US Politics

[sullydnl]

i.e. someone shouldn't be judged to have done something without a proper investigation, not just as a legal entity.

Correct me if I'm wrong but they weren't being asked to judge whether Kavanagh was guilty or not guilty, were they? They were being asked if he was fit to be on the Supreme Court?

In the case of the latter sufficient doubt should be enough, not proven guilt.

 

[rcoobc]

i.e. someone shouldn't be judged to have done something without a proper investigation, not just as a legal entity.

So if a guy is an arsehole to you. And then you see him be an arsehole to his dog. And then you see him be an arsehole to his wife. And then you see him be an arsehole to his kid .

You shouldn't judge him until an investigation is launched?

Who is running it?

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Seems to me you two have a hard time reading

Any update on your "18 months old" bollocks?

 

[adexkola]

Probably this has been mentioned but this thread is growing to fast for me to follow every post. Can't Ford go to the police so an investigation can start? Parallel to all this, one citizen vs another.

No District Attorney would take this case up. No evidence. Testimony that would get torn to shreds by any decent cross-examination. No corroborating witnesses to this crime.

The Republican prosecutor said that this case wouldn't last long in an actual court.

 

[Damien]

Probably this has been mentioned but this thread is growing to fast for me to follow every post. Can't Ford go to the police so an investigation can start? Parallel to all this, one citizen vs another.

From an article:

The most serious crime that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor crime in Maryland in 1982, which would be the relevant legal application.

As a misdemeanor, it carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to have been filed within a year after an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor; Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault; and other longtime Maryland attorneys interviewed in recent days.

The Maryland legislature changed the law in 1996, making attempted rape a felony and removing the statute of limitations, according to McCarthy and Jordan.

“But we’d have to apply the law as it existed at the time of the allegations,” McCarthy said.

Other possible charges, such as second-degree assault, remain misdemeanor offenses in Maryland, subject to a one-year statute of limitations, McCarthy said.

“Based on all the allegations I’ve seen so far, there are a number of legal barriers to criminal prosecutions,” Jordan said.

Because it allegedly happened prior to 1996, it is subject to the statute of limitations so can't take it to the police.

 

[Bobcat]

Wow! It seems Grassley cut it short so there could be no "binding" vote on the agreement to postpone the final vote for a minimum of one week. Instead we are left with a "gentlemen's and ladies agreement" which has no legally binding place.

The meeting’s final moments: (from the Guardian's rolling coverage)

I have no fecking clue about senate procedures, but a "two hour rule" seems ridiculous

 

[Sigma]

Correct me if I'm wrong but they weren't being asked to judge whether Kavanagh was guilty or not guilty, were they? They were being asked if he was fit to be on the Supreme Court?

In the case of the latter sufficient doubt should be enough, not proven guilt.

They were always going to vote for him if these accusations didn't come up. They obvisouly believe he is fit for the Supreme Court. The question is did he do it or not - which is why we need an investigation. If he didn't do it, it feels wrong that the only reason that senators who would normally vote for him didn't vote for him, is because of something he didn't do.

So if a guy is an arsehole to you. And then you see him be an arsehole to his dog. And then you see him be an arsehole to his wife. And then you see him be an arsehole to his kid .

You shouldn't judge him until an investigation is launched?

Who is running it?

Obvisouly, common sense prevails in that instance. The scale of the crime is proportional to the scale of the investigation. My thoughts on the situation are above.

 

[alsabi]

A week is a long time in this situation. There has been new information coming out on almost a daily basis this last week. There's a good chance more negative stories will come out now.

Indeed. You do have to wonder why Republicans were so keen to avoid any investigation, after all.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Anyway, I didn't go through your "ss" suggestion but did something more subtle.

nicely done, Sir.

 

[ErranMorad]

Voting in numbers in November is the only option (was always the only option). I hope for once the useless dems can utilize this sham to energize the lazy voters to come out and vote. No less than flipping the house and getting a senate majority will do. There is no republican party anymore. It's the party of the Trump against everyone else. If people keep abdicating their responsibility to vote or keep casting protest votes like morons, then the minority will keep making decisions for the majority and they'll have no right to complain. If the minority getting this openly partisan moron for a conservative majority in the Supreme Court after a disgrace of a hearing doesn't push people to vote, then nothing ever will.

Nothing is going to come out of this one week delay. November 6th is all that matters now.

 

[sullydnl]

They were always going to vote for him if these accusations didn't come up. They obvisouly believe he is fit for the Supreme Court. The question is did he do it or not - which is why we need an investigation. If he didn't do it, it feels wrong that the only reason that senators who wouldn't normally vote for him didn't vote for him, is because of something he didn't do.



Obvisouly, common sense prevails in that instance. My thoughts on the situation are above.

They were but I don't see why you'd need such a high burden of proof to decide that the allegations (and indeed his response to them, including some rather blatant lies regarding surrounding facts) warrant a rethink on your decision to nominate him for one of the country's most privileged positions. You can decide you don't want to actively endorse him without having to decide he's guilty.

I mean if a politician had these allegations against him then I wouldn't vote for him. I wouldn't need proof of guilt to be uncomfortable endorsing him for such an important role. I don't see why it should be different in this case.

 

[Halftrack]

Why do you come here and think you're up to date with what we were talking about? Carolina tried to compare Ford's PTSD with that of a marine as an excuse for her not to have come out all those years ago with her supposed rape and accuse Kavanaugh for his supposed crime back when it happened (and thus the person who caused her the PTSD). Obviously a marine can't take "combat" into court. So the comparison is incredibly stupid.

@Carolina Red mentioned combat veterans as an example of PTSD sufferers. How they, you know, don't like to talk about what they saw or experienced, because they might end up reliving it and that is horrid. So they shove it to the back of their mind and try to forget about it. You're the dumbass who then, for some unknown reason, started acting like there's any kind of appreciable difference in the PTSD suffered by combat veterans, and the PTSD suffered by people who have lived through other traumatic events. PTSD is PTSD. What caused it varies, what triggers it will vary, but at the end of the day it is still PTSD.

Loving your new name, by the way. Very fitting.

 

[Billy Blaggs]

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just fecking thick?

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is she's a you get AFTER ANY traumatic situation, be that combat, car crash or accident, severe illness, loss of a relative or loved one or RAPE and SEXUAL ASSAULT.

Damn you keep posting proper bullshit.

You beat me to it.

 

[maniak]

From an article:



Because it allegedly happened prior to 1996, it is subject to the statute of limitations so can't take it to the police.

No District Attorney would take this case up. No evidence. Testimony that would get torn to shreds by any decent cross-examination. No corroborating witnesses to this crime.

The Republican prosecutor said that this case wouldn't last long in an actual court.

Cheers

 

[adexkola]

They were but I don't see why you'd need such a high burden of proof to decide that the allegations (and indeed his response to them, including some rather blatant lies regarding surrounding facts) warrant a rethink on your decision to nominate him for one of the country's most privileged positions. You can decide you don't want to actively endorse him without having to decide he's guilty.

I mean if a politician had these allegations against him then I wouldn't vote for him. I wouldn't need proof of guilt to be uncomfortable endorsing him for such an important role. I don't see why it should be different in this case.

He is in a very privileged position in the DC Court of Appeals already. I think it's fair that if he is deemed not fit for the Supreme Court, then it should be similarly easy for his spot on the bench to be yanked. And that's the contradiction there for me. The burden of proof should be high to yank him off.

 

[Sigma]

They were but I don't see why you'd need such a high burden of proof to decide that the allegations (and indeed his response to them, including some rather blatant lies regarding surrounding facts) warrant a rethink on your decision to nominate him for one of the country's most privileged positions. You can decide you don't want to actively endorse him without having to decide he's guilty.

I mean if a politician had these allegations against him then I wouldn't vote for him. I wouldn't need proof of guilt to be uncomfortable endorsing him for such an important role. I don't see why it should be different in this case.

The evidence currently isn't very strong. It's one person's word against another's. I'm not asking for proof, but there has to be stronger evidence than that. It could be mistaken identity and they could both be telling the truth.

I say this as someone who is more inclined to believe the incident in question did happen.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

The evidence currently isn't very strong. It's one person's word against anothers. I'm not asking for proof, but there has to be stronger evidence than that. It could be mistaken identity and they could both be telling the truth.

I say this as someone who is more inclined to believe the incident in question did happen.

Isn't it more than one incident?

 

[alsabi]

 

[Sigma]

Isn't it more than one incident?

I was talking about the Dr. Ford case. There are 3 cases, each of which, it is only one persons word against another's. That's not strong enough evidence.

 

[Raoul]

 

[Ekkie Thump]

I was talking about the Dr. Ford case. There are 3 cases, each of which, it is only one persons word against another's. That's not strong enough evidence.

It should certainly cast enough shade for one to be able to doubt the character of a person up for a supreme court nomination.

 

[Red Dreams]

surely the FBI will make its report to the Senate.

 

[Sigma]

It should certainly cast enough shade for one to be able to doubt the character of a person up for a supreme court nomination.

I don't believe so. It should certainly cast enough shade that a proper and thorough investigation take place.

 

[ChaddyP]

Will probably need immunity

 

[Camy89]

So I've just got in and the thread has grown exponentially and can't be arsed going through it, can anyone give a summary of what's happened/going to happen?

I'm British, so keep it simple, the yank government system still confuses me.

 

[Adisa]

What the feck does "confidently" mean? This guy is dodgy.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

I don't believe so. It should certainly cast enough shade that a proper and thorough investigation take place.

That is essentially the same thing that I wrote. You can't just confirm a guy with these allegations hanging over him - his character is too much in doubt. If a proper and thorough investigation removes those doubts then sure, but it is those doubts that precipitate any investigation in the first place.

 

[Red Dreams]

Will probably need immunity

that would be great if he confirmed everything Dr. Ford said and Kavanaugh is left hanging.

 

[Sigma]

That is essentially the same thing that I wrote. You can't just confirm a guy with these allegations hanging over him - his character is too much in doubt. If a proper and thorough investigation removes those doubts then sure, but it is those doubts that precipitate any investigation in the first place.

I don't know the Senate Judiciary Committee convention. If Flake said no, could they go back for another vote when the FBI investigation finished? If so, he should have voted no. Regardless, he shouldn't have voted and it would have been a tie, where he would hold all the cards.

 

[sun_tzu]

Will probably need immunity

Immunity from what?
Certainly my understanding of the Dr ford allegation is that they would be classified as a misterminer and outside the statute of limitations... So nothing to be immune from?

 

[ChaddyP]

Immunity from what?
Certainly my understanding of the Dr ford allegation is that they would be classified as a misterminer and outside the statute of limitations... So nothing to be immune from?

Theres no statute of limitations in Marland apparently

that would be great if he confirmed everything Dr. Ford said and Kavanaugh is left hanging.

Yes that's what I'm thinking. This is so obvious that Ford testimony is true and so obvious that they are hiding something and know the FBI will find out. I can see a scenario where he sings like a canary

 

[Red Dreams]

Theres no statute of limitations in Marland apparently



Yes that's what I'm thinking. This is so obvious that Ford testimony is true and so obvious that they are hiding something and know the FBI will find out. I can see a scenario where he sings like a canary

It would be even better that he not get the nomination but is removed from his current position.

Hound him out.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

I don't know the Senate Judiciary Committee convention. If Flake said no, could they go back for another vote when the FBI investigation finished? If so, he should have voted no. Regardless, he shouldn't have voted and it would have been a tie, where he would hold all the cards.

I'm pretty sure they could have delayed sending it out of committee for a week (not positive though). I'm also unsure what the proposed FBI investigation will look like, whether it will only look at Ford's allegation or whether the two further allegations will also be investigated. The terms of the investigation are also in question as is whether a week is really long enough for a thorough one to take place. I'm not certain what 'limited in scope' means in this instance.

 

[sun_tzu]

I'm pretty sure they could have delayed sending it out of committee for a week (not positive though). I'm also unsure what the proposed FBI investigation will look like, whether it will only look at Ford's allegation or whether the two further allegations will also be investigated. The terms of the investigation are also in question as is whether a week is really long enough for a thorough one to take place. I'm not certain what 'limited in scope' means in this instance.

Limited to saying approve him

 

[Fully Fledged]

Probably this has been mentioned but this thread is growing to fast for me to follow every post. Can't Ford go to the police so an investigation can start? Parallel to all this, one citizen vs another.

People don't need to tell police the truth. They need to tell the truth to the FBI or they can end up in jail.

 

[Eboue]

Flake got the pressure off himself personally by allowing it to go out of Cmte., once it gets onto the floor there are plenty of options for him, depending on how many votes McConnell have already whipped together.

They can afford 2 defections anyway, so this doesn’t change anything in essence. One week investigation? Please.

Jeff flake cya as usual

 

[Red Dreams]

I thought Flake said he wanted the FBI to investigate the allegations.

and the vote be delayed for a week to allow for the investigations to be completed.

Talk of the potential for an October surprise.

 

[ChaddyP]

Just came to the realisation that Brett Kavanaugh is basically Brice from 13 reasons why

 

[Red Dreams]

The Republicans can only afford 1 defection...not 2.

 

[ChaddyP]

It would be even better that he not get the nomination but is removed from his current position.

Hound him out.

That would be some justice for Ford