Kavanaugh: SCOTUS hearing surrounded by controversy

[Marie]

It was understood that Trump would lob another grenade into the confirmation process. But did he think believers in our democratic institutions wouldn't fight back?



-Marie-

[Marie]

"The hearings were already closed! Investigating these allegations will take too long! It's not fair to the nominee!"

Etc.



-Marie-

[Frank the Crank]

Excellent comment from today's NYT>

Tim
West Coast2h ago
Times Pick
Tim | West Coast
Beyond a reasonable doubt. And, I have no horse in this race. Here is why I feel this way.

Ms. Ford has requested that Mr. Kavanaugh not be present at her testimony which belies the very principles underpinning her professional successes as a psychologist, researcher and statistician. She knows better. So, what could she be up to?

Ms. Ford may see an opportunity to quickly settle a score with Mr. Kavanaugh as she, alone, sees being wronged by him. She may not be interested in due-process because the outcome may not settle the score. To me, she wants certainty that the score is settled. So, she baits Diane Feinstein with a highly sensitive, explosive, confidential claim of sexual assault against Mr. Kavanaugh. Ms. Ford bet that the claim would be leaked which, when leaked, would go viral and artificially amplify the significance and the seriousness of the claims, anonymously made. against Mr. Kavanaugh. Then, she allows her name to be revealed, offers to testify and then withdraws the offer. Now, while everyone is back on their heels trying to not appear insensitive to her pain as a victim of sexual assault - and before agreeing to testify- she guilts the judiciary committee enough to have them unwittingly set up her, personal and private, Kangaroo Court.

This woman is beyond sharp and cunning. I'd hold her testimony to the same principles she necessarily is using in her professional life; beyond a reasonable doubt

[Marie]

Excellent comment from today's NYT> . . .

By "excellent" you of course mean despicable insinuation. I thought the theory that she mistook Kavanaugh's classmate for Kavanaugh was more "excellent." (The perpetrator of that theory was quick to rue it-- once the story was, conveniently, "out there.")

I dare you to read these comments, Frank:
#WhyIDidntReport

Here are the stats: Out of every 1000 rapes only 310 are reported, only 7 of those will receive felony convictions, and only 6 will serve prison time.

-Marie-

[Frank the Crank]

I think she's a mental case.

The Presumption of Guilt
The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down.

By The Editorial Board
Sept. 21, 2018 6:57 p.m. ET

“As Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.”

—Anita Hill, Sept. 18, 2018

“Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed.”

—Sen. Maize Hirono (D., Hawaii)

The last-minute accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is an ugly spectacle by any measure. But if there is a silver lining, it is that the episode is providing an education for Americans on the new liberal standard of legal and political due process.

As Ms. Hill and Sen. Hirono aver, the Democratic standard for sexual-assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made. The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth because the accuser is a woman. The burden is on Mr. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. If he cannot do so, then he is unfit to serve on the Court.

***
This turns American justice and due process upside down. The core tenet of Anglo-American law is that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the accusation. An accuser can’t doom someone’s freedom or career merely by making a charge.

The accuser has to prove the allegation in a court of law or in some other venue where the accused can challenge the facts. Otherwise we have a Jacobin system of justice in which “J’accuse” becomes the standard and anyone can be ruined on a whim or a vendetta.

Potomac Watch Podcast
Brett Kavanaugh and Due Process


Another core tenet of due process is that an accusation isn’t any more or less credible because of the gender, race, religion or ethnicity of who makes it. A woman can lie, as the Duke lacrosse players will tell you. Ms. Hirono’s standard of credibility by gender would have appalled the civil-rights campaigners of a half century ago who marched in part against Southern courts that treated the testimony of black Americans as inherently less credible than that of whites. Yet now the liberal heirs of those marchers want to impose a double standard of credibility by gender.

Here you can read the whole thing: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presum ... 1537570627

[Marie]

I think she's a mental case.

Then why won't Trump and the J-Cmte let the FBI investigate Ford's claim and DISPROVE IT. (FBI scrutiny certainly worked in Clarence Thomas's and Bill Clinton's favor, back in the day.)

That's one thing that convinces me she's on the level: they don't want anyone looking into this too deeply. Plus they're hiring a PR guy to put out false theories to muddy the water -- what's THAT about???

Her marriage counselor and whoever gave her the polygraph should be called as witnesses before the committee b/c it's on the record, she recounted the incident in therapy four years ago. Obvs it was interfering w/her marriage enough that she sought counseling. And in those sessions she identified Kav by name.

Why would she name him in therapy four years ago if it were not true, given the timing? It was doubtful that Kav would ever see the inside of the Supreme Court at that point since Trump wasn't president and Mitch McConnell DIDN'T WANT KAV IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! (Prolly knows he's a creep.)

If you can't overcome those 4 compelling points, Frank, then it looks like you just don't want to believe her.

-Marie-

[Marie]

PS: And let's not forget all the OTHER reasons Kavanaugh has no business being placed on the Supreme Court -- principal among them that he appears to have LIED TO EVERYONE -- incl. the Senate and the FBI -- in previous interviews.

Given his mendacious history Kavanaugh ought not to be a bailiff in Chillicothe Ohio, much less a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I hope he gets impeached -- and then slapped with kidnapping and sexual abuse charges in Maryland. The rosy cheeked, arrogant little sh*t.

-Marie-

[Frank the Crank]

Leland Ingraham Keyser, a long term friend of Ford's, and someone who was alleged to be at the party, denies ever being at a party and has never met Kavanaugh.

It looks like this may not be working out the way Democrats and their allies in the media think it will.
I also wouldn't be all that surprised if this whole thing was a scheme concocted by that miserable old hag Feinstein.

[Marie]

Leland Ingraham Keyser, a long term friend of Ford's . . .

Before I get to that:

Do you understand the idea of a forum, Frank? It's not like Twitter, where you just jump in and shoot off your face and walk away. It's supposed to be a DISCUSSION.

I have responded to your posts with FACTS. As I noted in my last reply, Kavanaugh's trouble didn't just arise with Dr. Ford. There already was the other serious problem of his lies, and unlike Dr. Ford's allegations, Kavanaugh's lies are easily provable.

How do you think the other justices will regard Kavanaugh, should he manage to get through this process, despite everything that is known about him? He wouldn't have the same confidence or stature as the other justices.

He and they would know that he's a fraud and a lightweight. And he may still end up answering to charges in MD. Is that what you want to see? It that good for America?

-Marie-

[Frank the Crank]

Leland Ingraham Keyser, a long term friend of Ford's . . .

Before I get to that:

Do you understand the idea of a forum, Frank? It's not like Twitter, where you just jump in and shoot off your face and walk away. It's supposed to be a DISCUSSION.

I have responded to your posts with FACTS. As I noted in my last reply, Kavanaugh's trouble didn't just arise with Dr. Ford. There already was the other serious problem of his lies, and unlike Dr. Ford's allegations, Kavanaugh's lies are easily provable.

How do you think the other justices will regard Kavanaugh, should he manage to get through this process, despite everything that is known about him? He wouldn't have the same confidence or stature as the other justices.

He and they would know that he's a fraud and a lightweight. And he may still end up answering to charges in MD. Is that what you want to see? It that good for America?

-Marie-

I need not respond to your uninformed opinions. While I believe Ford is a mental case you believe Kavanaugh is a sex criminal.
Our opinions mirror the current debate but please don't pretend that anything you put forward is fact.

[Marie]

Do you understand the idea of a forum, Frank? It's not like Twitter, where you just jump in and shoot off your face and walk away. It's supposed to be a DISCUSSION.

I need not respond to your uninformed opinions. While I believe Ford is a mental case you believe Kavanaugh is a sex criminal.
Our opinions mirror the current debate but please don't pretend that anything you put forward is fact.

Knock off the false equivalency BS, Frank. Everything I've referenced is provable from the record. That's why you don't attempt to answer directly on the facts.

Ford did talk about the event to her counselor, did she not? And if you check Kavanaugh's previous statements against the record, he did lie, anyone who's been following the proceedings is aware of that. There is no statute of limitations in MD regarding sex crimes, that reality is easily and immediately verifiable.

You cannot refute with objective facts anything I've argued. Reality stops you dead in your tracks.

So troll all you want, Frank, you make a poor advocate for the judge. His polling numbers are under water. He is the least popular Supreme Court nominee of the least popular president in the country's history. (In that unfortunate sense, Trump continues to set records. )



-Marie-

[Marie]

See, this why you need to take your time with these matters:

A second woman has come forward -- by name -- to accuse Kavanaugh.

And a third woman has information about Kavanaugh that she wishes to share.

Republicans built a wall of outmoded attitudes against Dr. Ford, but now comes the first crack in that wall. No longer can Kav supporters chant "You're the only one!" at Dr. Ford. Now she has company. And as other women pause during their busy routines to take note of events in the news, how many more will see this story and realize that Kavanaugh was the guy who crossed the line with them when they were back in HS/college?

As the prez is fond of saying, we'll see what happens.....

-Marie-

[Marie]

It's a fact of life: whenever high profile sexual allegations arise, the list of ill-informed statements concerning sex grows. So, while we're debating what someone might have meant by "legitimate rape," could we at least put just one of these exasperating canards to rest?

Women's bodies don't kill rapists' sperm. Women's bodies can't differentiate between one tadpole and another, unfortunately. Over the centuries victorious armies have left thousands of their offspring behind and it's fair to assume these children didn't result from romantic courtships so much as the desire of the victors to leave a legacy of their conquests. If women's bodies could choose which sperm to do away with, the DNA of aggressive enemy soldiers would be at the top of every female anatomy's list.

Once and for all, this ignorance must end.



-Marie-

[Frank the Crank]

“Solzhenitsyn wrote that in the Soviet Union, trials were never to be treated as a matter of the guilt or innocence of the accused, but of furthering the class struggle.”

[Marie]

“Solzhenitsyn wrote that in the Soviet Union, trials were never to be treated as a matter of the guilt or innocence of the accused, but of furthering the class struggle.”

Good for him, Solzhenitsyn was in a position to know what he was talking about. And that's exactly what YOUR PARTY has been up to for the past 45 years, Frank, ("Never mind the facts; this is about what we can get people to believe so we can keep on doing what we're doing" could be the GOP's motto). I'm surprised you haven't made the connection!

PS, if you're trying to apply Solzhenitsyn's criticism to the Senate J-Cmte event scheduled for Thursday, sorry, that event isn't a trial. If it were to be a trial, a thorough pre-trial investigation would have been done and witnesses would be expected to appear. But as we all know, that ain't happening.

-Marie-