United States Corrupt Twattery

[Wij]

How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying | Current Affairs

That article is superb. Well worth your time to read through carefully.

 

[DaGaffer]

That article is superb. Well worth your time to read through carefully.

What kind of a fucking weirdo has their calendars from 1982? What kind of 17 year-old kept a calendar in the first place?

 

[fettoken]

What kind of a fucking weirdo has their calendars from 1982? What kind of 17 year-old kept a calendar in the first place?

A type of meticulous person that might end up in the supreme court.

 

[Scouse]

That article is superb.

No. It's a call for gossip and hearsay to take primacy:

What is the best way, then, to figure out the truth? It’s absolutely the case that Christine Ford has no eyewitnesses to support her. She cannot remember exactly where the assault happened, or exactly when. She can’t remember all the people who were at the house, and the people she does say were there have said they have no memory of the event. She told nobody about it at the time. Looking at these facts, we can see how someone strongly committed to due process might think the allegation extremely weak

Aren't we all "strongly committed to due process"? No?

Yes, it's shitty that bad people sometimes get away with bad shit and will do because we have standards of evidence, due process and our legal system is setup to protect the innocent first and foremost - because a miscarriage of justice against an innocent man is worse than a criminal walking free.

We're all strongly committed to due process or we're for mob rule. Court or GTFO. The "best way to figure out the truth" is to go to court.

The rest is gossip. Period.

 

[Wij]

No. It's a call for gossip and hearsay to take primacy:



Aren't we all "strongly committed to due process"? No?

Yes, it's shitty that bad people sometimes get away with bad shit and will do because we have standards of evidence, due process and our legal system is setup to protect the innocent first and foremost - because a miscarriage of justice against an innocent man is worse than a criminal walking free.

We're all strongly committed to due process or we're for mob rule. Court or GTFO. The "best way to figure out the truth" is to go to court.

The rest is gossip. Period.

Way to miss the point. Kavanaugh lied under oath about lots of little shit he didn't need to. That is disqualifying for a Supreme Court judge. Stop trying to make this about what you want it to be about.

 

[Scouse]

Way to miss the point. Kavanaugh lied under oath about lots of little shit he didn't need to. That is disqualifying for a Supreme Court judge. Stop trying to make this about what you want it to be about.

He lied under oath did he?

That been proven in a court of law has it?

FFS @Wij. It's not me "making this what I want it to be about". I don't give a fuck about his guilt or innocence. But there's only ONE place we can decide whether someone lied under oath - and it's not on the fucking internet. Ever.

 

[Wij]

He lied under oath did he?

That been proven in a court of law has it?

FFS @Wij. It's not me "making this what I want it to be about". I don't give a fuck about his guilt or innocence. But there's only ONE place we can decide whether someone lied under oath - and it's not on the fucking internet. Ever.

It’s in the article. He told lies. Dodged questions. Lost his temper and said it was all a Clinton conspiracy. The role on the Judiciary Committee is to decide whether he is suitable to be on the Supreme Court and on that basis he should not be. Lying under oath should disbar you.

 

[Wij]

That been proven in a court of law has it?

It isn’t a court of law. It’s the senate. Under oath. A court is absolutely not needed here.

 

[Wij]

View: https://medium.com/@demandjustice/kavanaugh-29-lies-and-counting-69ab6dee833d

 

[Wij]

View: https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1046886235443224577

 

[Hawkwind]

All of this is likely happening because pro life might get a 5 to 4 majority and could tighten up abortion rights. Very immotive and devisive subject in US mainly due to religion.

A lot of the testimony on offer would not stand up in court, heresay and poor memory recollection woild see to that. Crazy process overall, any allegations should have been investigated and substantiated long before they ever reached the senate committee. Effectivel becomes a trial by media circus with allegations investigated after. I doubt this would happen anywhere else but the US.

 

[Wij]

All of this is likely happening because pro life might get a 5 to 4 majority and could tighten up abortion rights. Very immotive and devisive subject in US mainly due to religion.

A lot of the testimony on offer would not stand up in court, heresay and poor memory recollection woild see to that. Crazy process overall, any allegations should have been investigated and substantiated long before they ever reached the senate committee. Effectivel becomes a trial by media circus with allegations investigated after. I doubt this would happen anywhere else but the US.

They don’t need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed assault. Lying under oath is enough. There is ample absolute proof that he was fibbing.

Of course based on their testimony I’m pretty sure he did it too but that is not the point. This isn’t about jailing him for assault.

 

[Scouse]

They don’t need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed assault. Lying under oath is enough. There is ample absolute proof that he was fibbing.

Maybe it's just the language you're using. On balance of probabilities it looks like he's lying. That might be enough for a job interview (or it might not in this case).

However, to prove "lying under oath" and to decide whether anything is "ample absolute proof" takes a court of law.

Anything else is just "we reckon"...

 

[Wij]

Maybe it's just the language you're using. On balance of probabilities it looks like he's lying. That might be enough for a job interview (or it might not in this case).

However, to prove "lying under oath" and to decide whether anything is "ample absolute proof" takes a court of law.

Anything else is just "we reckon"...

No it doesn’t that’s not how any of this works.

 

[Scouse]

No it doesn’t that’s not how any of this works.

Is lying under oath not a criminal offence? If they move to jail him for lying under oath, won't he have to go to court?

 

[Hawkwind]

No it doesn’t that’s not how any of this works.

But that is the point, the system is a joke!

 

[Wij]

Is lying under oath not a criminal offence? If they move to jail him for lying under oath, won't he have to go to court?

They aren't looking to put him in jail. Maybe later, but I doubt it. They are looking to see if he is suitable for a supreme court role.

 

[Wij]

But that is the point, the system is a joke!

What's wrong with the way it is supposed to work? Supreme court appointments are not trials. Standard of proof is 'probable cause' not 'beyond reasonable doubt.' No one is being put in jail because of the Judiciary Committee. Regardless, the fact he lied about 4 people saying he didn't do it when they said nothing of the sort plus lots of other things is beyond reasonable doubt anyway.

What is wrong with the system here?

 

[Scouse]

The clear and obvious problem is that the proper place for life-changing allegations of this nature is in a court of law.

These are some of the most serious allegations and the consequences of allegations are so far reaching that there's only one place they should be brought.

As far as #metoo - if someone makes an allegation on twitter without going to the police first they should be looking at jail time.

Social media changes the nature of allegations. You could confront an alleged abuser in a public place, in a pub for example, scream the house down. But you do that on the internet and the whole world's focus sits on you - and due to the absolute fact that people, including women, are shits, and are often wrong even when they think they're not, and are often just plain malicious cunts, then there's only one place these things should be getting heard.

That's in court.

Make no doubt - this man is "on trial". His life is coming under examination, there have already been far-ranging consequences and knock on effects that will stay with him the rest of his life.

That is not right.

 

[fettoken]

As far as #metoo - if someone makes an allegation on twitter without going to the police first they should be looking at jail time.

Social media changes the nature of allegations. You could confront an alleged abuser in a public place, in a pub for example, scream the house down. But you do that on the internet and the whole world's focus sits on you - and due to the absolute fact that people, including women, are shits, and are often wrong even when they think they're not, and are often just plain malicious cunts, then there's only one place these things should be getting heard.

That's in court.

To add to it is that mainstream media hasn't helped the situation at all. I take it they have a huge responsibility seeing they get funding and media rights from governments, so, clearly they have legal obligations and responsibility, more so than you or me.

Well, screw that. An example in Sweden is a 'known' media personality which under #MeToo was accused by another media personality. Our largest newspapers fueled the fire and published his name among other things, WITHOUT any form of evidence or confirmation except from the one claiming to be abused, as far as she can remember (she was heavily intoxicated + drugs).

The newspapers are getting fined only now due to going against the law. So, what you mentioned earlier about being responsible for your own drunkenness!

 

[Wij]

The clear and obvious problem is that the proper place for life-changing allegations of this nature is in a court of law.

These are some of the most serious allegations and the consequences of allegations are so far reaching that there's only one place they should be brought.

As far as #metoo - if someone makes an allegation on twitter without going to the police first they should be looking at jail time.

Social media changes the nature of allegations. You could confront an alleged abuser in a public place, in a pub for example, scream the house down. But you do that on the internet and the whole world's focus sits on you - and due to the absolute fact that people, including women, are shits, and are often wrong even when they think they're not, and are often just plain malicious cunts, then there's only one place these things should be getting heard.

That's in court.

Make no doubt - this man is "on trial". His life is coming under examination, there have already been far-ranging consequences and knock on effects that will stay with him the rest of his life.

That is not right.

It is right. He's up for Supreme Court. The accusers say they are willing to go through FBI to a trial. He doesn't want it. They could hold up the nomination process to allow for that which would surely meet your concerns but they don't even need to because he has lied under oath. Happy for a trial about the sexual assaults to happen after that.

If he didn't want an accusation like this to affect his career until a trial then he should have been open and honest admitting that he drank at parties, that witnesses didn't specifically exonerate him, that he had spoken to people about the accusations etc...

If he didn't want the accusation to ruin his life he should just have said he didn't commit the assault and that he will happily answer to criminal charges if they ever get brought. No one forced him to tell a load of pathetic porkie-pies under oath. He's obviously just one of those deny-everything types like Trump who expects to get away with it.

No sympathy at all. Honesty matters.

 

[Scouse]

If he didn't want an accusation like this to affect his career until a trial then he should have ....<acted in a specific way>

I'm on the side of the fence that says accusations of such a serious nature should be made to the police for investigation.

If she wanted to accuse him of this then the police station was the place to do that. He shouldn't have had to have acted in any way. (Regardless of the asshattery he got up to).

He should be afforded a level of protection from accusations made in public - as should all people - regardless of the level of job he's going for.

The fact that it's turned into such a shitshow is horrific. If she had made criminal allegations at the police station then in no way would I have any objections to the blockers being put on his job (being under criminal investigation would clearly be a blocker for this).

I don't know why the FBI are being asked to investiage here, rather than the fucking po-po. Police investigate rape and sexual assault cases. That's where this should be.



I have to say @Wij, you seem to have a startling disregard for due process. Yes, he's probably a twat, but is it worth sacrificing proper due process in what should clearly be a criminal investigation undertaken by the correct authorities (the police) to "prove" this?

 

[Wij]

I'm on the side of the fence that says accusations of such a serious nature should be made to the police for investigation.

If she wanted to accuse him of this then the police station was the place to do that. He shouldn't have had to have acted in any way. (Regardless of the asshattery he got up to).

He should be afforded a level of protection from accusations made in public - as should all people - regardless of the level of job he's going for.

The fact that it's turned into such a shitshow is horrific. If she had made criminal allegations at the police station then in no way would I have any objections to the blockers being put on his job (being under criminal investigation would clearly be a blocker for this).

I don't know why the FBI are being asked to investiage here, rather than the fucking po-po. Police investigate rape and sexual assault cases. That's where this should be.



I have to say @Wij, you seem to have a startling disregard for due process. Yes, he's probably a twat, but is it worth sacrificing proper due process in what should clearly be a criminal investigation undertaken by the correct authorities (the police) to "prove" this?

The FBI have to do a background check of candidates. That's how this works. She is trying to provide information to that check in the way she was asked to. If she'd been pointed at the local police as well I'm sure she would have done that but there's no point in asking the FBI and the local police to do the same thing. The FBI investigation would trump the police's. She is following process. Are you just pissy that she didn't follow process in the 80s when it happened?

 

[Scouse]

The FBI have to do a background check of candidates. That's how this works. She is trying to provide information to that check in the way she was asked to. If she'd been pointed at the local police as well I'm sure she would have done that but there's no point in asking the FBI and the local police to do the same thing. The FBI investigation would trump the police's. She is following process.

She isn't following process - she wrote a letter to a councilwoman, which was passed on, picked up by journalists and then it came out in the press.

Her first port of call should not have been a letter to a councilwoman. Her first port of call should have been the police. Period.

I understand it's hard for victims of sexual assault to go to the police, even when that sexual assault allegedly happened nearly 40 years ago, but go to the police they bloody well should do. Otherwise this level of shitshow happens.

On a separate note:

Are you just pissy that she didn't follow process in the 80s when it happened?

I'm not pissy about this at all. I get that survivors of sexual abuse have problems coming forward.

However, in this day and age of #metoo, social media and the twatterarti it's even more important that serious crime is reported to the police. It's also important that it's reported in a timely fashion.

We understand much more about how memory works - and how it's almost utterly unreliable. So, 40-year old allegations are absolutely to be treated with kid gloves and the utmost skepticism.

Look at that article: A doctored photo made many believe that they'd been on a real hot air ballon ride. A fucking photo! And Brent Kavanaugh has never appeared in photos. It definitely wasn't the image of him that prompted her to not-actually-bother-going-to-the-police in the first place.

One man who wrote in wrongly believed his girlfriend had a sister who died while at the dentist. So strong was his conviction that he kept all his dentist visits secret.

He wrote: "Over dinner one day she said she was going to the dentist the next week. It all went quiet at the table and my mum said it must be hard for her to visit the dentist after what had happened."

This is hardly a rare case. Neuroscientists say that many of our daily memories are falsely reconstructed because our view of the world is constantly changing.

So yes. Accusations of this nature must be brought to the police in a timely fashion if they're going to have any chance of bringing a court appearance that has a chance of delivering justice.

And delivering justice is what courts are for.

40 year old dodgy memories, not just her memories but his too (which could account for a lot), in public, out of court. It's a fucking joke.

 

[Wij]

She is trying to follow process now. Originally she wanted to remain anonymous as well she might. She's not a legal expert. Now realising that it won't go anywhere if she stayed anonymous she decided to come forwards:

Christine Blasey Ford - Wikipedia

36 year old memories of who assaulted you are likely to be pretty accurate. People remember that kind of detail. I can remember the face of the fucker who beat me up 27 years ago in Selby even though I don't remember any other details of the night out outside of those few minutes and I only took a few bruises. I'd imagine a sex assault would be even clearer:

Kavanaugh hearing: The science of memory shows why we all must believe Ford's testimony | WIRED UK

Bring on the trial if the FBI deem there's enough evidence. Meanwhile however he has lied under oath so should not get the job. This is pretty simples.

 

[Scouse]

She is trying to follow process now. Originally she wanted to remain anonymous as well she might. She's not a legal expert. Now realising that it won't go anywhere if she stayed anonymous she decided to come forwards

She's not a fucking idiot - DOCTOR Ford FFS.

Bring on the trial if the FBI deem there's enough evidence. Meanwhile however he has lied under oath so should not get the job. This is pretty simples.

I'm totally in agreement that if the FBI find enough evidence then there should be a trial. But there should also be a trial about whether he lied under oath.

I don't really give a monkeys if he gets the job or not. But this whole process has been donkey shite from dot one.

And it's not the only chief justice nominee to have this happen btw.

 

[Wij]

I'm totally in agreement that if the FBI find enough evidence then there should be a trial. But there should also be a trial about whether he lied under oath.

There does not need to be a trial about whether he lied under oath. These aren't all lies about things 36 years ago. Some are about current known facts. The Committee is perfectly entitled to say he shouldn't get the job based on that without a trial. That is the system working correctly. You do not have a trial for every decision made. You don't have a trial to determine if someone's CV is a pile of garbage.

They might want to pursue a criminal trial for perjury later but that's something else. The committee is able to make decisions without a trial. It would be chaos if it couldn't.

 

[Wij]

Also, it didn't happen for Gorsuch. If it was just pissed-off Dems getting revenge then why not then. That was the seat Republicans held open for 400 days to stop Obama getting a nominee to the court.

 

[Gwadien]

Basically, this whole thing is Judge Judy on steroids, right?

I mean, fuck the whole case, look at how the guy simply behaves, if I were murican I'd be appalled that this guy was being considered - but I suppose he's actually doing the right thing. Making it entertaining, getting peoples support by saying outlandish shit.

 

[Gwadien]

Just did me some reading on old Brett old buddy old pal.

A YouGov/The Economist poll on September 23–25 found 55% of Republicans thought he should be confirmed even if the allegations of sexual assault were true, compared to 28% of the whole sample and 13% of Democrats.


On September 20, 2018, The Guardian reported that two Yale professors had advised female law students at Yale that their physical attractiveness and femininity could play a role in securing a clerkship with Kavanaugh. Chua reportedly stated that female applicants should exude a "model-like" femininity and "dress outgoing" in their job interview with Kavanaugh. Jed Rubenfeld reportedly stated that Kavanaugh "hires women with a certain look". Responding to the report, Chua denied that Kavanaugh's hiring decisions were affected by female applicants' attractiveness, stating, "Judge Kavanaugh's first and only litmus test in hiring has been excellence."Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken called the allegations "of enormous concern to me and the school", which she said is investigating the matter.

He's clearly a bit of a Lad, why is he lying when there's so much evidence to suggest he didn't behave in the ways that he did?