiary standard, it's a precept of due process. Grand juries do include the presumption of innocence. The whole reason they exist is because of it, because in some cases a prosecutor needs additional input on whether to bring a case to trial. (Which is why they use the lower "preponderance of evidence" standard not "beyond a reasonable doubt", because the outcome of a Grand Jury indictment is a trial under the higher evidentiary standard not a conviction).


Remember that due process is the fundamental underpinning of justice, because it is the thing which ensures that the rules are fairly applied to all. That's why all those legal "technicalities" exist, because ensuring that due process operates consistently and constantly is more important than any single trial.

[Ralin]

If anything in the character of large groups of people should be described as "evil", it is the tendency to accept without question information which fits a preexisting conception of reality.

Nah. What’s evil is voting for a fucking fascist because he promised to get rid of all the Mexicans and send refugees away to die so that the secret ISIS infiltrators won’t get in. What’s evil is setting up literal concentration camps for kids and trying to turn people with unwanted pregnancies into unwilling brood mares on the pretext that their fetus matters more than them.

That is what the Republican base is built of, people who accept what they are told by people who can seem confident and authoritative enough because it fits in their existing world view. Whether what they're being told is "God doesn't want people to have abortions" or "Obama is coming for your guns vote for me" or even "Zoe Quinn slept with journalists for good reviews", they accept it and even actively defend it based on the authority of the person that told them.

Again you act as if this is some value neutral debating club. All of those things you just described are lies. By contrast we know that most rapists get away with it and that the GOP has a history of condoning and promoting predators. I don’t believe Kavanaugh is a rapist because of the ~authority~ of the person who accused him, I believe it because one of his victims says he did it and that’s all the proof I or anyone else should need unless it’s proven she’s lying. Victims should be trusted over rapists.

And that is what you're doing here. Someone said that a Trump nomination did a bad thing, and you are defending to the hilt not the idea that this should be treated as a serious criminal matter and investigated with all due process, but that it is definitely a true thing that happened and he is, was, and forever will be a rapist.

It is a definitely true thing that happened and I and everyone else should treat it as such until the unlikely event that it is proven otherwise. You keep talking about investigations and ‘criminal matters’ as if we don’t know that there’s no chance in hell he’ll ever go to prison for it.

Critical thinking is your only shield from becoming exactly what you call "evil".

Your idea of critical thinking has led you to tripping over yourself to make excuses for a rapist from the misogynistic fascist party who was being elected in the hopes of turning women with unwanted pregnancies into unwilling brood mares even before we knew he was a predator himself. It hasn’t shielded you from a damned thing you fucking quisling.

When someone says they've been raped, you should extend them the credit of belief. When they say they've been raped by this specific person here then you should not change how you deal with the accused person until the claim is substantiated (and if that happens in real life you should also report it to the police).

Nope. When someone tells you that someone raped them you should proceed under the assumption that it’s true. Being ‘fair’ to a rapist is not more important than doing right by their victims. The fact that you think otherwise speaks volumes about your priorities.

Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Again with the debate club bullshit. A whole bunch of people get raped and people who say they were raped are usually telling the truth. There’s nothing extraordinary a victim saying they were raped, doubly so when it comes to a GOP member and Trump appointee.

Be wary before you establish the precedent that accusation is guilt, the people you are so exercised by are far more willing to use it to get what they want.

Have you even been paying attention? That’s already happened.

” Lock her up!" Remember? You are displaying exactly the same thought process that had that being chanted at Trump rallies before they all got distracted.

No I’m not, because Kavanaugh really was accused of rape by one of his victims and he really is being nominated by the rapist president of the misogynistic fascist party. This is not the same as whatever they were making up about Clinton a couple years ago.

Accusation is not guilt, it doesn't matter that you aren't in a court right now, lazy thinking is what gives rise to what you call evil, and by indulging in it you become a tool for evil.

Lazy thinking is pretending that all accusations are created equal and that giving the benefit of the doubt to a rapist from the misogynistic fascist party instead of immediately siding with his victim is somehow fair and value-neutral.

[The Romulan Republic]

Benefit of the doubt and by extension presumption of innocence (in courts) have to apply to everyone or they apply to no-one.

As Ralin so aptly noted, this is not a courtroom, nor is a Supreme Court nomination hearing. That said, I am normally for the presumption of innocence, but this is a serious enough allegation, especially given the post to which Kavanaugh aspires, that it warrants putting his nomination on hold or voting it down outright while further investigation occurs.

Point out where I said it was. That's why I added "(in courts)" to presumption of innocence acknowledging that before hand.

Why bring up presumption of innocence (a principle I absolutely defend) if it is not applicable?

So basically, your holier-than-thou shtick means 'i give benefit of the doubt except when it's someone i don't like and don't want to get a position', real generous there.

I am trying to have a civil discussion here, but you aren't making it easy. If it were a Democrat, I'd say the same fucking thing. Now either address my argument that due to the seriousness of the allegation and the importance of the office, this is grounds to delay or reject Kavanaugh's nomination, and explain why you disagree with that statement, and I'll do my best respond to your arguments. Or keep insulting me, and accept that I will respond in kind.

[The Romulan Republic]

Update: Ivanka is now suggesting that the nomination should be withdrawn, and Trump is facing pressure not to attack Ford because alienating women voters now could cost Republicans both houses of Congress:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/208/09/ ... ump-ivanka

Ford, meanwhile, is saying that she wants the FBI to investigate before a hearing is held or she testifies. I honestly don't know if that weakens or strengthens her credibility, but I can't fault her if she wants to avoid a he said/she said situation (which is what Republicans are trying to push her into) where the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice will hinge entirely on her personal credibility and how much Republicans manage to smear her. Nor do I think that it is unreasonable that she wants more than a few days to prepare to testify.

Ford's lawyer is also alleging that she has ""...been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats" and has been forced to leave her home."" Just in case anyone has forgotten why a sexual assault victim may be reluctant to immediately come forward. Or in case anyone has forgotten that a lot of Republicans these days are fucking scum/domestic terrorists.

https://www.cnn.com/208/09/18/politics/ ... index.html

Also, its a little off the main topic, but this line from the Vanity Fair article made me too happy not to quote:

"Trump knows the Senate is not looking good," an outside adviser said. "It's all about the impeachment, he knows it's coming."

Now excuse me while I go play the multiverse's tiniest violin.

[Beowulf]

My understanding is: this accusation is unfalsifiable. What's been laid out is that she doesn't remember when or where it occurred. There's some therapist's notes, to support that it happened, with the notes predating Trump's presidency, but no name is actually in the notes. It could become falsifiable, and therefore something we can actually have an opinion about, if there's a place and date associated with this. But right now we have an accuser, an accused, and a guy who spent most of high school black out drunk. We can't even tell if the accuser and accused where actually in the same room alone at any time, from what we know at this time.

[Civil War Man]

Ford, meanwhile, is saying that she wants the FBI to investigate before a hearing is held or she testifies. I honestly don't know if that weakens or strengthens her credibility, but I can't fault her if she wants to avoid a he said/she said situation (which is what Republicans are trying to push her into) where the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice will hinge entirely on her personal credibility and how much Republicans manage to smear her. Nor do I think that it is unreasonable that she wants more than a few days to prepare to testify.

The opinions I've heard from legal commentators I follow is that generally people who are making up that kind of thing don't include and specifically name witnesses in their stories, and don't request for law enforcement to follow up on their claims, because both of those things increase the likelihood of their account being disproven.

On a similar note, Mike Judge, the man she named as witness to the assault, has come out with a statement denying that the event took place, but he will under absolutely no circumstances be willing to testify to that under oath.

Regarding Beowulf's comment, there is a possibility of getting some more concrete information on that based on Ford's recollection of parts of the house's layout. That would, at the very least, narrow down the list of possible locations. We also know about what year this party happened, since Ford was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17, and what time of year it happened (either near the end of the school year or during the summer) due to Ford wearing a swimsuit to the party. Ford wearing a swimsuit also indicates that the party was at a place that was likely either a) near a beach, or b) had a swimming pool, which further narrows down the list of possible locations. There may still be multiple parties that fit all of that criteria, but that would at least give investigators a place to start.