Kavanaugh

[johnbc70]

Anyone watching this on Sky News? Fascinating television, better then any drama on TV. Pity that there is a serious allegations underneath that have turned into a circus.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think the fact that she's been having psychiatric treatment for PTSD long before Donald Trump was president never mind Kavanaugh's nomination blows the Republican's cries of a Democrat conspiracy out of the Water.

[johnbc70]

I think she may well believe it was him, whether it was him or not I am not sure. All the others who were present have signed statements saying it never happened.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I think she may well believe it was him, whether it was him or not I am not sure. All the others who were present have signed statements saying it never happened.

They have said they have no recollection of the party in question, which is very different and is understandable, given Dr Ford didn't tell anyone for two decades. Why would they remember one university party amongst many?

Dr Ford took and passed a polygraph; plus, why would she go public when she has NOTHING to gain? She is a renowned academic who only told her husband and therapist of the incident, both of whom verify her story.

She took a polygraph and passed. Mr Kavanaugh and his fellow accused Mark Judge need only do the same, yet they refuse.

Having watched the full testimony from both parties, I believe her: the drunken excesses of young men at university are no excuse for sexual assault. Her life has been terribly affected by her testimony, including death threats, though she had nothing to gain from this as a successful and intelligent woman. Her courage in testifying is inspirational.

[johnbc70]

They have said they have no recollection of the party in question, which is very different and is understandable, given Dr Ford didn't tell anyone for two decades. Why would they remember one university party amongst many?

Dr Ford took and passed a polygraph; plus, why would she go public when she has NOTHING to gain? She is a renowned academic who only told her husband and therapist of the incident, both of whom verify her story.

She took a polygraph and passed. Mr Kavanaugh and his fellow accused Mark Judge need only do the same, yet they refuse.

Having watched the full testimony from both parties, I believe her: the drunken excesses of young men at university are no excuse for sexual assault. Her life has been terribly affected by her testimony, including death threats, though she had nothing to gain from this as a successful and intelligent woman. Her courage in testifying is inspirational.
I believe she believes it was him. What does her being a renowned academic have to do with it? He is a well respected Judge with an unblemished record of decades of public service with not a hint of scandal. Nothing but praise from the women he has worked with over many years.

I think it turned into a political circus, the Democrats questioning him about if as 17 Yr old he got drunk and what his yearbook remarks meant, the Republicans not much better with their I feel so sorry for you and attacking the process.

Like a lot of these cases it will be her word against his.

[IGRIGI]

All about the democrats doing all they can to stop the supreme court going to the right.

[Bristolhibby]

I believe she believes it was him. What does her being a renowned academic have to do with it? He is a well respected Judge with an unblemished record of decades of public service with not a hint of scandal. Nothing but praise from the women he has worked with over many years.

I think it turned into a political circus, the Democrats questioning him about if as 17 Yr old he got drunk and what his yearbook remarks meant, the Republicans not much better with their I feel so sorry for you and attacking the process.

Like a lot of these cases it will be her word against his.

This guy is up for the Supreme Court. There should be no questions on his integrity. He has this post for LIFE! (Which is barking BTW).

The Senate is split 51-49 Republican, they need to push this through before the midterms. That said, there are likely Republicans who are appalled by the direction of their country. Do they have the courage of their convictions, or will they vote him through?

J

[Hibbyradge]

I believe she believes it was him. What does her being a renowned academic have to do with it? He is a well respected Judge with an unblemished record of decades of public service with not a hint of scandal. Nothing but praise from the women he has worked with over many years.

I think it turned into a political circus, the Democrats questioning him about if as 17 Yr old he got drunk and what his yearbook remarks meant, the Republicans not much better with their I feel so sorry for you and attacking the process.

Like a lot of these cases it will be her word against his.

Why do you think the 2 of them won't take lie detector tests?

[Smartie]

Why do you think the 2 of them won't take lie detector tests?

Because it's not Jeremy Kyle and lie detector test are a load of rubbish?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Because it's not Jeremy Kyle and lie detector test are a load of rubbish?

Kavanaugh's defenders are only saying polygraphs are 'a load if rubbish' because she passed. Had she failed the test, the same people would be using the result against Dr Ford.

Why would this lady, a successful and renowned academic who now resides in California, randomly come forward to make these allegations? She has nothing to gain, and, if I understand correctly, there are now FIVE women making accusations against Kavanaugh; one says a very drunken Kavanaugh (a recurring theme) exposed himself and pressed his ***** against her face at a different party. No doubt many of the people who say she's making it up said the same about the women who accused Clinton, Trump, Roy Moore, Weinstein, Cosby and the rest. It remains very difficult for women to be listened to and believed.

[Bristolhibby]

Powerful stuff. Shameful politician. Can’t even look her in the eye.

https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1045671067270836224?s=21

J

[Hibernia&Alba]

Powerful stuff. Shameful politician. Can’t even look her in the eye.

https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1045671067270836224?s=21

J

His testimony, playing the devout Catholic, is at sharp odds with his past conduct. Okay, young men do silly things and then grow up; I'm sure we have all behaved the radge occasionally, particularly in drink, but sexual assault is something else entirely. That isn't just youthful excess, it's an arrogance born of a sense of entitlement and a callous disregard for the effect of such behaviour on young women. Perhaps he did change as he got older, I don't know, but, if these accusations are true, they have to be taken into account. Serious crimes which went unpunished can't just be written off as the 'mistakes' of a young man.

[CropleyWasGod]

Flake has now asked for an FBI investigation, albeit he has voted yes.

11-10 in favour of passing it to the Senate

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[The Modfather]

Kavanaugh's defenders are only saying polygraphs are 'a load if rubbish' because she passed. Had she failed the test, the same people would be using the result against Dr Ford.

Why would this lady, a successful and renowned academic who now resides in California, randomly come forward to make these allegations? She has nothing to gain, and, if I understand correctly, there are now FIVE women making accusations against Kavanaugh; one says a very drunken Kavanaugh (a recurring theme) exposed himself and pressed his ***** against her face at a different party. No doubt many of the people who say she's making it up said the same about the women who accused Clinton, Trump, Roy Moore, Weinstein, Cosby and the rest. It remains very difficult for women to be listened to and believed.

Being a Luddite I can’t work out how to bold a part of a quote from my phone.

Re your last sentence about it being difficult for women to come forward and be believed, I would agree with that. However their also appears to be a double standard when it is a man that comes forward, like Jimmy Bennett. From what I’ve seen the media appear more interested in the statements back and forward between Asia Argento and Rose McGowan than actually reporting about another potential victim coming forward in a high profile case.

[Bristolhibby]

His testimony, playing the devout Catholic, is at sharp odds with his past conduct. Okay, young men do silly things and then grow up; I'm sure we have all behaved the radge occasionally, particularly in drink, but sexual assault is something else entirely. That isn't just youthful excess, it's an arrogance born of a sense of entitlement and a callous disregard for the effect of such behaviour on young women. Perhaps he did change as he got older, I don't know, but, if these accusations are true, they have to be taken into account. Serious crimes which went unpunished can't just be written off as the 'mistakes' of a young man.

Agreed. A Supreme Court judge needs to be beyond clean. Accusations like this have to be given legitimacy.

J

[johnbc70]

His testimony, playing the devout Catholic, is at sharp odds with his past conduct

So you have already made up your mind he is guilty then?

[Hibernia&Alba]

So you have already made up your mind he is guilty then?

Having watched the testimony of both people to the Senate Committee, I believe Dr Ford, yes. Nobody other than Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge really know what happened in that bedroom all those years ago. The rest of us can only listen to both sides and then make a judgement about whom we believe. Given the credibility of her evidence, and, given several other women have already come forward, I believe the accusers, yes. Mark Judge, the other man whom Dr Ford says was in the room at the time, should testify, but he refuses. Both Judge and Kavanaugh also refuse to take a polygraph.

[Mibbes Aye]

Flake has now asked for an FBI investigation, albeit he has voted yes.

11-10 in favour of passing it to the Senate

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

So the long and short of it is it goes to the full Senate.

The decision about delaying the full Senate vote to allow the FBI investigation doesn’t sit with the committee, it sits with Mitch McConnell, the Republican senate majority leader, who is pro-Kavanaugh.

If McConnell forces the vote however, it seems clear Flake will vote against and there is a suspicion that he is taking point for a couple of other Rep senators who would prefer ‘due diligence’, meaning the wafer-thin Rep majority in the Senate would be lost, blocking Kavanaugh.

All eyes on McConnell now, it’s a big gamble either way.

[Colr]

His testimony, playing the devout Catholic.

On firm ground with that defence when it comes to the old sexual abuse, eh?

[Hibernia&Alba]

So the long and short of it is it goes to the full Senate.

The decision about delaying the full Senate vote to allow the FBI investigation doesn’t sit with the committee, it sits with Mitch McConnell, the Republican senate majority leader, who is pro-Kavanaugh.

If McConnell forces the vote however, it seems clear Flake will vote against and there is a suspicion that he is taking point for a couple of other Rep senators who would prefer ‘due diligence’, meaning the wafer-thin Rep majority in the Senate would be lost, blocking Kavanaugh.

All eyes on McConnell now, it’s a big gamble either way.

McConnell is another reactionary Republican dinosaur: climate change denier, owned by his donors, anti-worker, anti-abortion religious fundamentalist. We shouldn't expect anything of him. I think Noam Chomsky is correct when he describes the contemporary Republican Party as the most dangerous force in history. It sounds like hyperbole, but, when you look at the two most important issues which threaten human existence, climate change and nuclear war, the Republican Party is off the scale crackpot crazy.

[CropleyWasGod]

So the long and short of it is it goes to the full Senate.

The decision about delaying the full Senate vote to allow the FBI investigation doesn’t sit with the committee, it sits with Mitch McConnell, the Republican senate majority leader, who is pro-Kavanaugh.

If McConnell forces the vote however, it seems clear Flake will vote against and there is a suspicion that he is taking point for a couple of other Rep senators who would prefer ‘due diligence’, meaning the wafer-thin Rep majority in the Senate would be lost, blocking Kavanaugh.

All eyes on McConnell now, it’s a big gamble either way.I'm sure McConnell will be doing the numbers over the weekend. I read that Dubya was getting involved in some whipping.... that may have been Democrat-led gossip, mind you [emoji38]

I'm fascinated by all of this. Whilst it's like one of the better episodes of House of Cards, with all the intrigue and sub-plots, at its heart are the reputations of 2 individuals, whose careers might not recover, depending on how this plays out.




Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[patch1875]

https://youtu.be/kurKyCAhhmQ

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm sure McConnell will be doing the numbers over the weekend. I read that Dubya was getting involved in some whipping.... that may have been Democrat-led gossip, mind you [emoji38]

I'm fascinated by all of this. Whilst it's like one of the better episodes of House of Cards, with all the intrigue and sub-plots, at its heart are the reputations of 2 individuals, whose careers might not recover, depending on how this plays out.




Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Absolutely, CWG. Sadly, it has inevitably become about political wrangling, yet the real issue is an alleged sexual assault. The politicians seem to be making the assault a secondary issue to political ideology and will vote accordingly. Personally I regard Dr Ford as very credible, and, though my own views couldn't be more different from someone like Kavanaugh, I would believe her even if Kavanaugh was the most left wing Supreme Court candidate imaginable. The vast majority of Republicans are unconscionable fundamentalists and will back Kavanaugh come what may, for political gain.

[Hibs Class]

Regardless of whether or not he's guilty of assault, his performance yesterday showed that he is both temperamentally unsuitable and incapable of the impartiality required of the position.

[Smartie]

Kavanaugh's defenders are only saying polygraphs are 'a load if rubbish' because she passed. Had she failed the test, the same people would be using the result against Dr Ford.

Why would this lady, a successful and renowned academic who now resides in California, randomly come forward to make these allegations? She has nothing to gain, and, if I understand correctly, there are now FIVE women making accusations against Kavanaugh; one says a very drunken Kavanaugh (a recurring theme) exposed himself and pressed his ***** against her face at a different party. No doubt many of the people who say she's making it up said the same about the women who accused Clinton, Trump, Roy Moore, Weinstein, Cosby and the rest. It remains very difficult for women to be listened to and believed.

All reasonable points and ones that I agree with except for the validity of polygraphs.

I think they're a load of nonsense - acceptable in the kangaroo court of Jeremy Kyle but absolutely not to be relied upon when the matter is as serious as this.

I would never, under any circumstances agree to do one and I don't think (although I stand to be corrected) that a Scottish court would consider them representative of anything.

It does remain difficult for women to be listened to and believed, but the travesty of such cases is that it will so often boil down to one person's word against another's.

[Hibbyradge]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/trump-christine-blasey-ford-credible-witness

[ChicagoHibee]

Damn.......it didn't take long in this thread before we got into some good, old fashioned anti-Catholicism.

[Hibbyradge]

Damn.......it didn't take long in this thread before we got into some good, old fashioned anti-Catholicism.

What do you mean?

[CropleyWasGod]

The Republicans have obviously done their sums. They've agreed to the delay, and Trump has ordered the FBI back in.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Tornadoes70]

All reasonable points and ones that I agree with except for the validity of polygraphs.

I think they're a load of nonsense - acceptable in the kangaroo court of Jeremy Kyle but absolutely not to be relied upon when the matter is as serious as this.

I would never, under any circumstances agree to do one and I don't think (although I stand to be corrected) that a Scottish court would consider them representative of anything.

It does remain difficult for women to be listened to and believed, but the travesty of such cases is that it will so often boil down to one person's word against another's.

Alex Salmond has at least two women complaining of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault.

Mon Scottish Labour

[CropleyWasGod]

And the award for the biggest non-sequitur of the night goes to .....

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

Is it just me that’s a bit bewildered about the coverage this is getting on BBC and Sky? It’s got no relevance to the UK at all, but is huge news apparently.

[Beefster]

Is it just me that’s a bit bewildered about the coverage this is getting on BBC and Sky? It’s got no relevance to the UK at all, but is huge news apparently.

It’s being covered everywhere. Some folk get a bit annoyed by it but we get coverage of US politics/news/entertainment/weather for various reasons. They are the only true superpower. Some folk feel an affinity with the US for whatever reason, some of us work with folk in the US everyday, they speak English, part of ‘the West’ etc etc.

Aside from that, watching a continual car crash (their politics) is pretty interesting.

[Tyler Durden]

So you have already made up your mind he is guilty then?

I'm not sure how anyone could watch the testimonies and think otherwise?

Putting aside the sexual assault allegations, it's quite clear that Kavanaugh perjured himself several times. From his explanations on calendar entries and high school slang terms used, to denying he'd watched Blasey Fords testimony when several reporters witnessed him watching.

He repeatedly lied about other potential witnesses refuting her account.

His conduct was appalling and references to "revenge for the Clintons" etc....... It's crazy that he's even being considered but that is the GOP. They're making up the rules as they go.

[stoneyburn hibs]

It’s being covered everywhere. Some folk get a bit annoyed by it but we get coverage of US politics/news/entertainment/weather for various reasons. They are the only true superpower. Some folk feel an affinity with the US for whatever reason, some of us work with folk in the US everyday, they speak English, part of ‘the West’ etc etc.

Aside from that, watching a continual car crash (their politics) is pretty interesting.


Car crash tv, Everybody wants to see.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm not sure how anyone could watch the testimonies and think otherwise?

Putting aside the sexual assault allegations, it's quite clear that Kavanaugh perjured himself several times. From his explanations on calendar entries and high school slang terms used, to denying he'd watched Blasey Fords testimony when several reporters witnessed him watching.

He repeatedly lied about other potential witnesses refuting her account.

His conduct was appalling and references to "revenge for the Clintons" etc....... It's crazy that he's even being considered but that is the GOP. They're making up the rules as they go.

:top marks

Kavanaugh perjured himself and refuses the FBI investigation and polygraph. His lies about his drinking alone have been contradicted by numerous people, male and female, who were at college with him.

Why would Dr Ford and the other women step forward now, completely at random? Is it a political hit job? Well, Dr Ford is an academic in her fifties who has four university degrees, so would she really be willing to be used in this way as part of a political agenda? It's simply a ridiculous idea.

I believe her testimony and that of the other women who have come forward. The courage of Dr Ford and the other women who have feared their coming forward would lead to ridicule, is moving. Let's hope we are finally reaching the point where nobody who commits such crimes can rely upon misogyny to get off.

[AT8]

If anyone can say that they never did anything stupid in their teen years with absolute truth, then I tip my hat to you. Yes, alleged tempted rape goes above being stupid, but the fact that this was only brought up AFTER the initial background check has to raise suspicion. Also, consider the fact that the democrats, from the outset, said they would do anything to oppose his conformation leads to me to believe that this is a set up. This allegation could have been reviewed in privacy, yet it was leaked to the media.....by who? The fact that he has a squeaky clean record in office is surely an indication of the man he is now. Politics is a dirty game, and this is the dirtiest I have ever seen it.

[Tyler Durden]

If anyone can say that they never did anything stupid in their teen years with absolute truth, then I tip my hat to you. Yes, alleged tempted rape goes above being stupid, but the fact that this was only brought up AFTER the initial background check has to raise suspicion. Also, consider the fact that the democrats, from the outset, said they would do anything to oppose his conformation leads to me to believe that this is a set up. This allegation could have been reviewed in privacy, yet it was leaked to the media.....by who? The fact that he has a squeaky clean record in office is surely an indication of the man he is now. Politics is a dirty game, and this is the dirtiest I have ever seen it.

Dr Ford saw that Kavanaugh was being considered as a potential nominee back in June I think. At that stage she contacted her local senator or representative with the information. For some reason Senator Feinstein sat on this info and didn’t do her job to raise this earlier. Fords actions were designed to avoid this publicity and have Kavanaugh dismisses in private and early in the process.

If people are going to be real for a moment and consider what is wrong in the process. Why should a president who is under criminal investigation be allowed to nominate a lifetime appointment? Republicans wouldn’t consider Obama’s nominee because he was in his final year of office - unprecedented partisanship.

The UK is a mess but the corruption of this GOP is incredible.

[s.a.m]

If anyone can say that they never did anything stupid in their teen years with absolute truth, then I tip my hat to you. Yes, alleged tempted rape goes above being stupid, but the fact that this was only brought up AFTER the initial background check has to raise suspicion. Also, consider the fact that the democrats, from the outset, said they would do anything to oppose his conformation leads to me to believe that this is a set up. This allegation could have been reviewed in privacy, yet it was leaked to the media.....by who? The fact that he has a squeaky clean record in office is surely an indication of the man he is now. Politics is a dirty game, and this is the dirtiest I have ever seen it.

We don't really know, because fewer than 10% of his communications have been released for scrutiny by the committee. I think I'm right in saying that his lawyer got to pick the ones that were to be released, and those ones only landed with the committee late at night, on the day before the proceedings.


Dr Ford saw that Kavanaugh was being considered as a potential nominee back in June I think. At that stage she contacted her local senator or representative with the information. For some reason Senator Feinstein sat on this info and didn’t do her job to raise this earlier. Fords actions were designed to avoid this publicity and have Kavanaugh dismisses in private and early in the process.

If people are going to be real for a moment and consider what is wrong in the process. Why should a president who is under criminal investigation be allowed to nominate a lifetime appointment? Republicans wouldn’t consider Obama’s nominee because he was in his final year of office - unprecedented partisanship.

The UK is a mess but the corruption of this GOP is incredible.

What's more, one who is likely to protect him from justice. Kavanaugh's previously stated the opinion that not only should a sitting president not be indicted, but that they shouldn't be subject to investigation. There's an early October vote in the Supreme Court that could enable the President to pardon State offences, as well as Federal ones. That effectively puts Trump's family and various criminal associates above the law. Kavanaugh's presence on the SC would probably swing that vote. Which probably explains the Republicans desperate rush to push him through.

Leaving aside the current allegations, they have a nominee for a lifetime, powerful position who won't authorise the release of the majority of his records, who doesn't want an FBI investigation into his past, who the American Bar Association apparently previously expressed doubts about on the basis of his political bias, who won't give detail on the sudden payoff of his large debts that happened in the run up to his nomination (he says he bought lots-$200,000(?) worth- of baseball seats for friends who hadn't paid him back, but they all suddenly did, but he's not saying who). He looks very bribe-able.

And ignoring all of that, his performance the other day, in what was basically an extension of a job interview, was wild. He was sneering, evasive, bad tempered, insulting, whiny, spoilt, aggressive, self-entitled. At a job interview. He came across as a right nasty piece of work, and it's hard to imagine any other situation where he'd still be in consideration after that.

[Hibernia&Alba]

We don't really know, because fewer than 10% of his communications have been released for scrutiny by the committee. I think I'm right in saying that his lawyer got to pick the ones that were to be released, and those ones only landed with the committee late at night, on the day before the proceedings.



What's more, one who is likely to protect him from justice. Kavanaugh's previously stated the opinion that not only should a sitting president not be indicted, but that they shouldn't be subject to investigation. There's an early October vote in the Supreme Court that could enable the President to pardon State offences, as well as Federal ones. That effectively puts Trump's family and various criminal associates above the law. Kavanaugh's presence on the SC would probably swing that vote. Which probably explains the Republicans desperate rush to push him through.

Leaving aside the current allegations, they have a nominee for a lifetime, powerful position who won't authorise the release of the majority of his records, who doesn't want an FBI investigation into his past, who the American Bar Association apparently previously expressed doubts about on the basis of his political bias, who won't give detail on the sudden payoff of his large debts that happened in the run up to his nomination (he says he bought lots-$200,000(?) worth- of baseball seats for friends who hadn't paid him back, but they all suddenly did, but he's not saying who). He looks very bribe-able.

And ignoring all of that, his performance the other day, in what was basically an extension of a job interview, was wild. He was sneering, evasive, bad tempered, insulting, whiny, spoilt, aggressive, self-entitled. At a job interview. He came across as a right nasty piece of work, and it's hard to imagine any other situation where he'd still be in consideration after that.

Excellent post :agree:

[Hibernia&Alba]

https://proxy.bigfooty.com/forum/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20180929%2Fe20682db332ab76915147f1e04656 431.jpg&hash=7a89b726a575a3cab56352d471bff0c3

[Fife-Hibee]

Not buying that he was guilty of this. Why wait until this very opportune moment to call him out decades later with a gang of "democrats" putting their weight behind it?

It stinks IMO.

[Fife-Hibee]

Is it just me that’s a bit bewildered about the coverage this is getting on BBC and Sky? It’s got no relevance to the UK at all, but is huge news apparently.

The perfect distraction from the no-deal brexit fiasco.

[CapitalGreen]

Not buying that he was guilty of this. Why wait until this very opportune moment to call him out decades later with a gang of "democrats" putting their weight behind it?

It stinks IMO.

So you simply dismiss allegations of such crimes out of hand if they are not reported straight away?

Should similar apply to the historical crimes of Saville, Cosby etc?

[Fife-Hibee]

So you simply dismiss allegations of such crimes out of hand if they are not reported straight away?

Should similar apply to the historical crimes of Saville, Cosby etc?

No, I just don't assume guilt until proven otherwise. That used to be a thing in justice which seems to be lost these days. It's no longer about whether somebody is actually guilty of a crime or not, but how it benefits or impacts certain political affiliations.

There's serious questions that need to be answered in this case, which are simply being overlooked. Why wait for this singular moment decades later to call somebody out on a crime that can no longer be definitively proved or disapproved? Do the so called "democrats" even care about the truth here? Or are they simply twisting the arm of the alleged victim to get a favourable political outcome?

I don't like Kavanaugh and his ultra conservative views. But to assume guilt in a case where there is zero definitive evidence to suggest this event ever took any shape or form is yet another blow to the justice system.

[CapitalGreen]

No, I just don't assume guilt until proven otherwise. That used to be a thing in justice which seems to be lost these days. It's no longer about whether somebody is actually guilty of a crime or not, but how it benefits or impacts certain political affiliations.

There's serious questions that need to be answered in this case, which are simply being overlooked. Why wait for this singular moment decades later to call somebody out on a crime that can no longer be definitively proved or disapproved? Do the so called "democrats" even care about the truth here? Or are they simply twisting the arm of the alleged victim to get a favourable political outcome?

I don't like Kavanaugh and his ultra conservative views. But to assume guilt in a case where there is zero definitive evidence to suggest this event ever took any shape or form is yet another blow to the justice system.

You have accused the alleged victim of political opportunism. How can you make that accusation at her while at the same time arguing for justice to take it's course?

[Fife-Hibee]

You have accused the alleged victim of political opportunism. How can you make that accusation at her while at the same time arguing for justice to take it's course?

If justice was taking it's course. All of the evidence would be looked at and considered then the verdict would be made. However, seeing as there is no evidence, there is no case. The only reason it's still on going is because of the funds being pumped into it by the Democrats desperate to get the verdict that suits their own political agenda.

At the end of the day, whether the incident actually occured or not is redundant, as it can no longer be proven in a court of law. Which only leaves emotions and sentiments to sway the dury. Which should never be allowed to happen.

[Hibbyradge]

The perfect distraction from the no-deal brexit fiasco.

This line is trotted out when anything comes into public consciousness.

Salisbury poisoning. Plot to distract from Brexit.

Storm in the USA. Distract from Brexit.

Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations. Plot to distract from Brexit.

Utter nonsense, of course, unless people are suggesting that Brexit us the only news item we should be reading/hearing about.

Plus, these "distractions" aren't succeeding in their mission, are they?

Brexit has been the leading, or at worst second, topic on the news for months.

[Hibbyradge]

If justice was taking it's course. All of the evidence would be looked at and considered then the verdict would be made. However, seeing as there is no evidence, there is no case. The only reason it's still on going is because of the funds being pumped into it by the Democrats desperate to get the verdict that suits their own political agenda.

At the end of the day, whether the incident actually occured or not is redundant, as it can no longer be proven in a court of law. Which only leaves emotions and sentiments to sway the dury. Which should never be allowed to happen.

The question is also whether Kavanaugh is a liar or not.

[Fife-Hibee]

This line is trotted out when anything comes into public consciousness.

Salisbury poisoning. Plot to distract from Brexit.

Storm in the USA. Distract from Brexit.

Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations. Plot to distract from Brexit.

Utter nonsense, of course, unless people are suggesting that Brexit us the only news item we should be reading/hearing about.

Plus, these "distractions" aren't succeeding in their mission, are they?

Brexit has been the leading, or at worst second, topic on the news for months.

Well perhaps you can explain to me what a court case based on something that allegedly happened decades ago in America has to do with the UK? Why is this a bigger story than our own political landscape?

The more obvious that it's becoming that they'll be a no deal, the less we're hearing about it in place of events that have no impact on us whatsoever.

[Fife-Hibee]

The question is also whether Kavanaugh is a liar or not.

It shouldn't be. If guilt is being accused, then it should be proven, not the other way around. That's the way justice is supposed to be. If somebody accuses you of a crime, the onus shouldn't be on you to prove your innocence, it should be on the accuser to prove your guilt.

[Hibbyradge]

Well perhaps you can explain to me what a court case based on something that allegedly happened decades ago in America has to do with the UK? Why is this a bigger story than our own political landscape?



It doesn't even feature on the BBC front page. Brexit is 2nd.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

[Hibbyradge]

It shouldn't be. If guilt is being accused, then it should be proven, not the other way around. That's the way justice is supposed to be. If somebody accuses you of a crime, the onus shouldn't be on you to prove your innocence, it should be on the accuser to prove your guilt.

I think it's important that the leading judge is honest, that he doesn't lie, and doesn't have a history of sexual assault.

[Fife-Hibee]

It doesn't even feature on the BBC front page. Brexit is 2nd.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Yet, if I switch to the BBC News channel, there is nothing about it. Instead the focus is on natural disasters far far away from here and although these news storys are major international news stories, they still hold no real relevance to what is going on here.

[Fife-Hibee]

I think it's important that the leading judge is honest, that he doesn't lie, and doesn't have a history of sexual assault.

How can such a thing ever be definitively ensured? Bring in somebody who won't be accused of sexual assault from decades ago right before they go for the job? How can it be guaranteed that another person who replaces him has never commited any crimes and doesn't lie?

What you're asking for is purely idealistic.

[matty_f]

How can such a thing ever be definitively ensured? Bring in somebody who won't be accused of sexual assault from decades ago right before they go for the job? How can it be guaranteed that another person who replaces him has never commited any crimes and doesn't lie?

What you're asking for is purely idealistic.

It's not that idealistic - but you have to go with what you know. If background screening etc showed that the person was the right candidate and had those attributes, then you go with them. If, during those checks, you uncover that they've a history of sexual assault or telling lies then they should no longer be considered.

[Hibbyradge]

Yet, if I switch to the BBC News channel, there is nothing about it. Instead the focus is on natural disasters far far away from here and although these news storys are major international news stories, they still hold no real relevance to what is going on here.

The BBC News channel is a 24 hour channel. It has to cover a large number of topics, domestic and global.

Brexit is high in the British public's consciousness. There are no diversion tactics that could change that.

In fact, in recent months, I've been getting the impression that the country is being deliberately turned away from leaving the EU. I retain hope that it being done to prepare the electorate in advance of a 2nd referendum.

Every newspaper, every news outlet, be it TV, radio or the press is talking about it every day.

[Bristolhibby]

Not buying that he was guilty of this. Why wait until this very opportune moment to call him out decades later with a gang of "democrats" putting their weight behind it?

It stinks IMO.

#metoo has happened. Definately wasn’t there in the mid 80s.

Women, rightly have a bit more credence given to them in light of Weinstein.

I would come forward if my attacker was about to gain one of the most powerful Judical seats in the country, FOR LIFE!

J

[Fife-Hibee]

It's not that idealistic - but you have to go with what you know. If background screening etc showed that the person was the right candidate and had those attributes, then you go with them. If, during those checks, you uncover that they've a history of sexual assault or telling lies then they should no longer be considered.

We don't know that this man is guilty of any crime, because it can't be proven that he is. Would it be justice to deny him this job opportunity on accusation alone?

What's to stop anybody accusing the next judge in line of similar crimes, or the judge in line after him? This whole situation could repeat itself over and over again until the powers putting money into these cases get exactly who they want in place.

[Fife-Hibee]

#metoo has happened. Definately wasn’t there in the mid 80s.

Women, rightly have a bit more credence given to them in light of Weinstein.

I would come forward if my attacker was about to gain one of the most powerful Judical seats in the country, FOR LIFE!

J

Really? Because i'd have came forward at a time when evidence could have actually been provided. Not at a time when I have zero evidence to provide that such an event ever took place, just before the person I accuse is about to obtain a high position of power.

[Bristolhibby]

Really? Because i'd have came forward at a time when evidence could have actually been provided. Not at a time when I have zero evidence to provide that such an event ever took place, just before the person I accuse is about to obtain a high position of power.

I’ve never been raped, I have no idea how I’d think. Particularly if it were a frat boy and this is the 80s.

The man is going for the most important Judical role in the land. He should be beyond question. Whiter than white.

If they want to hang their hat on his hook, then there has to be a proper investigation into this. He’s not going for a job paving your drive!

I’m sure the Republicans can find a squeaky clean Judge who holds similar views to anoint, to the Supreme Court for life.

J

[matty_f]

We don't know that this man is guilty of any crime, because it can't be proven that he is. Would it be justice to deny him this job opportunity on accusation alone?

What's to stop anybody accusing the next judge in line of similar crimes, or the judge in line after him? This whole situation could repeat itself over and over again until the powers putting money into these cases get exactly who they want in place.

That's why he should be investigated and the nomination held up until such a time that a decision can be made one way or the other.

The situation could repeat itself, however if someone has no skeletons in their closet then it's going to be much harder for someone accusing them to make that accusation stick.

[Hibbyradge]

Really? Because i'd have came forward at a time when evidence could have actually been provided. Not at a time when I have zero evidence to provide that such an event ever took place, just before the person I accuse is about to obtain a high position of power.

You have no idea what you would have done after the event. None.

You may hope that you'd come forward, but you don't know that.

Why didn't all Saville's victims come forward at the time. Why do many, many victims of sexual assault not come forward?

That's what #metoo us about. Empowering victims.

[Fife-Hibee]

I’ve never been raped, I have no idea how I’d think. Particularly if it were a frat boy and this is the 80s.

The man is going for the most important Judical role in the land. He should be beyond question. Whiter than white.

If they want to hang their hat on his hook, then there has to be a proper investigation into this. He’s not going for a job paving your drive!

I’m sure the Republicans can find a squeaky clean Judge who holds similar views to anoint, to the Supreme Court for life.

J

Nobody is beyond question. Because a woman can accuse any man of any sexual crime at any time over the past several decades. This gives women the power to effectively dictate who gets into powerful positions or not, completely taking men out of the equation. The #metoo movement is farcical to say the least. As it gives women unparalleled power to manipulate the legal and political system.

What's to stop any women simply accusing someone that they just don't happen to like very much of commiting a sexual crime that can't be proven, thus resulting in them not getting that position based on accusation alone?

Or more so, what is to stop a political party from twisting the arm of a woman to make false statements about sexual assault to stop someone getting into a powerful position for purely political reasons?

The whole situtation is insane and I don't understand why more people can't see it that way.

[Fife-Hibee]

You have no idea what you would have done after the event. None.

You may hope that you'd come forward, but you don't know that.

Why didn't all Saville's victims come forward at the time. Why do many, many victims of sexual assault not come forward?

That's what #metoo us about. Empowering victims.

It may well be about empowering victims, but it has also opened the floodgate for false accusations to manipulate political outcomes. If something can't be proven to have happened, then it can't be legally recognized to have happened.

[Hibbyradge]

It may well be about empowering victims, but it has also opened the floodgate for false accusations to manipulate political outcomes. If something can't be proven to have happened, then it can't be legally recognized to have happened.

Floodgates? Really?

[Fife-Hibee]

Floodgates? Really?

Yes. Also your response doesn't add anything. If you think i'm wrong, then by all means explain why you think i'm wrong and why this wouldn't be the case.

[RyeSloan]

Nobody is beyond question. Because a woman can accuse any man of any sexual crime at any time over the past several decades. This gives women the power to effectively dictate who gets into powerful positions or not, completely taking men out of the equation. The #metoo movement is farcical to say the least. As it gives women unparalleled power to manipulate the legal and political system.

What's to stop any women simply accusing someone that they just don't happen to like very much of commiting a sexual crime that can't be proven, thus resulting in them not getting that position based on accusation alone?

Or more so, what is to stop a political party from twisting the arm of a woman to make false statements about sexual assault to stop someone getting into a powerful position for purely political reasons?

The whole situtation is insane and I don't understand why more people can't see it that way.

I get your general point...the passage of time makes the accusation difficult to prove and just as difficult to defend against.

It’s well known that people’s recollections of events from 20+ years ago can be very inaccurate and their impressions from what happened can be self fulfilling to the stage where they firmly believe what they are saying is true but in reality bear no reflection on what happened.

That doesn’t of course mean that aged accusations should not be aired (see Saville etc.) just that people should be very wary of such things.

But I think you are being rather one sided in your view and your description of the metoo movement and describing the situation as insane maybe betray the fact that you are not entirely open to viewing the situation in a dispassionate manner.

[RyeSloan]

Yet, if I switch to the BBC News channel, there is nothing about it. Instead the focus is on natural disasters far far away from here and although these news storys are major international news stories, they still hold no real relevance to what is going on here.

Sorry but that’s nonsense there is daily coverage of Brexit, ad nauseam across all major U.K. news outlets...trying to say otherwise is just daft.

Are you expecting Brexit to the the ONLY news covered by all U.K. outlets?

[s.a.m]

No, I just don't assume guilt until proven otherwise. That used to be a thing in justice which seems to be lost these days. It's no longer about whether somebody is actually guilty of a crime or not, but how it benefits or impacts certain political affiliations.

There's serious questions that need to be answered in this case, which are simply being overlooked. Why wait for this singular moment decades later to call somebody out on a crime that can no longer be definitively proved or disapproved? Do the so called "democrats" even care about the truth here? Or are they simply twisting the arm of the alleged victim to get a favourable political outcome?

I don't like Kavanaugh and his ultra conservative views. But to assume guilt in a case where there is zero definitive evidence to suggest this event ever took any shape or form is yet another blow to the justice system.


The three women who have made allegations have all said they would like a proper, full investigation, with which they are prepared to cooperate. They have been denied that. By politicians. Politicians who are extremely keen to rush this nomination through as soon as possible. A number of people who were close to Kavanaugh or drank with him when they were students have said that they are prepared to testify under oath that he has grossly misrepresented(lied about under oath, which disqualifies him) his drinking habits and behaviour when he was young. They have all said that he was a frequent, extremely heavy drinker, and a belligerent and aggressive one.

In response to your later point (why didn't she come forward straight away), a high percentage of people don't. Many are crippled by shame, embarrassment and the knowledge that it's generally one person's word against another, with limited chance of success. Actual rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove for that same reason. Even now, in more enlightened times, I think she would have difficulty proving her case. What evidence, other than her word against hers would there be? In the 80s, as a 15 year old, possibly in a situation she shouldn't have been in, in an entirely different culture as far as sexual politics and attitude to sexual aggression are concerned, against a guy from a prestigious family, whose mother was a judge, who was a high performing pupil in sport and academically...

I'm about the same age as her. Would I have reported it? I doubt it. I'd have been mortified, my parents would have gone mad that I was there in the first place, and I would have known it's unlikely I'd be taken seriously.

[Fife-Hibee]

I get your general point...the passage of time makes the accusation difficult to prove and just as difficult to defend against.

It’s well known that people’s recollections of events from 20+ years ago can be very inaccurate and their impressions from what happened can be self fulfilling to the stage where they firmly believe what they are saying is true but in reality bear no reflection on what happened.

That doesn’t of course mean that aged accusations should not be aired (see Saville etc.) just that people should be very wary of such things.

But I think you are being rather one sided in your view and your description of the metoo movement and describing the situation as insane maybe betray the fact that you are not entirely open to viewing the situation in a dispassionate manner.

Perhaps. But i've always stood by the belief that no person should ever been assumed guilty of a crime. It has to be proven. You have to ask yourself why somebody would come forward at this very specific point in the accused persons life, when they know they have no evidence to back up the claims that they are making. Not only that, but the person making the accusations is also being backed by a group of people who have a clear political agenda against the person who is being accused.

[s.a.m]

Perhaps. But i've always stood by the belief that no person should ever been assumed guilty of a crime. It has to be proven. You have to ask yourself why somebody would come forward at this very specific point in the accused persons life, when they know they have no evidence to back up the claims that they are making. Not only that, but the person making the accusations is also being backed by a group of people who have a clear political agenda against the person who is being accused.


She has said she did it in response to his nomination to the lifelong position of Supreme Court Judge, and she did it at the time. Presumably she thought it would be investigated at the time. If the alleged offence took place, I would say that it's entirely understandable that someone would be triggered into action by him being eased into a job for which you need to be squeaky clean.

[Fife-Hibee]

The three women who have made allegations have all said they would like a proper, full investigation, with which they are prepared to cooperate. They have been denied that. By politicians. Politicians who are extremely keen to rush this nomination through as soon as possible. A number of people who were close to Kavanaugh or drank with him when they were students have said that they are prepared to testify under oath that he has grossly misrepresented(lied about under oath, which disqualifies him) his drinking habits and behaviour when he was young. They have all said that he was a frequent, extremely heavy drinker, and a belligerent and aggressive one.

In response to your later point (why didn't she come forward straight away), a high percentage of people don't. Many are crippled by shame, embarrassment and the knowledge that it's generally one person's word against another, with limited chance of success. Actual rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove for that same reason. Even now, in more enlightened times, I think she would have difficulty proving her case. What evidence, other than her word against hers would there be? In the 80s, as a 15 year old, possibly in a situation she shouldn't have been in, in an entirely different culture as far as sexual politics and attitude to sexual aggression are concerned, against a guy from a prestigious family, whose mother was a judge, who was a high performing pupil in sport and academically...I'm about the same age as her. Would I have reported it? I doubt it. I'd have been mortified, my parents would have gone mad that I was there in the first place, and I would have known I'd have been unlikely to be taken seriously.

Well to be honest, i'm not surprised that a full investigation was turned down. Because what exactly would there be to investigate? There is no evidence to suggest that this man commited the crimes that he is being accused of. If there was actual evidence and not just testimonies, then it would be a different matter.

The problem with going by testimonies alone is that things can often be skewed by personal perspective, rather than plain fact. Was this man ever in trouble with the law? Did his alledged alcoholic aggression ever lead to any criminal prosecutions? If not, then that brings the testimonies against him into question.

The crime may well have happened. But we shouldn't assume that it did, just because of the emotions driving the case. I agree that it's a difficult thing to prove, but it's damn impossible to prove if it's being suggested that it took place decades ago. Emotions should not win over a lack of evidence in a court of law. It doesn't matter how shocking the accusations are. Evidence needs to be provided, otherwise it's a closed case.

[Bristolhibby]

She has said she did it in response to his nomination to the lifelong position of Supreme Court Judge, and she did it at the time. Presumably she thought it would be investigated at the time. If the alleged offence took place, I would say that it's entirely understandable that someone would be triggered into action by him being eased into a job for which you need to be squeaky clean.

This. The man will be reviewing the law in regards to the legality of terminations after incest and rape. He needs to be a shining light of justice.

J

[Fife-Hibee]

She has said she did it in response to his nomination to the lifelong position of Supreme Court Judge, and she did it at the time. Presumably she thought it would be investigated at the time. If the alleged offence took place, I would say that it's entirely understandable that someone would be triggered into action by him being eased into a job for which you need to be squeaky clean.

How would they go about investigating something that is claimed to have occured so long ago? I don't believe the investigation was turned down because of some cover up conspiracy, I believe it was turned down because there wouldn't have been anything for them to try and cover up anyway.

[Bristolhibby]

Well to be honest, i'm not surprised that a full investigation was turned down. Because what exactly would there be to investigate? There is no evidence to suggest that this man commited the crimes that he is being accused of. If there was actual evidence and not just testimonies, then it would be a different matter.

The problem with going by testimonies alone is that things can often be skewed by personal perspective, rather than plain fact. Was this man ever in trouble with the law? Did his alledged alcoholic aggression ever lead to any criminal prosecutions? If not, then that brings the testimonies against him into question.

The crime may well have happened. But we shouldn't assume that it did, just because of the emotions driving the case. I agree that it's a difficult thing to prove, but it's damn impossible to prove if it's being suggested that it took place decades ago. Emotions should not win over a lack of evidence in a court of law. It doesn't matter how shocking the accusations are. Evidence needs to be provided, otherwise it's a closed case.

Did he pejure himself regarding his drinking? That should now make him unelectable.

J

[Fife-Hibee]

This. The man will be reviewing the law in regards to the legality of terminations after incest and rape. He needs to be a shining light of justice.

J

Justice is in the truth of the matter, not the emotions. With no evidence, there is no proven truth to the case.

[Fife-Hibee]

Did he pejure himself regarding his drinking? That should now make him unelectable.

J

What exactly did he say in regards to his drinking? Did he openly state that he partook in any unlawful behaviour? If not, then what he said on the matter shouldn't be regarded as an issue. It's not a crime to drink alcohol. It's unlaw behavioural actions that may occur under the influence of alcohol. But just like the sexual assault accusations, there is no evidence to suggest that he was involved in any unlawful behaviour.

[CapitalGreen]

How would they go about investigating something that is claimed to have occured so long ago? I don't believe the investigation was turned down because of some cover up conspiracy, I believe it was turned down because there wouldn't have been anything for them to try and cover up anyway.

Interesting that you don't believe the investigation was turned down because of some cover up conspiracy but you are more than happy to believe and accuse the alleged victim of political opportunism.

[Fife-Hibee]

Interesting that you don't believe the investigation was turned down because of some cover up conspiracy but you are more than happy to believe and accuse the alleged victim of political opportunism.

I haven't accused the victim of anything. I gave an opinion based of what ive seen of this so far and the sheer lack of evidence means there is no longer a case to make.

I've already said that the crime may well have happened. But without evidence, a lawful case can not take action. But is this a lawful case? I'm not so sure.

How I feel about the matter is irrelevant anyway. The fact is, there is no evidence and people are allowing their emotions to get the better of them, by assuming guilt without evidence. Justice doesn't work that way. It has to be proven. That isn't even debatable.

[s.a.m]

Well to be honest, i'm not surprised that a full investigation was turned down. Because what exactly would there be to investigate? There is no evidence to suggest that this man commited the crimes that he is being accused of. If there was actual evidence and not just testimonies, then it would be a different matter.

The problem with going by testimonies alone is that things can often be skewed by personal perspective, rather than plain fact. Was this man ever in trouble with the law? Did his alledged alcoholic aggression ever lead to any criminal prosecutions? If not, then that brings the testimonies against him into question.

The crime may well have happened. But we shouldn't assume that it did, just because of the emotions driving the case. I agree that it's a difficult thing to prove, but it's damn impossible to prove if it's being suggested that it took place decades ago. Emotions should not win over a lack of evidence in a court of law. It doesn't matter how shocking the accusations are. Evidence needs to be provided, otherwise it's a closed case.

There are regularly prosecutions into alleged crimes that happened in the past, including sexual ones. And sometimes the defendant is found guilty. Testimonies can play an important role in that. The point of an investigation is to look for evidence, whether testimony or anything else, and if you don't look, you don't know if it exists or not.

There are plenty of belligerent drunks without convictions - most of us probably know at least one.

Clearly neither he nor anyone else should be assumed guilty without fair, impartial and thorough investigation. He and his supporters have resisted that all along. Added to their reluctance to reveal his records to the committee as is normal, their evasiveness is suspect.

He's applying for an extremely privileged and powerful position, and it's incumbent on him to prove he's of the right character for the job. Different standards apply. At the very least, the question of whether he has lied under oath deserves looking at. There are a decent number of people willing to testify that he has.

[Fife-Hibee]

There are regularly prosecutions into alleged crimes that happened in the past, including sexual ones. And sometimes the defendant is found guilty. Testimonies can play an important role in that. The point of an investigation is to look for evidence, whether testimony or anything else, and if you don't look, you don't know if it exists or not.

There are plenty of belligerent drunks without convictions - most of probably know at least one.

Clearly neither he nor anyone else should be assumed guilty without fair, impartial and thorough investigation. He and his supporters have resisted that all along. Added to their reluctance to reveal his records to the committee as is normal, their evasiveness is suspect.

He's applying for an extremely privileged and powerful position, and it's incumbent on him to prove he's of the right character for the job. Different standards apply. At the very least, the question of whether he has lied under oath deserves looking at. There are a decent number of people willing to testify that he has.

If there are no previous convictions, then how can a court of law gain a true assessment of his criminal history? Because as far as his criminal record is concerned, he has no criminal record.

A group of people testifying against him, does not create a truth. They could all have their own reasons for doing so, either individually or collectively.

Having problems with alcohol isn't a criminal offense. If legal action had been taken against him due to behaviour as a result of his alcohol problem, then there would be a respectable case to be made, but there isn't, as no legal action was ever taken against him as a result of drunken behaviour.

The problem I have with this case is that it is nothing more than people's words against his own. There is no material evidence to back up any of it and if it had been a case involving some regular average joe, it would have been long thrown out by now due to the lack of credible evidence.

[CropleyWasGod]

If there are no previous convictions, then how can a court of law gain a true assessment of his criminal history? Because as far as his criminal record is concerned, he has no criminal record.

A group of people testifying against him, does not create a truth. They could all have their own reasons for doing so, either individually or collectively.

Having problems with alcohol isn't a criminal offense. If legal action had been taken against him due to behaviour as a result of his alcohol problem, then there would be a respectable case to be made, but there isn't, as no legal action was ever taken against him as a result of drunken behaviour.

The problem I have with this case is that it is nothing more than people's words against his own. There is no material evidence to back up any of it and if it had been a case involving some regular average joe, it would have been long thrown out by now due to the lack of credible evidence.There is a potential witness, whose evidence has yet to be tested.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

If there are no previous convictions, then how can a court of law gain a true assessment of his criminal history? Because as far as his criminal record is concerned, he has no criminal record.

A group of people testifying against him, does not create a truth. They could all have their own reasons for doing so, either individually or collectively.

Having problems with alcohol isn't a criminal offense. If legal action had been taken against him due to behaviour as a result of his alcohol problem, then there would be a respectable case to be made, but there isn't, as no legal action was ever taken against him as a result of drunken behaviour.

The problem I have with this case is that it is nothing more than people's words against his own. There is no material evidence to back up any of it and if it had been a case involving some regular average joe, it would have been long thrown out by now due to the lack of credible evidence.
You haven't answered s.a.m.'s point about lying under oath.

[Fife-Hibee]

There is a potential witness, whose evidence has yet to be tested.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Witness testimonies aren't evidence. Anybody can claim that they were there, regardless of whether they actually were or not. Words aren't evidence. Evidence is material. It has to be proven that this crime was commited and somebody claiming they saw it, doesn't prove that it did.


You haven't answered s.a.m.'s point about lying under oath.

What do you think he lied about under oath? I asked sam what was said, as I didn't see what was actually said in the oath. But unless he admitted to any unlawful behaviour or actions, it's irrelevant. Unless of course he did actually lie, but this brings me back to my earlier point about the ridiculous situation where somebody is being forced to prove their innocence, as opposed to the accuser being able to prove guilt.

[CropleyWasGod]

Witness testimonies aren't evidence. Anybody can claim that they were there, regardless of whether they actually were or not. Words aren't evidence. Evidence is material. It has to be proven that this crime was commited and somebody claiming they saw it, doesn't prove that it did.



What do you think he lied about under oath? I asked sam what was said, as I didn't see what was actually said in the oath. But unless he admitted to any unlawful behaviour or actions, it's irrelevant. Unless of course he did actually lie, but this brings me back to my earlier point about the ridiculous situation where somebody is being forced to prove their innocence, as opposed to the accuser being able to prove guilt.

Witness testimonies aren't evidence?

I'll just leave that there.[emoji57]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Witness testimonies aren't evidence?

I'll just leave that there.[emoji57]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Let me tell you a silly wee story from my primary school days. :wink:

I was working in a small group of people in the classroom. About 7 or 8 people. Well anyway, somebody (not me) in the group belted out a swear word and when the teacher asked who was responsible, everybody else sitting around the table said it was me. I knew it wasn't me. I knew exactly who it was. But despite this, I got lumped with detention, while the person who was actually responsible got away with it scot free. Little bugger :greengrin

My point is. Testimonies can't be used to prove that something actually happened. Just because a group of people band together and claim that somebody is guilty of a crime, doesn't prove that they are guilty of that crime.

Justice has to be unquestionable. If a person can be declared guilty without any definitive proof to suggest that they actually are, then it isn't justice. People making claims is not definitive proof of anything.

[lapsedhibee]

Witness testimonies aren't evidence. Anybody can claim that they were there, regardless of whether they actually were or not. Words aren't evidence. Evidence is material. It has to be proven that this crime was commited and somebody claiming they saw it, doesn't prove that it did.



What do you think he lied about under oath? I asked sam what was said, as I didn't see what was actually said in the oath. But unless he admitted to any unlawful behaviour or actions, it's irrelevant. Unless of course he did actually lie, but this brings me back to my earlier point about the ridiculous situation where somebody is being forced to prove their innocence, as opposed to the accuser being able to prove guilt.

Have you ever actually been in a courtroom? Testimony is absolutely key to whether a judge, sheriff or jury believes a defendant is guilty or not. If Kavanaugh says he was a moderate drinker and 2835385 credible witnesses explain how he was an immoderate drinker, the court will find that he was an immoderate drinker. The 2835385 won't have to bring in empty tinnies as evidence. Immoderate drinking is not a crime but he's not being tried for a crime, he's being judged for suitability for a post.

[Hibbyradge]

Yes. Also your response doesn't add anything. If you think i'm wrong, then by all means explain why you think i'm wrong and why this wouldn't be the case.

You think that there will be vast numbers of women who want to falsely accuse people of rape or sexual assault?

Why do you think that?

[s.a.m]

If there are no previous convictions, then how can a court of law gain a true assessment of his criminal history? Because as far as his criminal record is concerned, he has no criminal record.

A group of people testifying against him, does not create a truth. They could all have their own reasons for doing so, either individually or collectively.

Having problems with alcohol isn't a criminal offense. If legal action had been taken against him due to behaviour as a result of his alcohol problem, then there would be a respectable case to be made, but there isn't, as no legal action was ever taken against him as a result of drunken behaviour.

The problem I have with this case is that it is nothing more than people's words against his own. There is no material evidence to back up any of it and if it had been a case involving some regular average joe, it would have been long thrown out by now due to the lack of credible evidence.

A) It's not a court of law. I's a job interview. He's required to prove he's the right candidate for the job, and that he's of suitable character. He's not allowed to lie. It's against the law.

B) Even if it was, you can try people who don't have existing convictions. The court examines the evidence, seeks out witnesses and their testimony, considers whether it is consistent or not, etc... They LOOK for the evidence. In the case of Savile, I think I'm right in saying that it was the testimonies of victims that convicted him. Clearly this is a different case, and nobody is suggesting that there is a body of people with similar experiences with Kavanaugh, but the idea that testimony is invalid as a prosecution tool is wrong. In the case of sexual assault, it usually takes place in private, and it is almost always one person's word (testimony) against another, with the jury having to decide which of the parties is more credible. In this case, there is an alleged witness who says he "doesn't recall". They refused to call him to testify to that under oath, because it would be unfair for him as a recovering alcoholic. Or something like that.

C) The issue with his drinking isn't that he did it, but that he has lied about it under oath. That's perjury, which under normal circumstances would disqualify him. If he had said 'I had an issue with drinking when I was younger, but I saw the light, hauled my self up by the bootstraps and sorted myself out' that would have been one thing. That's not what he said. The issue of his behaviour when drunk is absolutely relevant. He has portrayed himself (under oath, again) as a light drinking, pious, hard-working, affable friend to all who couldn't possibly be capable of such aggression. People who lived and drank with him at the time have said, 'Actually, no. He was an extremely heavy drinker, and he was mean and aggressive when drunk.' At least on person has said he was sexually aggressive when drunk. These people are willing to go to court and say that. It's relevant because he has specifically said 'I am not capable of that behaviour, so it can't be true.' They are saying he is capable of aggressive behaviour, because they have seen it.

D) Your last point: again, it's not a court case, to be thrown out or otherwise. The hearing happen under oath because of the nature of the job, not because it's a trial. He wants a job, and is trying to demonstrate that he's the right person for it. His character's been called into question by people who believe his behaviour isn't in keeping with someone seeking that position. There are plenty of other people who could do the job.

[Fife-Hibee]

Have you ever actually been in a courtroom? Testimony is absolutely key to whether a judge, sheriff or jury believes a defendant is guilty or not. If Kavanaugh says he was a moderate drinker and 2835385 credible witnesses explain how he was an immoderate drinker, the court will find that he was an immoderate drinker. The 2835385 won't have to bring in empty tinnies as evidence. Immoderate drinking is not a crime but he's not being tried for a crime, he's being judged for suitability for a post.

We're not talking about over 2 million people here though, are we? We are talking about a handful of people. Surely a guilty verdict needs to go beyond what the judge merely believes and it should leave zero questionable doubt in his/her mind?

There is always doubt when you're basing an entire case on words alone. Words are not hard evidence and nobody should ever be found guilty based on other peoples words alone, espeically if there is considerable reason for their to be ulterior motives by the people making the testimonies, such as political party affiliation.

[Hibbyradge]

How would they go about investigating something that is claimed to have occured so long ago? I don't believe the investigation was turned down because of some cover up conspiracy, I believe it was turned down because there wouldn't have been anything for them to try and cover up anyway.

How do they go about investigating any historical crime? 4 years ago, Angus Sinclair was convicted of the World's End murders which took place in 1977.

He was initially tried in 2007 and was acquitted. The police carried on their investigation and finally brought him to justice in 2014.

He'd still be at large if the police had your attitude.

[CropleyWasGod]

We're not talking about over 2 million people here though, are we? We are talking about a handful of people. Surely a guilty verdict needs to go beyond what the judge merely believes and it should leave zero questionable doubt in his/her mind?

There is always doubt when you're basing an entire case on words alone. Words are not hard evidence and nobody should ever be found guilty based on other peoples words alone, espeically if there is considerable reason for their to be ulterior motives by the people making the testimonies, such as political party affiliation.So if someone close to you was assaulted, and a witness stood up in Court to say that they saw what happened and who did it.... And that witness was properly cross-examined.... And that was the only evidence....

You'd expect a not-guilty verdict?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

What exactly did he say in regards to his drinking? Did he openly state that he partook in any unlawful behaviour? If not, then what he said on the matter shouldn't be regarded as an issue. It's not a crime to drink alcohol. It's unlaw behavioural actions that may occur under the influence of alcohol. But just like the sexual assault accusations, there is no evidence to suggest that he was involved in any unlawful behaviour.

He said he was never blackout drunk. Friends and witnesses say he regularly got blackout drunk.

Hell, I get blackout drunk! Should he be barred for getting drunk?
But by saying to a Senate Comittee that he has never been blackout drunk is committing perjury.

J

[Fife-Hibee]

You think that there will be vast numbers of women who want to falsely accuse people of rape or sexual assault?

Why do you think that?

If there's ulterior motives or personal gain to be had, then why not? Remember, this women's case is being backed by a party who is a direct rival to the party in which the accused is affiliated with. They do not want him getting that position, regardless of whether he's actually guilty of any crime or not. So they're throwing money at this case to ensure that it's on going until they get the outcome they want. It doesn't have to be the right outcome, it just has to be the right outcome for them.

Now i'm not saying this is definitely the case. I'm just throwing the very realistic possibility out there that this is not all that it seems.

[lapsedhibee]

We're not talking about over 2 million people here though, are we? We are talking about a handful of people. Surely a guilty verdict needs to go beyond what the judge merely believes and it should leave zero questionable doubt in his/her mind?

There is always doubt when you're basing an entire case on words alone. Words are not hard evidence and nobody should ever be found guilty based on other peoples words alone, espeically if there is considerable reason for their to be ulterior motives by the people making the testimonies, such as political party affiliation.

Words are evidence. Words written in an e-mail, words on a piece of paper, words out of a witness's gob.

Take a wander along to your local small claims court sometime, and you'll see that many, if not most, of the cases there are settled by the sheriff on the basis of whose testimony he or she prefers.

[Hibbyradge]

Witness testimonies aren't evidence. Anybody can claim that they were there, regardless of whether they actually were or not. Words aren't evidence. Evidence is material. It has to be proven that this crime was commited and somebody claiming they saw it, doesn't prove that it did.



Witness testimony is absolutely crucial evidence.

If 2 people say they saw you commit the crime, if you can't prove them wrong, you'll be found guilty.

There doesn't have to be an actual smoking gun.

[Fife-Hibee]

So if someone close to you was assaulted, and a witness stood up in Court to say that they saw what happened and who did it.... And that witness was properly cross-examined.... And that was the only evidence....

You'd expect a not-guilty verdict?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You're throwing emotions into this by saying "if someone close to you". Whether it's somebody close to me or not is irrelevant. Justice has to take it's course and just because you want somebody to be found guilty, doesn't mean they should be found guilty if the crime can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Somebody claiming they saw what happened doesn't do that.

[Fife-Hibee]

Witness testimony is absolutely crucial evidence.

If 2 people say they saw you commit the crime, if you can't prove them wrong, you'll be found guilty.

There doesn't have to be an actual smoking gun.

How do you prove that you didn't do something over 30 years ago?

If 2 people come out and say you did do it, when they can't prove that you did. Is it fair for you to be found guilty on that alone? Just because you can't prove you didn't do something over 30 years ago?

Being found guilty in a case where absolutely nothing can be proven by anyone?

That's ludicrous.

[CropleyWasGod]

You're throwing emotions into this by saying "if someone close to you". Whether it's somebody close to me or not is irrelevant. Justice has to take it's course and just because you want somebody to be found guilty, doesn't mean they should be found guilty if the crime can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Somebody claiming they saw what happened doesn't do that.So leave out that bit.

Apply that scenario to any assault case. Would you expect an acquittal ?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Witness testimonies aren't evidence. Anybody can claim that they were there, regardless of whether they actually were or not. Words aren't evidence. Evidence is material. It has to be proven that this crime was commited and somebody claiming they saw it, doesn't prove that it did.



What do you think he lied about under oath? I asked sam what was said, as I didn't see what was actually said in the oath. But unless he admitted to any unlawful behaviour or actions, it's irrelevant. Unless of course he did actually lie, but this brings me back to my earlier point about the ridiculous situation where somebody is being forced to prove their innocence, as opposed to the accuser being able to prove guilt.

He's not in a criminal court. It doesn't matter if he committed a crime if not.

This is about his character and his suitability for the job.

If he's been lying, he should be discarded.

[Fife-Hibee]

So leave out that bit.

Apply that scenario to any assault case. Would you expect an acquittal ?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

No, the way the justice system works now, I would expect them to face a guilty verdict. But it's not a system that I personally agree with. Accusations alone are ultimately meaningless if there is no substantial evidence to back up what is being said. Regardless of whether it's 2, 3, 4, 5....etc people claiming that it happened.

What is to stop a band of acquaintances getting together, sending you to court and getting you put away for a crime you had bugger all to do with? They don't need to provide any actual evidence that you had anything to do with the crime, they all just need to agree to tell the judge the same thing and that's apparently good enough in the modern justice system.

[Fife-Hibee]

He's not in a criminal court. It doesn't matter if he committed a crime if not.

This is about his character and his suitability for the job.

If he's been lying, he should be discarded.

I'll ask again. Lying about what? I'm not quite sure what people are accusing him of lying about. If it's about the sexual assault allegations, then again, the onus shouldn't be on him to prove his innocence, it should be on the accuser to prove his guilt. At least, that's how the justice system used to work when it at least had some credibility.

[CropleyWasGod]

No, the way the justice system works now, I would expect them to face a guilty verdict. But it's not a system that I personally agree with. Accusations alone are ultimately meaningless if there is no substantial evidence to back up what is being said. Regardless of whether it's 2, 3, 4, 5....etc people claiming that it happened.

What is to stop a band of acquaintances getting together, sending you to court and getting you put away for a crime you had bugger all to do with? They don't need to provide any actual evidence that you had anything to do with the crime, they all just need to agree to tell the judge the same thing and that's apparently good enough in the modern justice system.I think your childhood experience has soured your view of justice. Ever considered hypnotherapy to help with that? [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I'll ask again. Lying about what? I'm not quite sure what people are accusing him of lying about. If it's about the sexual assault allegations, then again, the onus shouldn't be on him to prove his innocence, it should be on the accuser to prove his guilt. At least, that's how the justice system used to work when it at least had some credibility.Lying about his drinking in college. There have been more accusations today about that. Of course, they need to be tested appropriately.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[johnbc70]

So if someone close to you was assaulted, and a witness stood up in Court to say that they saw what happened and who did it.... And that witness was properly cross-examined.... And that was the only evidence....

You'd expect a not-guilty verdict?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Is this not different in that nobody has said they witnessed the assault? In this case there were 3 people in the room, but 2 of these people deny ever being there.

Using your example who is the witness who said they saw it? Or you making a more general point?

[Hibbyradge]

If there's ulterior motives or personal gain to be had, then why not? Remember, this women's case is being backed by a party who is a direct rival to the party in which the accused is affiliated with. They do not want him getting that position, regardless of whether he's actually guilty of any crime or not. So they're throwing money at this case to ensure that it's on going until they get the outcome they want. It doesn't have to be the right outcome, it just has to be the right outcome for them.

Now i'm not saying this is definitely the case. I'm just throwing the very realistic possibility out there that this is not all that it seems.

You don't think much of women, do you?

Floodgates of them falsely accusing innocent upstanding men for financial gain. Besoms, the lot of them.

Research has shown that only 4% of allegations have been shown to be false. So 96 out of every hundred are genuine and only 4 are malicious.That's too many, but I absolutely guarantee that there are far far more men who get away with rape and sexual assault than women who make false accusations.

[Hibbyradge]

How do you prove that you didn't do something over 30 years ago?

If 2 people come out and say you did do it, when they can't prove that you did. Is it fair for you to be found guilty on that alone? Just because you can't prove you didn't do something over 30 years ago?

Being found guilty in a case where absolutely nothing can be proven by anyone?

That's ludicrous.

What are you saying? Ignore witness testimony?

[CropleyWasGod]

Is this not different in that nobody has said they witnessed the assault? In this case there were 3 people in the room, but 2 of these people deny ever being there.

Using your example who is the witness who said they saw it?The guy who is alleged to have been present has made a written submission to the committee, saying that he has no memory of that. The argument is that that needs to be tested in person, or at least now investigated more fully by the FBI.

If the FBI establish he was there, then his testimony is crucial, either for or against the accuser.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

I'll ask again. Lying about what? I'm not quite sure what people are accusing him of lying about. If it's about the sexual assault allegations, then again, the onus shouldn't be on him to prove his innocence, it should be on the accuser to prove his guilt. At least, that's how the justice system used to work when it at least had some credibility.

There's a lot about it on that BBC News channel you mentioned. Not to mention this thread.

His classmate says he lied about his drinking. Under oath.

[Fife-Hibee]

Lying about his drinking in college. There have been more accusations today about that. Of course, they need to be tested appropriately.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

When you say tested, what do you mean? How do they test what is being said to determine if what is being said is valid or not?

[CropleyWasGod]

When you say tested, what do you mean? How do they test what is being said to determine if what is being said is valid or not?By establishing circumstantial evidence to support or detract from it.

And by proper cross examination in a court of law or similar.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[s.a.m]

Is this not different in that nobody has said they witnessed the assault? In this case there were 3 people in the room, but 2 of these people deny ever being there.

Using your example who is the witness who said they saw it? Or you making a more general point?


I think two of them have said they don't recall. A woman whose name was given by Ford has said she doesn't recall the gathering, but would like to make clear, in response to incorrect reports, that she didn't say that it didn't happen. She says she believes the accuser.

[johnbc70]

I think two of them have said they don't recall. A woman whose name was given by Ford has said she doesn't recall the gathering, but would like to make clear, in response to incorrect reports, that she didn't say that it didn't happen. She says she believes the accuser.

That other women is her best friend is it not? Or was her best friend at the time.

Although if she never told anyone at the time then to her friend it was just another night out and nothing remarkable.

[Fife-Hibee]

You don't think much of women, do you?

Floodgates of them falsely accusing innocent upstanding men for financial gain. Besoms, the lot of them.

Research has shown that only 4% of allegations have been shown to be false. So 96 out of every hundred are genuine and only 4 are malicious.That's too many, but I absolutely guarantee that there are far far more men who get away with rape and sexual assault than women who make false accusations.

No, I don't think much of the human race. I think we live in a very opportunistic world these days where both men and women will do just about anything to get ahead.
I know it's shocking. :wink: But believe it or not, even women are capable of lying for their own personal gain. Just take a look at the woman who dipped her hands into the Grenfell funds. There are women out there, just like men, who have absolutely no scruples about inflicting misery on other peoples lifes if it betters their own.

When was this reseach conducted? I would also like a breakdown of how it was conducted and how the final figure was calculated. If it was merely calculeted by guilty/non-guilty verdicts, then all that tells me is that women have a 96% chance of getting a man convicted of rape, even in situations where it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

[Fife-Hibee]

I think two of them have said they don't recall. A woman whose name was given by Ford has said she doesn't recall the gathering, but would like to make clear, in response to incorrect reports, that she didn't say that it didn't happen. She says she believes the accuser.

This is the problem though. Because she said she "believes the accuser". That will actually be taken into consideration, despite her saying that she doesn't actually recall anything happening.

You'd think that if she was actually there at the time, that she would have remembered. You don't forget about somebody being sexually assaulted , no matter how much time has passed.

[Hibbyradge]

No, I don't think much of the human race. I think we live in a very opportunistic world these days where both men and women will do just about anything to get ahead.
I know it's shocking. :wink: But believe it or not, even women are capable of lying for their own personal gain. Just take a look at the woman who dipped her hands into the Grenfell funds. There are women out there, just like men, who have absolutely no scruples about inflicting misery on other peoples lifes if it betters their own.

When was this reseach conducted? I would also like a breakdown of how it was conducted and how the final figure was calculated. If it was merely calculeted by guilty/non-guilty verdicts, then all that tells me is that women have a 96% chance of getting a man convicted of rape, even in situations where it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I think the majority of rape prosecutions fail.

If you're interested in the research, click on the highlighted words "Home Office" then "Studies" in this article.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/false-sexual-violence-assault-rape-allegations-truth-rare-international-day-for-the-elimination-of-a8077876.html

This story is also worth reading.

Yes, there’s a major problem with rape prosecutions. But it’s not that women are lying

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/20/problem-rape-prosecution-women-lying-collapse-liam-allan-victims?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Fife-Hibee]

I think the majority of rape prosecutions fail.

If you're interested in the research, click on the highlighted words "Home Office" then "Studies" in this article.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/false-sexual-violence-assault-rape-allegations-truth-rare-international-day-for-the-elimination-of-a8077876.html

This story is also worth reading.

Yes, there’s a major problem with rape prosecutions. But it’s not that women are lying

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/20/problem-rape-prosecution-women-lying-collapse-liam-allan-victims?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Cheers for the links, will give them a look. :aok:

[Fife-Hibee]

I think your childhood experience has soured your view of justice. Ever considered hypnotherapy to help with that? [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You didn't address my point though. What is to stop any of that from happening? :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

You didn't address my point though. What is to stop any of that from happening? :wink:The laws surrounding perjury.

Proper examination of witness testimonies before they get to court.

Proper cross examination when they get there.




Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

This was a nice wee read after finishing work.

So, we have no "physical" evidence, it's all down to testimonies.

One side is happy to use the lie detector (as used by US law enforcement) and the other side refuses too... It's not a court of law it's just a glorified job interview etc etc...
The side that don't want to be questioned under the watch of the lie detector are also blocking the making it an "official"enquiry where they'd be legally bound to the aforesaid questioning.


I just wonder which side is the more believable?





Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

You didn't address my point though. What is to stop any of that from happening? :wink:

What would deter people from making up evidence in court?

The requirement to swear an oath.

The law of perjury and the possibility of jail time.

The likelihood of the witnesses' stories contradicting each other.

The defence lawyers' investigation into the credibility of witnesses.

The CPS/ PF investigation into the witnesses and their evidence.

The cross examination by the defence team in a live court.

Apart from all that, very little.

[s.a.m]

This is the problem though. Because she said she "believes the accuser". That will actually be taken into consideration, despite her saying that she doesn't actually recall anything happening.

You'd think that if she was actually there at the time, that she would have remembered. You don't forget about somebody being sexually assaulted , no matter how much time has passed.

It would be the job of a proper investigation to cross examine that. She wasn't in the room, so I would guess she would say that she knew both parties and believes her friend to be honest. It may also be that she would say that it would be typical behaviour on his part. We don't know, because they won't call witnesses. She made the statement via a lawyer in response to people involved in the situation misquoting her original statement, and saying she said it didn't happen.

She is indeed a friend - it doesn't make her testimony irrelevant but her statement would be heard with the knowledge of that relationship
The other two witnesses who 'don't recall' were good friends of Kavanaugh. Should we assume they're lying on his behalf?

[Fife-Hibee]

What would deter people from making up evidence in court?

The requirement to swear an oath.

The law of perjury and the possibility of jail time.

The likelihood of the witnesses' stories contradicting each other.

The defence lawyers' investigation into the credibility of witnesses.

The CPS/ PF investigation into the witnesses and their evidence.

The cross examination by the defence team in a live court.

Apart from all that, very little.

Well to be honest, that doesn't really seem like much for somebody that could be doing hard time for a long time. The requirement to swear an oath? Well that's not going to mean anything to anyone who is already set on lying. Everybody in court swears an oath, but they can't all be telling the truth.

Perjury is certainly a risk if they are found to be be lying. But if they're all saying the same thing, then how can it really be proven?

Story contradictions occur in sitatuons where the group don't get an opportunity to fabricate a story between themselves, due to being kept seperate directly after a crime scene. But if it's something that is planned well in advance, then the likelyhood of contradictions occuring are far less likely. As they've already had all the time they've needed to string a story together, before accusing that person of a crime.

How would the defence lawyers investigate the credibility of the witnesses? They're all claiming the same thing. The only evidence they have are their own testimonies, but that doesn't matter, because apparently that is all that is required in a court of law now.

None of these things would necessarily get to the truth of the matter. If would simply be the words of several people against your own and unless you could somehow prove your innocence, you'd be pretty much goosed. Because we now have a system of guilty until proven innocent.

[Fife-Hibee]

It would be the job of a proper investigation to cross examine that. She wasn't in the room, so I would guess she would say that she knew both parties and believes her friend to be honest. It may also be that she would say that it would be typical behaviour on his part. We don't know, because they won't call witnesses. She made the statement via a lawyer in response to people involved in the situation misquoting her original statement, and saying she said it didn't happen.

She is indeed a friend - it doesn't make her testimony irrelevant but her statement would be heard with the knowledge of that relationship
The other two witnesses who 'don't recall' were good friends of Kavanaugh. Should we assume they're lying on his behalf?

Nothing should ever be assumed from testimonies. That's why I make the argument that guilty verdicts should never be made on testimonies alone.

[lapsedhibee]

If would simply be the words of several people against your own and unless you could somehow prove your innocence, you'd be pretty much goosed. Because we now have a system of guilty until proven innocent.

You've made several disapproving references to the 'current' or 'modern' legal system, or the system as it is 'now'. What makes you think it was ever different or better? It's always been about people believing or disbelieving other people. That's why it's called judgement. I don't believe there's any way to completely prevent your malicious conspiracy example succeeding, but you appear to be arguing for a standard of proof which would lead to very few guilty verdicts in cases of any sort. There's always people judging other people, with varying levels of evidence to support those judgements.

[Just Alf]

Nothing should ever be assumed from testimonies. That's why I make the argument that guilty verdicts should never be made on testimonies alone.I understand where you are coming from to a degree, but as this is basically a job interview and no one has to be "guilty" they've just to be seen as the epitome of trustfullness, going back to my post above, which group of people are looking the most trustworthy/truthful... Those that are willing to take that lie detector examination or those that refuse too?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Saturday Boy]

What would deter people from making up evidence in court?

The requirement to swear an oath.

The law of perjury and the possibility of jail time.

The likelihood of the witnesses' stories contradicting each other.

The defence lawyers' investigation into the credibility of witnesses.

The CPS/ PF investigation into the witnesses and their evidence.

The cross examination by the defence team in a live court.

Apart from all that, very little.

I think our paths crossed in my previous life. I got PINS and needles reading that 😄

Basic principles of criminal laws: eye witness testimony, everything else is circumstantial or heresay evidence.

Your next mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain heresay evidence 😄

[Hibbyradge]

Well to be honest, that doesn't really seem like much for somebody that could be doing hard time for a long time. The requirement to swear an oath? Well that's not going to mean anything to anyone who is already set on lying. Everybody in court swears an oath, but they can't all be telling the truth.

Perjury is certainly a risk if they are found to be be lying. But if they're all saying the same thing, then how can it really be proven?

Story contradictions occur in sitatuons where the group don't get an opportunity to fabricate a story between themselves, due to being kept seperate directly after a crime scene. But if it's something that is planned well in advance, then the likelyhood of contradictions occuring are far less likely. As they've already had all the time they've needed to string a story together, before accusing that person of a crime.

How would the defence lawyers investigate the credibility of the witnesses? They're all claiming the same thing. The only evidence they have are their own testimonies, but that doesn't matter, because apparently that is all that is required in a court of law now.

None of these things would necessarily get to the truth of the matter. If would simply be the words of several people against your own and unless you could somehow prove your innocence, you'd be pretty much goosed. Because we now have a system of guilty until proven innocent.

There's really no point discussing this any further with you. You're not going to accept anybody else's points and you just ignore the stuff you find too difficult.

I used to train people to give evidence in court. If you think that lying in front of a magistrate, Sheriff or Judge is easy, you're very much mistaken, and that's just in a training room with barristers, QCs and PFs.

Lying on your own behalf in a real court under cross examination by expert defence lawyers is incredibly difficult, and lying to stitch someone else up is much, much harder than that.

Discrediting genuine witnesses is the defence team's stocking trade. Catching out liars in that pressurised environment is like shelling peas. You can believe whatever you want, of course, but you should be absolutely clear, the accused is sill innocent until proven guilty.

[Hibbyradge]

I think our paths crossed in my previous life. I got PINS and needles reading that 😄

Basic principles of criminal laws: eye witness testimony, everything else is circumstantial or heresay evidence.

Your next mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain heresay evidence 😄

Aha! PINS! Now you have to reveal yourself to me.

PM please. 👍

[Saturday Boy]

Aha! PINS! Now you have to reveal yourself to me.

PM please. 👍

Will do. If I can work out how 😄

[Bristolhibby]

He's not in a criminal court. It doesn't matter if he committed a crime if not.

This is about his character and his suitability for the job.

If he's been lying, he should be discarded.

This

[Hibbyradge]

Nothing should ever be assumed from testimonies. That's why I make the argument that guilty verdicts should never be made on testimonies alone.

Testimony is vital, FFS.

A credible witness is worth much more than a fingerprint etc.

[Hibbyradge]

Will do. If I can work out how 😄

Click on my name, then send message.

[AT8]

The attitude to Kavanagh on this thread versus the attitude to the thread on Cristiano Ronaldo is quite startling. The fact that Ronaldo is a popular/iconic figure means he gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas Kavanagh is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, so he's automatically guilty.

[Fife-Hibee]

Testimony is vital, FFS.

A credible witness is worth much more than a fingerprint etc.

How can the credibility of a "witness" be worth more than hard physical evidence? More so, how is the credibility of a "witness" measured. Also, how can it be proven without doubt that the "witness" was even there in the first place?

Telling me that they're crossed examined, doesn't really say much. Because it doesn't really explain how that is used to definitively determine the credibility of the person making the testimony.

[Just Alf]

The attitude to Kavanagh on this thread versus the attitude to the thread on Cristiano Ronaldo is quite startling. The fact that Ronaldo is a popular/iconic figure means he gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas Kavanagh is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, so he's automatically guilty.I noticed that too.... Mind you, they're seperate issues and I've not seen any input from anyone re my posts on here.


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

How can the credibility of a "witness" be worth more than hard physical evidence? More so, how is the credibility of a "witness" measured. Also, how can it be proven without doubt that the "witness" was even there in the first place?

Telling me that they're crossed examined, doesn't really say much. Because it doesn't really explain how that is used to definitively determine the credibility of the person making the testimony.Good points... Have you seen my earlier posts?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[johnbc70]

The attitude to Kavanagh on this thread versus the attitude to the thread on Cristiano Ronaldo is quite startling. The fact that Ronaldo is a popular/iconic figure means he gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas Kavanagh is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, so he's automatically guilty.

Chuck Alex Salmond into the mix as well.

But it reflects the political leanings of the board, so is kind of expected.

[CropleyWasGod]

Chuck Alex Salmond into the mix as well.

But it reflects the political leanings of the board, so is kind of expected.QED

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

The attitude to Kavanagh on this thread versus the attitude to the thread on Cristiano Ronaldo is quite startling. The fact that Ronaldo is a popular/iconic figure means he gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas Kavanagh is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, so he's automatically guilty.

Is that even true?

If it is, I think it's because most people haven't read the full Ronaldo allegation story yet and the woman in the case took money. She also hasn't been heard yet.

Professor Ford has nothing to gain from her testimony and even Trump said she was a very credible witness.

Kavanaugh has also clearly lied.

[lapsedhibee]

The attitude to Kavanagh on this thread versus the attitude to the thread on Cristiano Ronaldo is quite startling. The fact that Ronaldo is a popular/iconic figure means he gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas Kavanagh is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, so he's automatically guilty.

Ronaldo's not getting the benefit of the doubt from anyone who's read the Spiegel article.

[AT8]

I think it's because most people haven't read the full story yet and the woman in the case took money. She also hasn't been heard yet.

Professor Ford has nothing to gain from her testimony and even Trump said she was a very credible witness.

Kavanaugh has also clearly lied.

I'm not suggesting that she has taken a bribe, but I would be interested to see her bank accounts after this is all over. She actually does have something to gain, something that her and her fellow Democrats all aspire to.......preventing a conservative judge making it to the Supreme Court. From the very beginning, the Democrats said they would do everything they could to stop the confirmation, and with politicians being the sleazebags they are, it's not out with the realms of reality that the story could have been fabricated with the aim of derailing Cavanagh's confirmation.

Had her story not leaked to the media, the matter could have been investigated privately, and she could have remained anonymous. If as it appears, it was the Democrats who leaked the story, then they are the ones who have abused Christine Ford.

[s.a.m]

How can the credibility of a "witness" be worth more than hard physical evidence? More so, how is the credibility of a "witness" measured. Also, how can it be proven without doubt that the "witness" was even there in the first place?

Telling me that they're crossed examined, doesn't really say much. Because it doesn't really explain how that is used to definitively determine the credibility of the person making the testimony.

It can't. The prosecution and defence attempt to uncover any holes in the other side's evidence and / or testimonies. The jury decides which side is more credible, and if guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Sometimes they can't agree. It might be imperfect, but that's how it works. Lower standard of proof applies in civil cases, and in job interviews it's up to the candidate that they're the right person for the job.
As has been said above, it would almost impossible to prosecute rape cases if the court couldn't rely on testimony. You'd be giving free reign to sex criminals if it wasn't allowed.

[johnbc70]

Ronaldo's not getting the benefit of the doubt from anyone who's read the Spiegel article.

Agreed, I am sure if she was interviewed and her story was the same as what has been written then people would change their mind.

The 99% thing as well does not sound like something someone would make up.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm not suggesting that she has taken a bribe, but I would be interested to see her bank accounts after this is all over. She actually does have something to gain, something that her and her fellow Democrats all aspire to.......preventing a conservative judge making it to the Supreme Court. From the very beginning, the Democrats said they would do everything they could to stop the confirmation, and with politicians being the sleazebags they are, it's not out with the realms of reality that the story could have been fabricated with the aim of derailing Cavanagh's confirmation.

Had her story not leaked to the media, the matter could have been investigated privately, and she could have remained anonymous. If as it appears, it was the Democrats who leaked the story, then they are the ones who have abused Christine Ford.

You're not saying that she's taken a bribe but go on to suggest that she might have. That's totally unfair.

Kavanaugh certainly has something to gain from denying any wrongdoing. As do the Republicans.

People seem to have conveniently forgotten that.

[RyeSloan]

Is that even true?

If it is, I think it's because most people haven't read the full Ronaldo allegation story yet and the woman in the case took money. She also hasn't been heard yet.

Professor Ford has nothing to gain from her testimony and even Trump said she was a very credible witness.

Kavanaugh has also clearly lied.

I actually had the mid fortune to see some of her statement and to describe her as credible seems rather incredible to my amateur sleuthing.

Her body language, croaky voice and ‘poor me’ look when recounting the alleged events struck me as staged as staged could be.

I reckon if you had been forced to carry such a traumatic event around which you for so long and then to have to go through it again in public you would much more likely to be a bit angry and annoyed, esp. with people openly doubting you rather than be a ‘poor me’ type.

Anyhoo as I said earlier it seems impossible to prove or disprove such a vague allegation (not sure of date, not sure who else was at party, not sure where it was, not sure who drove her home etc etc) be it true or not.

Add in the political element and there is zero chance of an accurate answer to any of this.

[pollution]

I watched his testimony and he did well until he started flicking his notes in a hissy fit.

He did not show any dignity and wisdom becoming of a senior judge, rather the actions of a man caught.

Yet another sham US Trump favoured tawdry Americana.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sounds like a bit too much red, red wine goes to his head. :greengrin

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/brett-kavanaugh-bar-fight-ub40-concert-731781/

[Tyler Durden]

I'm not suggesting that she has taken a bribe, but I would be interested to see her bank accounts after this is all over. She actually does have something to gain, something that her and her fellow Democrats all aspire to.......preventing a conservative judge making it to the Supreme Court. From the very beginning, the Democrats said they would do everything they could to stop the confirmation, and with politicians being the sleazebags they are, it's not out with the realms of reality that the story could have been fabricated with the aim of derailing Cavanagh's confirmation.

Had her story not leaked to the media, the matter could have been investigated privately, and she could have remained anonymous. If as it appears, it was the Democrats who leaked the story, then they are the ones who have abused Christine Ford.

Her story could have been fabricated? So she made this up years ago when she told her therapist, her husband, some close friends about this, all just in case Kavanaugh was years later going to be nominated for the Supreme Court?

Your earlier points have been answered or debunked and you continue to stick your head in the sand and blame the nasty Democrats. Think you'd be better sticking to Fox News than Hibs.net.

Do you still think Kavanaugh is a fit candidate for this position?

[Tyler Durden]

How can the credibility of a "witness" be worth more than hard physical evidence? More so, how is the credibility of a "witness" measured. Also, how can it be proven without doubt that the "witness" was even there in the first place?

Telling me that they're crossed examined, doesn't really say much. Because it doesn't really explain how that is used to definitively determine the credibility of the person making the testimony.

I don't think you understand what evidence is?

There is lots of evidence which corroborates Dr Ford's account. This would likely not be enough for a criminal conviction, but it's well beyond the level of reasonable doubt required when assessing someone's fitness for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

The criminal aspect here, is the multiple lies told by Kavanaugh in his testimony. The latest of which came out overnight. There is evidence that in July he found out about another accuser, Deborah Ramirez's plans to allege an assault. He plotted with friends about how to spin this, something detailed in text messages. Yet when testifying last week, he told the Senate that the first he knew of this allegation was in recent weeks when this was reported in the press.

Just the latest of many lies.

[AT8]

Her story could have been fabricated? So she made this up years ago when she told her therapist, her husband, some close friends about this, all just in case Kavanaugh was years later going to be nominated for the Supreme Court?

Your earlier points have been answered or debunked and you continue to stick your head in the sand and blame the nasty Democrats. Think you'd be better sticking to Fox News than Hibs.net.

Do you still think Kavanaugh is a fit candidate for this position?

Actually, she only named Kavanaugh in her letter to the democrats, she merely told the therapist and husband she was a victim of an assault. My other points have not been debunked and I stand by what I have said.

What concerns me about this whole situation is the fact that before the letter leaked to the press, Kavanaugh had an unblemished career and was considered to be the most perfect candidate, but now that we are digging at his teenage years, he is now the worst man that ever lived. This sets a very dangerous precedent for us all. We've all done stupid and/or illegal things when we were young. Should these indiscretions be brought up every time we apply for a job?

[CropleyWasGod]

Actually, she only named Kavanaugh in her letter to the democrats, she merely told the therapist and husband she was a victim of an assault. My other points have not been debunked and I stand by what I have said.

What concerns me about this whole situation is the fact that before the letter leaked to the press, Kavanaugh had an unblemished career and was considered to be the most perfect candidate, but now that we are digging at his teenage years, he is now the worst man that ever lived. This sets a very dangerous precedent for us all. We've all done stupid and/or illegal things when we were young. Should these indiscretions be brought up every time we apply for a job?

He was considered that by those who shared his political and moral views. Those on the left, women's groups, pro-choice groups, didn't think that.

[AT8]

He was considered that by those who shared his political and moral views. Those on the left, women's groups, pro-choice groups, didn't think that.

Those on the left were not in a position to nominate a candidate due to the fact they lost the 2016 election, so my point stands that he was viewed as the perfect candidate.

[Tyler Durden]

Actually, she only named Kavanaugh in her letter to the democrats, she merely told the therapist and husband she was a victim of an assault. My other points have not been debunked and I stand by what I have said.

What concerns me about this whole situation is the fact that before the letter leaked to the press, Kavanaugh had an unblemished career and was considered to be the most perfect candidate, but now that we are digging at his teenage years, he is now the worst man that ever lived. This sets a very dangerous precedent for us all. We've all done stupid and/or illegal things when we were young. Should these indiscretions be brought up every time we apply for a job?

He hasn’t had an unblemished career. This has been pointed out to you but you ignore it as it doesn’t suit your narrative.

It’s not really too difficult to understand that someone applying for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is held to a different standard is it?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Here's what we know (not an exhaustive list) for certain thus far:

1, Three women have accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault in his youth. He denies all three charges. There is no physical evidence.

2, Dr Ford revealed the alleged attack by Kavanaugh to her counsellor, in the presence of her husband, in 2012. She says she told no-one about the attack contemporaneously.

3, Kavanaugh has perjured himself before, specifically about his knowledge of the unconstitutional mass surveillance by the Bush administration, when Kavanaugh worked at the White House. Released e-mails later confirmed he know all about it and was involved.

4, Several of his former classmates have stated that Kavanaugh perjured himself in last week's hearing in relation to his drinking at high school and college.

5, In the Dr Ford case, she says a friend of Kavanaugh's, Mark Judge, was also in the room when the attack took place. Judge released a sworn statement through his lawyer in which he says he 'cannot recall' the incident. Judge refused to appear at the Senate hearing and the Republican majority on the committee refused to subpoena him. Judge wrote a memoir about his high school/college years which paints a culture of heavy drinking and inappropriate (even illegal) behaviour towards female students; one of the people Judge names is a Bart O' Kavanaugh.

6, Dr Ford passed a polygraph about the events of the alleged attack. Kavanaugh refuses a polygraph.

7, Dr Ford has said she will cooperate fully with an FBI investigation; Kavanaugh doesn't want such an investigation.

8, The Republican majority have allowed the suggestion from Sen. Jeff Flake that the FBI be given one week and no more to investigate the charges.

9, The American Bar Association has called for Kavanaugh's nomination to be abandoned.


If any of the above is inaccurate, let me know. That's the state of play as I understand it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Those on the left were not in a position to nominate a candidate due to the fact they lost the 2016 election, so my point stands that he was viewed as the perfect candidate.

If he is going to be the "perfect candidate", he has to be so to all sections of American society, not just those whose preferred politician won the election.

Justice has to be above politics, no?

[AT8]

If he is going to be the "perfect candidate", he has to be so to all sections of American society, not just those whose preferred politician won the election.

Justice has to be above politics, no?

Perfect as in he has an unblemished record as a judge. He may well be guilty of the actions he is accused of while a teenager, but it is not the teenage Kavanaugh that is being appointed to the Supreme Court.

[CropleyWasGod]

Perfect as in he has an unblemished record as a judge. He may well be guilty of the actions he is accused of while a teenager, but it is not the teenage Kavanaugh that is being appointed to the Supreme Court.

It is, however, the younger Kavanaugh who went to a ****ing UB40 gig.

No way back from that, I'm afraid.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Perfect as in he has an unblemished record as a judge. He may well be guilty of the actions he is accused of while a teenager, but it is not the teenage Kavanaugh that is being appointed to the Supreme Court.

Which is irrelevant. If (and I say 'if') he is guilty of assaulting one or more teenage girls in his youth, he must face prosecution. He can't say 'I was younger, let's forget it'. Bill Cosby could have used that defence!

[Just Alf]

Forget all the historical stuff etc just in the past few weeks he's been found to be lying about those texts (as mentioned above).

That single thing alone should disbar him from the lifetime role he's seeking.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

I'm really uncomfortable with someone's career progression being ended by allegation. It's a different story if someone has been found guilty of something.

However, if he's been found to have lied under oath then he shouldn't even be considered for such a position.

[AT8]

If he is found guilty of lying under oath, I will absolutely accept that he is unfit for the Supreme Court. I'm just a little uneasy with the fact that mere allegations can be used to undermine the process. This could have implications for all of us in the future. I imagine that it is near impossible to shake the name of "sex offender", despite being cleared of all allegations. Take a moment to think how you and your family would feel if you were wrongly accused of such a thing.

[Hibernia&Alba]

If he is found guilty of lying under oath, I will absolutely accept that he is unfit for the Supreme Court. I'm just a little uneasy with the fact that mere allegations can be used to undermine the process. This could have implications for all of us in the future. I imagine that it is near impossible to shake the name of "sex offender", despite being cleared of all allegations. Take a moment to think how you and your family would feel if you were wrongly accused of such a thing.

These cases have ever been thus, and it's sometimes the case for other forms of crime. Very rarely does a sex offender commit an act in front of witnesses, but, in this case, Dr Ford has named a friend of Kavanaugh's as being in the room at the time. That man refused to testify in the Senate.

[AT8]

Listen, I agree with you all that if there is conclusive evidence he committed a sex crime or lied under oath then he should not sit on the Supreme Court. I just want to point out that accusation without concrete evidence is a very dangerous road to be going down and is something any one of us could fall victim to.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Listen, I agree with you all that if there is conclusive evidence he committed a sex crime or lied under oath then he should not sit on the Supreme Court. I just want to point out that accusation without concrete evidence is a very dangerous road to be going down and is something any one of us could fall victim to.

Nobody is denying that false accusations are sometimes raised; there have been high profile cases where the accused has been acquitted. We have a presumption of innocence, same the USA, in our legal system and anyone who makes false accusations under oath can be tried for perjury. Dr Ford and the other two women in this case, are well aware of that, but want to give their evidence.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Another interesting development today regards what Kavanaugh knew about the decision of one of his other accusers, Debbie Ramirez, to come forward. He said under oath that he knew nothing about her decision until an article appeared in the New Yorker. However, there are claims today that he was texting friends before that article was pusblished, asking them to come forward to refute the story. If true, that's perjury also., not to mention the fact it would be witness tampering in any trial.


https://youtu.be/BlMNTEw_8Gs

[AT8]

And I agree. If he lied about this under oath, he cannot sit on the Supreme Court.

[Bristolhibby]

And I agree. If he lied about this under oath, he cannot sit on the Supreme Court.

This. If he said the got blind drunk at college, then he may have been passed fit.

J

[Hibs Class]

His appointment has been confirmed. No real surprise, but at least it has shone a light on the American system and highlighted some pretty ugly truths.

[AT8]

His appointment has been confirmed. No real surprise, but at least it has shone a light on the American system and highlighted some pretty ugly truths.

What ugly truths are you referring to? Do you mean the fact that you can level unsubstantiated allegations at someone in the hope of achieving political gain?

[Sylar]

What ugly truths are you referring to? Do you mean the fact that you can level unsubstantiated allegations at someone in the hope of achieving political gain?

How about a formal investigation to look into said claims that failed to interview the accused, the accuser or other accusers? How about his lying under oath mattering not a jot?

Those are pretty ****ing ugly.

[Hibs Class]

What ugly truths are you referring to? Do you mean the fact that you can level unsubstantiated allegations at someone in the hope of achieving political gain?

No.

[AT8]

How about a formal investigation to look into said claims that failed to interview the accused, the accuser or other accusers? How about his lying under oath mattering not a jot?

Those are pretty ****ing ugly.

The accused and the accuser already stated their cases. There was nothing more to add there. There were no other witnesses that could back up her story. The other accusers have already backed up their claims. Look, I know that most people in the UK hate Trump based on the coverage they are exposed to, but I am living here and can vouch from personal experience that his presidency has benefited me, and for that, I am very happy. Sure, he's uncouth and not Presidential in the true sense, but he is benefitting the regular American people.

[Steve-O]

The accused and the accuser already stated their cases. There was nothing more to add there. There were no other witnesses that could back up her story. The other accusers have already backed up their claims. Look, I know that most people in the UK hate Trump based on the coverage they are exposed to, but I am living here and can vouch from personal experience that his presidency has benefited me, and for that, I am very happy. Sure, he's uncouth and not Presidential in the true sense, but he is benefitting the regular American people.

How?

Serious question btw.

[Hibernia&Alba]

So Kavanaugh is confirmed, meaning Trump has appointed two SC Justices in two years, both very conservative, and who may be on the Court for several decades. Roe V Wade must now be under serious threat in a number of the more conservative states; net neutrality is finished; Kavanaugh even says a serving president shouldn't be indicted for criminality i.e. the rule of law itself could be under threat. The ironic thing is that a president has been able to set the course for American law so markedly, despite having the support of only a minority of American voters. The same was true of George W. Bush, who also appointed two SC Justices after becoming president despite losing the popular vote.

Control of the SC has been the Republican plan for at least thirty years, the aim being to control one of the branches of government even when not in control of Congress or the presidency. Hence their refusal to allow Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, even a Senate hearing. Trump has also filled dozens of appointments in the lower courts in the past two years. It's all very divisive; American society seems more split than ever, with the evangelical conservative movement determined to have maintain control against what they deem liberal permissiveness. Their problem is they simply don't have enough votes in the country to sustain their agenda but increasingly need the electoral college in presidential elections and the regressive system of representation in the Senate to keep control. It looks like the system itself is creaking in the current climate of ideological schism.

[Fife-Hibee]

So Kavanaugh is confirmed, meaning Trump has appointed two SC Justices in two years, both very conservative, and who may be on the Court for several decades. Roe V Wade must now be under serious threat in a number of the more conservative states; net neutrality is finished; Kavanaugh even says a serving president shouldn't be indicted for criminality i.e. the rule of law itself could be under threat. The ironic thing is that a president has been able to set the course for American law so markedly, despite having the support of only a minority of American voters. The same was true of George W. Bush, who also appointed two SC Justices after becoming president despite losing the popular vote.

Control of the SC has been the Republican plan for at least thirty years, the aim being to control one of the branches of government even when not in control of Congress or the presidency. Hence their refusal to allow Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, even a Senate hearing. Trump has also filled dozens of appointments in the lower courts in the past two years. It's all very divisive; American society seems more split than ever, with the evangelical conservative movement determined to have maintain control against what they deem liberal permissiveness. Their problem is they simply don't have enough votes in the country to sustain their agenda but increasingly need the electoral college in presidential elections and the regressive system of representation in the Senate to keep control. It looks like the system itself is creaking in the current climate of ideological schism.

What law has been altered/breached here?

[Hibernia&Alba]

What law has been altered/breached here?

I don't understand your question. Clarify what you mean, please.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Auld Bernie, one of the few American politicians who I find worth listening to, spells out the importance of SC placements.


https://youtu.be/cQX6Defqyic

[Fife-Hibee]

I don't understand your question. Clarify what you mean, please.

You're saying the rule of law could be under threat. I don't see any manipulation of the law here.

[Hibernia&Alba]

You're saying the rule of law could be under threat. I don't see any manipulation of the law here.

I said Kavanaugh's view that a serving president should not be liable to indictment is a threat to the rule of the law. It's reminiscent of Nixon's infamous 'if the president does it, it's legal'; basically putting the head of state above the law.

[Bristolhibby]

I said Kavanaugh's view that a serving president should not be liable to indictment is a threat to the rule of the law. It's reminiscent of Nixon's infamous 'if the president does it, it's legal'; basically putting the head of state above the law.

And we all know how that ended for Nixon.

J

[Fife-Hibee]

I said Kavanaugh's view that a serving president should not be liable to indictment is a threat to the rule of the law. It's reminiscent of Nixon's infamous 'if the president does it, it's legal'; basically putting the head of state above the law.

No it isn't, because Kavanugh hasn't been found to have "done it". You're assuming that he has done it on the basis of accusation alone. Imagine being done out of your dream job, because you're accused of something that can never be proven to have actually happened.

[lapsedhibee]

No it isn't, because Kavanugh hasn't been found to have "done it". You're assuming that he has done it on the basis of accusation alone. Imagine being done out of your dream job, because you're accused of something that can never be proven to have actually happened.

Think H&A is talking about what Trump can get away with now that Kavanaugh's in place, rather than what Kavanaugh might or might not have done in the past.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Think H&A is talking about what Trump can get away with now that Kavanaugh's in place, rather than what Kavanaugh might or might not have done in the past.

Indeed. Kavanaugh has, in the past, said a serving president should not be liable to indictment. No surprise Trump and the Republicans were desperate to have him confirmed.

[Future17]

No it isn't, because Kavanugh hasn't been found to have "done it". You're assuming that he has done it on the basis of accusation alone. Imagine being done out of your dream job, because you're accused of something that can never be proven to have actually happened.

It is, because Kavanaugh has said the laws which apply to everyone else shouldn't apply to a sitting president.

[Beefster]

No it isn't, because Kavanugh hasn't been found to have "done it". You're assuming that he has done it on the basis of accusation alone. Imagine being done out of your dream job, because you're accused of something that can never be proven to have actually happened.

How many of Jimmy Saville's crimes can be definitely proven beyond any doubt? I don't think anyone doubts that Saville was guilty.

Kavanaugh has now been accused by 3 women IIRC and accused of lying under oath by several people too. If it was a conspiracy, where were all the accusations when Gorsuch was confirmed last year?

[cabbageandribs1875]

i see one of his 'accusers' has recanted, after writing a letter to the judiciary claiming Kavanaugh raped her she's now saying she only wanted some attention and she's never actually met the guy, hell mend her


https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11

[lapsedhibee]

i see one of his 'accusers' has recanted, after writing a letter to the judiciary claiming Kavanaugh raped her she's now saying she only wanted some attention and she's never actually met the guy, hell mend her


https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11

I may be :doh: but I don't read that article as saying what you're saying. In my reading, she didn't write the anonymous letter accusing Kavanaugh of rape. She just claimed later to be the writer - that's what she's recanting.

Still hell mend her, but the number of accusers is not reduced.

[Hibs Class]

i see one of his 'accusers' has recanted, after writing a letter to the judiciary claiming Kavanaugh raped her she's now saying she only wanted some attention and she's never actually met the guy, hell mend her


https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11

This is a sideshow. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony was, and remains, credible and Kavanaugh's appearance still confirms him as wholly unsuitable for public office.

[Hibernia&Alba]

New allegations published in today's New York Times


https://youtu.be/Mc1_8xX1JYo

[AT8]

New allegations published in today's New York Times


https://youtu.be/Mc1_8xX1JYo

And then retracted by the same NYT.

[Hibernia&Alba]

And then retracted by the same NYT.

I believe they clarified that the alleged victim has no recollection of the incident because she was passed out drunk at a party, and the allegation came from other witnesses who were there. Have they now retracted the testimony of those witnesses too?