United States Corrupt Twattery

[Scouse]

She wants it to be investigated properly yes

Which it should be. So has she been to the police then, or am I missing a point of procedure?

Also - if it's beyond the time of the statute of limitations, and therefore he cannot be prosecuted, then I'd go with the GOP, and on balance of probabilities treat it as a smear.

If he can't be prosecuted then his guilt or innocence cannot be determined in a court of law and, ultimately, if it can't be decided in court then, regardless of how she feels, this should be stopped.

 

[Wij]

For fucks sake, Dr Ford had been saying it was him to friends years before he was nominated. You honestly think women frequently make this up for political reasons?

 

[Scouse]

For fucks sake, Dr Ford had been saying it was him to friends years before he was nominated. You honestly think women frequently make this up for political reasons?

I don't know @Wij. I wasn't there. And the only thing I can do is read about it fifth-hand in newspapers.

That's why we have courts, right? So we can have faith in guilt and innocence. So the mob can't rule.

Honestly - I don't care whether he's guilty or innocent, or whether she's lying or telling the truth. Without a court to determine the facts I'll never be able to tell either way.

I care about the increasing lack of a rule of law. Court or GTFO. That's the only reasonable way we have to run a society. #Ibelieveyou isn't.

 

[SilverHood]

The problem was that even if they had come forward, it would never have been believed at the time. So they stayed silent and moved on with their lives, until now, when he's going to be appointed a Supreme Court judge for life. With judges like that, who needs criminals?

 

[Ormorof]

I don't know @Wij. I wasn't there. And the only thing I can do is read about it fifth-hand in newspapers.

That's why we have courts, right? So we can have faith in guilt and innocence. So the mob can't rule.

Honestly - I don't care whether he's guilty or innocent, or whether she's lying or telling the truth. Without a court to determine the facts I'll never be able to tell either way.

I care about the increasing lack of a rule of law. Court or GTFO. That's the only reasonable way we have to run a society. #Ibelieveyou isn't.

That only really works if the system for investigating these things work. And if time is given to investigate before giving a suspect a job for life

 

[Wij]

That only really works if the system for investigating these things work. And if time is given to investigate before giving a suspect a job for life

Indeed. The democrats are asking for the FBI to investigate and the women are willing to comply. There is no good reason this should go ahead right now (on Friday is the plan.)

 

[Scouse]

Regardless - they have to follow the law.

If the statute of limitations has passed, and therefore no prosecution can be brought, then tough titties.

I'm not making a moral judgement on whether the law in this case is fair or not. But nobody here has even attempted to tackle the question I've posed multiple times: Society has decided that court is where someone is judged guilty or innocent. Should people now have their lives interfered with on the basis of rumour and gossip - which is basically everything outside court.

If criminal acts have taken place - COURT or GTFO. No court = no story.

The democrats are asking ...

Yes they are. And there's form for making sexual allegations, outside of court, against political appointees on both sides.

#Idon'tbelieveyouautomatically #getyoutocourt #innocentuntilprovenguilty

 

[Wij]

Regardless - they have to follow the law.

If the statute of limitations has passed, and therefore no prosecution can be brought, then tough titties.

I'm not making a moral judgement on whether the law in this case is fair or not. But nobody here has even attempted to tackle the question I've posed multiple times: Society has decided that court is where someone is judged guilty or innocent. Should people now have their lives interfered with on the basis of rumour and gossip - which is basically everything outside court.

If criminal acts have taken place - COURT or GTFO. No court = no story.



Yes they are. And there's form for making sexual allegations, outside of court, against political appointees on both sides.

#Idon'tbelieveyouautomatically #getyoutocourt #innocentuntilprovenguilty

You fundamentally misunderstand everything about this. The state of Maryland has no statute of limitations on sexual assault as far as I'm aware. A private citizen cannot start a court proceeding. Law enforcement has to investigate and decide if a case can be brought. She is willing to speak to the FBI to allow this to happen which could then lead to a court case. That is the procedure.

However, this is not about putting someone in jail. This is about a supreme court nomination. Like a job interview. It doesn't require a court case to decide someone is not suitable to be a supreme court judge or is not suitable for a job. If you applied for a financial role in a large organisation and they found out you were sacked from your last role for fiddling then regardless of whether they chose to pursue the matter in court you could and should be refused the role. They wouldn't only do that after insisting a criminal case is brought and has not fallen out of statute of limitations.

The other matter is that if Kavanaugh has denied everything and yet, regardless of whether criminal charges can be brought, witnesses at the time can show that parts of his denial are lies, that should be a disqualification. If I lie on my CV and say I worked on a project that my previous employer insists I did not then I won't be considered for the job. Nothing to do with a criminal case.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is charged with looking at the character of a nominee and deciding if on the balance of evidence (not a criminal case) they appear suited to the role. This includes very fundamentally whether the nominee is honest and truthful.

To sum up:
1.) A criminal case IS a possibility here and the accusers want them to happen and have put their reputations on the line to do this.
2.) That isn't even the point.

 

[Ormorof]

Also not first time he has been caught out in a lie, surprised more of a big deal isnt being made about the time he lied under oath ( the Rep tried to hide this by making docs that prove it only available to committee members, senators broke rank and released them to public)

 

[Hawkwind]

For fucks sake, Dr Ford had been saying it was him to friends years before he was nominated. You honestly think women frequently make this up for political reasons?

Not frequently but it sure as shit happens. Sometimes because they get paid to come forward. American politics is shit fest of mud slinging so I am slightly skeptical when anyone comes out of the woodwork after 25 years and make accusations. Not saying she's lying just that I am skeptical. Only two people on this planet know the absolute truth of it. Unfortunately, the modern social justice way is that we must believe the woman and punish the man no matter what. No due process no rights at all. If Ford and Swetnick are sure he is guilty get him to court, at least the Republicans will pay for the lawyers right now.


View: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-45684050/republican-senator-flake-cornered-by-sexual-assault-survivor


We live in very odd times with regards to male and female interaction. A new social legal system where people lose their jobs and reputation based on a single accusation with no burden of proof. I have had discussions with my son (18y) about this and the need to be very careful and respectful, especially when at parties drinking etc. It's getting to the point where they need to carry legal waivers, a sex contract agreeing that both parties consent before the act.

Such a difficult and emotional subject but the legal system must prevail. Not mob social justice.

 

[DaGaffer]

The problem was that even if they had come forward, it would never have been believed at the time. So they stayed silent and moved on with their lives, until now, when he's going to be appointed a Supreme Court judge for life. With judges like that, who needs criminals?

Well, we'll never know that will we? Unfortunately this is where I struggle with all this; I genuinely think she's telling the truth, but I also think she's a day late and a dollar short with all this. Yes you can argue she only now felt it was her duty to stand up, but the guy has been has been a judge since 2006 and a lawyer before that, all positions of responsibility even if not jobs for life, why not come forward then?

As it happens I think Kavanaugh is an oily scumbag, but I also think calling up 35 year old hearsay cases in what is essentially a job interview is deeply flawed, and is taking us down a very dark road as a society, especially as social mores move over time; not so much in this case, but pick say, a drink driving conviction 35 years ago; socially barely frowned upon, now you're a morally bankrupt lowlife; but should you be judged by the standards of now or the time the of the offence? This is the direction we're heading, and coupled with an always on log of people's lives through social media, it can only get worse. We're already at the point where people can be pilloried for opinions voiced years earlier, which may have no bearing on their current attitudes.

 

[Gwadien]

Well, we'll never know that will we? Unfortunately this is where I struggle with all this; I genuinely think she's telling the truth, but I also think she's a day late and a dollar short with all this. Yes you can argue she only now felt it was her duty to stand up, but the guy has been has been a judge since 2006 and a lawyer before that, all positions of responsibility even if not jobs for life, why not come forward then?

As it happens I think Kavanaugh is an oily scumbag, but I also think calling up 35 year old hearsay cases in what is essentially a job interview is deeply flawed, and is taking us down a very dark road as a society, especially as social mores move over time; not so much in this case, but pick say, a drink driving conviction 35 years ago; socially barely frowned upon, now you're a morally bankrupt lowlife; but should you be judged by the standards of now or the time the of the offence? This is the direction we're heading, and coupled with an always on log of people's lives through social media, it can only get worse. We're already at the point where people can be pilloried for opinions voiced years earlier, which may have no bearing on their current attitudes.

Attitudes haven't changed, it's the accessibility of the information that has changed.

The amount of Popes that had kids and kept it secret.

Everyone's gonna have to have a squeaky clean record, or we accept that humanity is flawed. If we're going to accept that we are indeed flawed, I could see this attitude change coming under the Trump administration.

Also, the scumbags that are suggesting that she's somehow an agent of the Democrats are cretins of the purest form.

Sure, innocent until proven guilty, but saying that she's lying off the bat as some political move is so scum.

 

[Job]

The problem for me is the intrinsic corruption of morality based upon ingrained snobbery.
Shes more believable because she is arriculate and well mannered, her testimony has more weight because of her performance , she was controlled and thoughtfull, while he was all shouty.
That has been the entire reaction of the press...fuck the evidence, its how you present yourself to the jury of conformity, she is playing a blinder up there and the #me_mes are lapping it up for their own agenda.

 

[Scouse]

Aside from the idiot knobbery from Job:

Sure, innocent until proven guilty, but........

...but nothing.

Innocent until proven guilty. Period.

Not #ibelieveyou. Not for a second. It's #icanseeyou'reupsetansI'llhelpyoutakeittocourtbutwe'llseewhatcomesoutofthat.

Not #Cornerguysinalift #ifyoudon'tautomaticsllybelievewomenyou'rearspistdenier.

Definitely not "Because some in the catholic church abused people we automatically believe anyone who says they were abused".

No. No. No. Court or GTFO.

It's hard for some to come forward. Yes. We universally understand that (well, apart from Job). But come forward to the police, snd court, you must.

No ifs, no buts, court or GTFO.

 

[Scouse]

The problem was that even if they had come forward, it would never have been believed at the time.

Are you saying sexual asssult cases were utterly impossible to prosecute in the 1980's?

Look. We all agree about the difficulties survivors of sexual assaults face but it doesn't remove the absolute necessity of courts being the arbiter of truth here, not just "whatever women say must be believed".

 

[Job]

Ill say it again regardless of Scouse.
Its not women, its articulate well presented people who are believed in any situation..wear a suit to court, rudiculous of course, but no it works.
Showing 'respect' to the pompous.

 

[DaGaffer]

Attitudes haven't changed, it's the accessibility of the information that has changed.

The amount of Popes that had kids and kept it secret.

Everyone's gonna have to have a squeaky clean record, or we accept that humanity is flawed. If we're going to accept that we are indeed flawed, I could see this attitude change coming under the Trump administration.

Also, the scumbags that are suggesting that she's somehow an agent of the Democrats are cretins of the purest form.

Sure, innocent until proven guilty, but saying that she's lying off the bat as some political move is so scum.

Attitudes have changed. That's the whole fucking point. Even dare I say it to sexual assault cases. The whole reason why she didn't come forward 35 years ago is precisely because she knew no-one would see what he was doing was sexual assault, including him. You only have to look at a few movies from the time to see that; this would have been classed as "getting fresh", not assault. And yes we now see that through a very different lens, but you live in the times you live in. As a society we're really shockingly bad at looking at behaviour in the context of the times,( a five minute browse around Quora to see all the comments about the "evil" British Empire is enough to prove that) even when some of us lived through those times.

To be honest the only judgement I could make against Kavanaugh about this is that he's a fucking hypocrite, but even then, I don't know if he was all God-fearin' 35 years ago, or just the usual rich douchebag you saw in Porkies and Animal House.

 

[DaGaffer]

Ill say it again regardless of Scouse.
Its not women, its articulate well presented people who are believed in any situation..wear a suit to court, rudiculous of course, but no it works.
Showing 'respect' to the pompous.

To be honest, I agree with you, and I've actual seen that in action and been the beneficiary of it myself, including wearing the nice suit to court and being well-spoken (for a speeding case). When everyone else up in front of the magistrate is a knuckle-dragging tracksuit-wearing thug, you win. I got off ludicrously lightly.

However, I think there's a wider class issue at play here as well. When Kavanaugh was just a regular lawyer or a regular circuit-court judge, his attitudes and leanings would have no affect on Doctor Ford but certainly would on the (probably poorer, probably browner) people up in front of him. She would never consider herself likely to be in front of him. But the Supreme Court? Uh Oh, that could affect her and her circle. There is a degree of snobbery here, and I hope she's honest with herself about it.

 

[Wij]

They've agreed to let the FBI investigate for a week. This should have been obviously the bare minimum. How can anyone say they shouldn't be given time to do that? That's what the democrats were asking for.

It's strange that the accusers all wanted an investigation by the FBI but the accused did not.

Pretty much all the republicans are saying she was a credible witness but just wanted to rush it through anyway. They all believe her really.

If the FBI do a decent job they probably won't find conclusive proof that he committed assault. What they probably will find is conclusive proof that he has lied. The question then is what the committee will do with that. It should disbar him but that's not exactly likely in this day and age.

Every time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question, in one chart

 

[Wij]

Amusing aside on those crying innocent until proven guilty


View: https://twitter.com/conspirator0/status/1045858405246783489

 

[Hawkwind]

Amusing aside on those crying innocent until proven guilty


View: https://twitter.com/conspirator0/status/1045858405246783489

Seriously, so you would prefer mob justice? Because it suits your politics? Anyone who says the legal justice system should be used is a Nazi/alt right or whatever you name call people that don't agree with you. This is the a-typical shit that really riles me, people creating divisions out of a perfectly logical response.

 

[Ormorof]

Seriously, so you would prefer mob justice? Because it suits your politics? Anyone who says the legal justice system should be used is a Nazi/alt right or whatever you name call people that don't agree with you. This is the a-typical shit that really riles me, people creating divisions out of a perfectly logical response.

Is it a logical response when it is selectively applied?

 

[Wij]

Seriously, so you would prefer mob justice? Because it suits your politics? Anyone who says the legal justice system should be used is a Nazi/alt right or whatever you name call people that don't agree with you. This is the a-typical shit that really riles me, people creating divisions out of a perfectly logical response.

Fucks sake. I said an ‘amusing aside’ not a legal argument. It was just pointing out that a lot of people are being hypocritical about it.

 

[Wij]

Also mob justice? What I’ve been saying is that the claims should be investigated properly. It was in opposition to the approach taken by Republicans that they should be dismissed.

/edit: Republicans except Jeff Flake. Fair play to him for having a bit of decency.

 

[Hawkwind]

Is it a logical response when it is selectively applied?

No, not if it is selective, absolutely

 

[Wij]

No, not if it is selective, absolutely

Which was exactly the point being made.

 

[Hawkwind]

Which was exactly the point being made.

Misconstrued your smiley as ironic, apologies.

 

[Wij]

I wonder at what point I entered a wormhole that took me to the everything-is-totally-weird dimension.


View: https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1046207283875713024

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[caLLous]

How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying | Current Affairs