• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Kavanaugh sworn in

CH lucky you're not jury and executioner. Would you like to nuke Kavanaugh?

Juanita Broaddrick just posted: "Democrats just "move on" and jump on the bandwagon of sketchy allegations against Kavanaugh, without accepting the egregiousness of turning their backs on the victims of Bill Clinton"



Ford ‘accepts’ request to testify about alleged Kavanaugh assault, lawyers request Thursday hearing

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...assault-lawyers-request-thursday-hearing.html

Christine Blasey Ford on Saturday said she accepts the Senate Judiciary Committee’s request to testify about an alleged sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, although the terms of any testimony were not clear as of mid-afternoon.

In a letter to the committee, Ford’s lawyers said that she “accepts” the request to provide “her first-hand knowledge of Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct next week” after Republicans on the committee set a 2:30 p.m. deadline for her to say whether or not she would testify. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, had said a vote would go ahead if Ford did not respond by the deadline.
 
Yes. But if that law is "throw anyone in the gulag who one of our millions of informants says something about" then I don't think ANYONE she be bound by the law.
ok.

in that case, kavanaugh's appointment should concern you, his position on presidential power in particular:

in an article for the minnesota law review he wrote that congress should pass a law to exempt a sitting president from criminal prosecution or investigation.

if you're a sitting president who's currently under investigation, i imagine a bench candidate with this kind of view would be quite attractive :\

alasdair
 
ok.

in that case, kavanaugh's appointment should concern you, his position on presidential power in particular:

in an article for the minnesota law review he wrote that congress should pass a law to exempt a sitting president from criminal prosecution or investigation.

if you're a sitting president who's currently under investigation, i imagine a bench candidate with this kind of view would be quite attractive :\

alasdair

The "criminal prosecution" part is good because you'd end up with some jackass DA in a small town bringing up the president on bogus charges.


Edit: And the way to hold the president accountable in impeachment.
 
Once this Russia "investigation" gets accepted as proven BS then there should be unanimous support for it.
 
Yes it was hyperbole, but according to you Kavanaugh is an "attempted rapist" (thread title) which is slander because it has not been proven.

Shouldn't rape attempts result in prison?

Also I could very easily get some random woman to call YOU a rapist and start a thread titled "Captain.Heroin is a rapist" and the thread would be deleted, but it would have as much to stand on as your thread title.

Again, you didn't go to law school, so let's use dictionaries.

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

The statement has to be knowingly false when said. Everything I've been hearing and reading and seeing indicates what I'm saying is the truth.

CH lucky you're not jury and executioner. Would you like to nuke Kavanaugh?

Juanita Broaddrick just posted: "Democrats just "move on" and jump on the bandwagon of sketchy allegations against Kavanaugh, without accepting the egregiousness of turning their backs on the victims of Bill Clinton"



Ford ‘accepts’ request to testify about alleged Kavanaugh assault, lawyers request Thursday hearing

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...assault-lawyers-request-thursday-hearing.html


I appreciate the CNN video link; I watched this live yesterday and was flabbergasted about how these women talked about the issue. It is important to see real Americans voice their opinions and I appreciate that CNN desires an unbiased news story so they go above and beyond the call of duty to gather different points of perspective.
 
The "criminal prosecution" part is good because you'd end up with some jackass DA in a small town bringing up the president on bogus charges.
so you agree that the sitting president should not be able to be the defendant in a criminal prosecution. you are, therefore saying, while in office, he should be - at least temporarily - above the law.

alasdair
 
sure he can. but if what you're saying can be proven to be true, you'll have an excellent chance of winning.

alasdair

Wouldn't it be highly impractical?

And there would be a laundry list of 10,000 other people who have said worse things about him, like the death threats...etc. Perhaps he could file a libel suit against the accuser, if he was innocent.
 
so you agree that the sitting president should not be able to be the defendant in a criminal prosecution. you are, therefore saying, while in office, he should be - at least temporarily - above the law.

alasdair

Yes, I already said my answer to that, I'm not answering every question you ask after I have already given an answer. You have done this multiple times in this thread, I'm assuming because it's frustrating in debate to repeatedly answer questions, that have already been covered, asked in bad faith.
 
just trying to understand as your comments appear to contradict each other.

alasdair

They don't, impeachment is being held accountable, and it's the only reasonable option for the President, unless you think (for example) a woman should be able to file charges in, say Maryland that the president did something 40 years ago (but she's not sure exactly what) and have a compliant DA push the charges forward and have the president arrested.

You realize there would be bi-weekly coups under this arrangement?
 
On Thursday, the student newspaper published a January, 1985 photo of Kavanaugh’s DKE frat brothers holding a flag created with women’s underwear and bras as they marched across campus. Kavanaugh, reportedly a sophomore member of the frat at the time, does not appear in the image.

Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party when they were both in high school. He has denied the allegations, and a wide range of defenders have claimed there is nothing in his character indicating he would have assaulted the then-15-year-old Ford in the early 1980s.

Kavanaugh’s supporters include female Yale classmates who wrote in an Aug. 30 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Kavanaugh respected women and backed female athletes at the school, reports the Yale Daily News

Great article. However, other than the quotes I kept, what of it points directly to Kavenaugh? And of the quotes, none of it is a bad reflection on him. Quite the contrary, the only negative on him the article might shed is that he as part of a frat where guys did this. Nowhere does anyone say he did this stuff. Just the opposite, in fact. Is that what you hoped to prove with it?

Guys I don't know where you get off on representing such a fucking creep. All the Kavanaugh fanboys are like fucking Giuliani representing Trump, scumbags loving scumbags for how evil and awful they are as individuals. Disgusting.

...

I mean if this is the best the Republicans can come up with, it makes you all look like fucking soulless monsters. At least Al Franken had the decency and professionalism to step down when that photo came out and that looked SO INNOCENT. I didn't give a shit about that, that's just funny goofing off stuff. Totally blown out of proportion.

Other than this one woman's accusation, in opposition of all the women who have worked for him or known him in some capacity saying it cannot be true, where is one damn thing saying Kavenaugh is a 'fucking creep'? That's a label YOU apply, from your perspective, making judgments on an accusation and no other substance. You're fully entitled to have your view of others, and base it on your experience. But this is a disappointing exercise if you are willing to do so without sound reason. He may very well be a scumbag, but to date, aside from this one woman, everyone says the opposite. I'd love to hear what else you use to form that opinion.

Hell, if a photo came out like with Franken, I think you'd see Kavenaugh cave in a heartbeat and the rest of us shame him to hell. So far, no such proof has been given, so it remains one person's statement against many. And if a photo came out for Franken that looked SO INNOCENT is just funny goofing around shit...how are you taking an accusation with nothing behind it with such profound outrage? This is odd, IMO. It is almost on par with sj's anti-Trump bias how you can sit there and roll off the tongue with "scumbags loving scumbags for how evil and awful they are as individuals. Disgusting." When, to date, there is no such thing painting Kav in this light beyond this one woman's accusation.

And, do you honestly think the Dems wouldn't have done this to ANY candidate that was put forth? C'mon, man. You have to know better. It doesn't matter who is up for nomination, Dems are going to play this game without a care in the world who gets destroyed in the process. Watch the same thing happen if/when another candidate is put forth.

Guys, a non-druggie isn't going to sign up on a board to argue he didn't do what he knows what he did was wrong. He's just going to stick to the once-over official lie, which is easy enough for any sociopath to cough up on camera with the pretty facial gestures that match up with empathy and truth telling.

If you are shouting NO COLLUSION ten thousand times, there was obviously collusion. Kavanaugh is phenomenally smarter than Trump, even if they are both equally as twisted sexually and morally.

You're absolutely right. This site is NOT the place someone like a SC candidate is going to spend their time, much less attempt to defend themselves when they've got all of congress (and a good part of the free world) waiting for him to answer the accusation. He ain't coming 'round here.

Btw, if you are shouting COLLUSION ten thousand times, doesn't mean there was collusion either. Just sayin', let the facts reflect the reality, because opinions cannot suffice in their place. I do think Kav is smarter than Trump, at least in how to handle public attacks on his character, but I've yet to see anything where Kav is 'twisted sexually and morally'. Still, love to know what you are forming that opinion upon.


Look, Trump had five people he chose from. The only two that were morally corrupt and against the Constitution were Kavanaugh and that creepy looking Catholic woman (something with a B? Can't recall her name). Three other picks would have been fine. But typical Trump, he picks the guy who will be his most vocal supporter the day he tries to overthrow the American government, should that day come.

Are you from the CH school of judging others? Because, if you've got some morally corrupt info on Kav, I haven't seen it (though, I'll admit only getting up on this topic in the last few days, so don't take it as me playing ignorant, I'm certifiable in some instances, so such evidence is welcome if it enlightens me). But again, do you think any of the other four candidates would have been spared similar accusations? Seriously?

Yes it was hyperbole, but according to you Kavanaugh is an "attempted rapist" (thread title) which is slander because it has not been proven.

Also I could very easily get some random woman to call YOU a rapist and start a thread titled "Captain.Heroin is a rapist" and the thread would be deleted, but it would have as much to stand on as your thread title.

It's the new normal on most political discussion forums. I've seen it from both the left and the right, so it isn't a 'one side (only) does this' kinda thing. Supporters from both sides take partial information from a 'news' article and put it up as 'fact' then title the thread with something that paints the article in an even stronger light in support of their position. It's just the way the world is today.

Again, you didn't go to law school, so let's use dictionaries.

The statement has to be knowingly false when said. Everything I've been hearing and reading and seeing indicates what I'm saying is the truth.

I appreciate the CNN video link; I watched this live yesterday and was flabbergasted about how these women talked about the issue. It is important to see real Americans voice their opinions and I appreciate that CNN desires an unbiased news story so they go above and beyond the call of duty to gather different points of perspective.

And...you HAVE gone to law school? You wouldn't have to go to law school to know the title is flawed...but you don't care. More accurate would be "Kavenaugh is accused of being an attempted rapist" (not sure if accused should be capitalized like you feel Attempted Rapist should be). Still, it is just an accusation until there is actual proof that the event happened, and that HE was the guy that was there and did this. But are the actual facts irrelevant to the point being made, that he is a Failed Rapist? This seems to be your perspective, more power to you, I suppose.
 
so you agree that the sitting president should not be able to be the defendant in a criminal prosecution. you are, therefore saying, while in office, he should be - at least temporarily - above the law.

alasdair

I'll bite. I'll admit not knowing all the working procedures of the American government. I'd appreciate any education you can point me to on the matter, if you know something that fits your question. Intuitively, I would suspect that we haven't gone 200yrs as a country without having some procedures in place, like separation of powers to prevent a president from biasing the reach of the executive branch in a way that protects him or attacks his opponents...despite my hearing how Obama did this extensively, and now Trump is doing the same...there has to be rules in place aren't there? And if there are reasons for a sitting president to be a defendent in a criminal prosecution, aren't there systems and procedures in place to address this? What is the rule of law today on this matter? And how is it being applied? How is Kav's position relevant in changing these procedures? I understand there is the article Kav wrote for the Minn Law which several are holding up as "Kav is too much in favor of protecting Trump". Odd part of that one is that he wrote it 2009, well in advance of Trump ever considering running for President. Odd, how that is NOW something that makes him in favor of protecting Trump...despite it being written when Trump wasn't part of the thought process - more of a personal opinion on Kav's part relevant to the office of the president, regardless of who sits there (noting it was Obama in office at the time). Odd, huh?
 
Except it isn't an FBI matter. It's local police. It wasn't by a federal employee and wasn't on federal property (or maybe it was if she ever remembers anything)

Ooh. Snarky and wrong!

Can you explain why so I know better for next time then

The FBI doesn't do sex cases. Also, if she has provided zero specifics, time, location, they have zero useful information to run an investigation.

I'm still waiting for ANYONE to answer why, or even how, the FBI should be doing an investigation...

anyoned-anyone-isc-bueller-bueller-36072257.png


It is a cynical ploy to hold off on the vote until after midterms, and this stunt could cause a red wave.

I believe this is the case. But what I believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is the facts, and the truth as best we can discern it.

well It is "standard practice" to not confirm nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year anyway, so they kinda have to hold off on confirming him... and i seem to remember there being a big stink about how a president under FBI investigation shouldnt be able to nominate anyone anyway, as they're unfit to be president...

I hope you're not proposing we wait until the next Presidential election in 2020 to fill the vacancy. Because that's what you're pointing to, a lame duck president not getting to nominate. As to holding off while a President is under investigation by the FBI...yeah, I can support that. I mean, the SC is a lifetime appointment. I can see wanting to avoid someone getting appointed by a president who is shortly impeached and imprisoned (calling that a lack of judgement capability is understated, lol). But how long has the investigation into collusion been going on? And how close are we to getting rid of Trump? How likely is it, based on everything that's been brought to light by this date? Or, are we just to sit tight while he is under investigation for the duration of his term? God forbid there is nothing brought against him, he gets re-elected, and remains under investigation.


yep. the merrick garland hypocrisy here on the part of the republicans is clear.

alasdair

My ignorance is on display with this one. Despite having name recognition, I had no idea what the story is associated with the name, so I looked it up (thanks!). From here, it appears both parties have played political games with nominees for the past few decades - even referred to it as The Biden Rule (Democrat, is he not?). Again, not saying one side is better than another, nor that both playing games makes it acceptable (to me, it is deplorable). But given the path the subject of nominees has travelled to date, it doesn't appear it will get any better. Anyone have suggestions, realistic ones that could be explored, to address this and streamline nominations again (when NOT being railroaded into place by whichever party is in majority)?
 
Apparently Kavanaugh's school had a rapey clique and culture...according to over 1,000 lyin' women and men (see bold below):

[h=1]'The stories of our lives': Prep school alumni hear echoes in assault claim[/h]

...

"We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect," read the letter, from women who attended schools including Visitation, Stone Ridge and Holton-Arms.

This story is based on interviews with two dozen former students, many of whom asked not to be identified because of how tightly knit and powerful the alumni from those schools are, and because they fear retribution or harassment for speaking out on the allegations engulfing Kavanaugh's nomination.

...


In July, more than 150 Georgetown Prep graduates wrote a letter of support that extolled Kavanaugh as a friend and leader, saying, in part, "We unite in our common belief that Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is a good man, a brilliant jurist, and is eminently qualified to serve as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court."

So, again, aside from the quotes I kept, there was nothing in there negative against Kav. Please correct me if I missed some. Instead, anything directly addressing Kav are positive and supportive. I abhor selective quoting, and would welcome anyone to correct me if that's what I'm doing. But I'm not seeing anything negative on Kav from this.

What I do take from this article is that the early 80's and this geographic area specifically, were rife with teenage parties involving alcohol and sexually aggressive teenage men, and a culture where women wouldn't come forward seek justice if attacked. Quite a sad state, but I don't doubt it in the least. But what it presents from those willing to speak is different from Ms. Ford in the following ways:

Bettina Lanyi remembers. It was 1986, and she was in eighth grade. She and a friend went to a house in Washington's Tenleytown neighborhood packed with high school kids, including a throng of boys from Gonzaga College High School and Georgetown Preparatory School. There was a lot of beer. A few fights broke out. Lanyi recalls being pawed and kissed. It freaked her out. She hadn't been drinking, but her friend, also an eighth-grader, had.

Lanyi turned around to see a large freshman from one of the schools lying on top of her friend. Lanyi, then a petite 13-year-old, shoved the boy and kicked him. The boy was surprised and appealed to Lanyi to let him continue. "I'll never get her number otherwise," he told her. She took her friend and left.

This is not the person attacked, but her friend. And her friend can recall from 35 yrs ago with clarity WHERE this occurred, WHO was there, that fights had broken out, that she HAD NOT been drinking but that her friend had, and that she and her friend were in the 8th grade as it was 1986. She can recall exactly what the boy said to her that night. Ford cannot recall WHERE she was, WHO was there (she also named PJ, who claims he was not there), that the boy(s) who attacked her were drunk (no mention of her sobriety), none of the words that were spoken by anyone, or WHEN it occurred (not even what year with any accuracy).

Your article goes to great lengths to paint teenage society at that point in time as ripe for Ms. Ford to have been assaulted. I'm reaching a point where I believe it very well may have occurred, even without her providing details to support the event. It seems to have been occuring regularly, and it is possible she was one of the victims. That it happened, and that Kav did it, are two separate statements. I still have yet to see or hear anything pinning this on Kav.

Back to broad brush painting of a group of people to put the singular person in a bad light. Two can play that game:

WHY CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD?S HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS WERE SCRUBBED: Faculty Approved Racism, Binge Drinking and Promiscuity

On Monday Sept. 17th, Christine Blasey Ford?s high school yearbooks suddenly disappeared from the web. I read them days before, knew they would be scrubbed, and saved them. Why did I know they would be scrubbed? Because if roles were reversed, and Christine Blasey Ford had been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Trump, the headline by the resistance would be this:

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND THE DRUNKEN WHITE PRIVILEGED RACIST PLAYGIRLS OF HOLTON-ARMS.

And it would be an accurate headline. That?s why the yearbooks have been scrubbed. They are a testament to the incredible power these girls had over their teachers, parents and the boys of Georgetown Prep, Landon and other schools in the area. In the pages below, you will see multiple photos and references to binge drinking and the accompanying joy of not being able to remember any of it.

These yearbooks are, therefore, relevant to the national investigation now being conducted in the media, in homes, and in the halls of Congress. And they should not have been scrubbed. If Brett Kavanaugh?s yearbooks are fair game, so are these.

And you will wonder while reading them, why the hell did the faculty approve of these yearbooks? Why did the parents take out paid ads in these yearbooks? Animal House had nothing on the infamous ?Holton party scene?.

The resistance media has been singularly focused on Brett Kavanaugh?s high school yearbooks, which imply that he got drunk and threw up. There?s no need to imply anything from the Holton-Arms yearbooks. It?s all there in focus, and the written word too. All of the sordid details as approved for publication by a ?look the other way? faculty. And now it?s available for historical/evidentiary review.

It is to this wild Holton culture we must look in order to shed light on the last minute accusation by Christine Blasey. And in the official high school chronicles of this era, we find many names of people who can provide relevant evidence.

Christine ?Chrissy? Blasey alleges she cannot recall the exact date, place or names of people who were at the party in question. This research is intended to refresh her recollection and the recollections of others who may recall key facts. (In this report, last names have been redacted and faces obscured, other than the picture of Chrissy Blasey seen below.)

The yearbook title is SCRIBE. The relevant issues are SCRIBE 82, SCRIBE 83 and SCRIBE 84, corresponding to Blaseys?s sophomore, junior and senior years, when she and her classmates (and Kavanaugh) were 15-17 year old juveniles.

While preparing this report, I came across a biased viral article from Heavy.com that portrays Christine Blasey and Holton-Arms as the very essence of high school purity. As for the school itself, when Blasey attended it, nothing could be further from the truth, as you will see below.

Brett Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Prep, graduating in the class of ?83. Blasey graduated from Holton-Arms in the class of ?84. The Georgetown Prep boys are mentioned affectionately multiple times in these brazen yearbooks.

HOLTON FACULTY APPROVED BINGE DRINKING

Scribe 84 is the yearbook for her senior year. Her name was Christine Blasey in high school, often referred to as ?Chrissy?. In the image below, Blasey is pictured at a Halloween party in her junior year. The caption on the right says:

?Lastly one cannot fail to mention the climax of the junior social scene, the party. Striving to extend our educational experience beyond the confines of the classroom, we played such intellectually stimulating games as Quarters, Mexican Dice and everyone?s favorite, Pass-Out, which usually resulted from the aforementioned two.?




The Halloween party pictured above would have taken place within sixteen weeks of the alleged assault, which Blasey claims happened in the Summer of ?82, after her sophomore year.


10th grade seems to have been a ritual initiation into the ?Holton party scene?. Another sophomore girl threw multiple all night benders, the highlight of which featured a male erotic dancer in gold g-string:


[SCRIBE 84, pgs. 144-145, looking back on Blasey?s sophomore & junior years ]

1982 was a particularly wild year and Scribe 82 published multiple pictures of minors drinking heavily, beer cans stacked up, liquor repeatedly glorified, "boys, beer and ?the ?Zoo? atmosphere?. The caption on the right side of the image mocks the faculty and parents, ?Come on, you?re really too young to drink.?



Numerous passages in the yearbooks discuss the drunken keg parties held while parents were away from home:



Scribe 83 joyfully recalls partying with the boys from Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh?s high school. The editors captioned a collage of alcohol themed photos as follows:

?In case you weren?t into the Holton party scene, here is a brief glimpse at one of the calmer get-togethers.?






FACULTY APPROVED RACSIM AT HOLTON-ARMS

Another disturbing aspect of these yearbooks is evidence of overt racism therein. I debated long and hard as to whether to include the following pages. But it?s important that we closely examine the privileged Holton-Arms culture while Christine Blasey was a student there.

Seeing such insensitive racism in action at this prestigious girls academy, attended by mostly white rich girls, provides context of the very privileged attitude exhibited by the Holton-Arms all female student body. That the Holton girls got these yearbooks approved by faculty and paid for by their parents shows just how powerful they were in their own right at such a young age.

And the fact that Holton-Arms had these yearbooks scrubbed from the web - just as Christine Blasey Ford came forward with her allegation against Brett Kavanaugh - proves that they still know how to dominate. In doing so, they prevented the nation from weighing relevant facts. This is why I have chosen to include the following ugliness in the report.

The image below is taken from Scribe 84, Blasey?s senior year edition of Scribe. There are two very disturbing examples of racism in it. Bottom right hand corner:

?At Cheryl?s multi-class party?[Redacted name] came as an uncanny Buckwheat, although she washed the makeup and afro off before the guys showed up.?



You may be thinking that it was just one mean girl being insensitive, not reflective of the greater Holton-Arms society at large. But when we expand the page the caption was taken from, at the top is a black girl with an afro. This is one of the very few images found in those yearbooks featuring an African-American. It does not seem like a coincidence, but rather a probative example of Holton culture.



Now scan the previous caption from pg.150 of Scribe 84, this time down the left side. The editors discuss a house party where, ?we were confronted by?a pair of veiled terrorists, [two redacted names], were the guns real or did you just want to get served first??

Then turn back to pg. 148, where the two Holton girls are pictured in makeshift burqas, holding automatic pistols:


Also note that at the bottom of the caption above, the girls mention their male conquests with great pride:

?No longer confining ourselves to the walls of Landon and Prep, we plunged into the waters of St. John and Gonzaga with much success.?

FACULTY APPROVED SEXUAL PROMISCUITY

Scribe 82, pg. 260, shows racy images, including three minors dressed provocatively as Playboy bunnies. The caption states:

?Beach week culminated the year for those of us lucky enough to go. With school and our minds in temporary recess, we were able to release all those troubling inhibitions of the past year. While dancing in the middle of coastal Highway, Ann [redacted last name] and friends picked up some men who passed out in their apartment??

Read the whole page. It has some weird Hitler jokes as well.



Now we turn to the final sentiments from Scribe 84, Chrissy Blasey?s senior year at Holton-Arms. Page 261 gives the parting sentiment of her six-year Holton experience. There are two relevant quotes. The first characterizes the senior girls as sexual predators upon younger boys:

?Other seniors preferred to expand their horizons and date younger men, usually sophomores, who could bring the vitality and freshness of innocence to a relationship.?

The Holton girls clearly portray themselves as the sexual predators here.





LET?S TALK ABOUT MEMORY

In conclusion, please look again at the page above. In the final passage, the joy of passing out and forgetting everything you did the night before is praised:

?And there were always parties to celebrate any occasion. Although these parties are no doubt unforgettable, they are only a memory lapse for most, since loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene.?

Personal note, I know nothing of the source I cited, but even I can read in fairness at how there is bias in the writing. The reference to 'condoned racism' is laughable, IMO. A girl dressed as Buckwheat? C'mon, that was a prime SNL character of that era portrayed by Eddie Murphy - pop culture would have afforded it room to be copied, especially in an era that wasn't as hyper sensitive and overly protective of others like we are today. It can be viewed as racism from today's lens, but in that time, it was not viewed that way, or even conceived of being viewed that way. A reach, IMO, by the author, which shades the presentation of facts in the direction they prefer things to be viewed. Still, the fact that the yearbook material was scrubbed from the web begs the question WHY? And by WHOM?

Nowhere does it point to Ford as being a regular at these types of parties, nor that she was a drinker, or part of any of this debauchery. It was the norm for HS at the time (I'm not saying it is acceptable), and if not common to ALL the kids, it was certainly favored by some small groups. Even the article CDuggs quoted made effort to mention repeatedly it was not ALL boys behaving this way but a select small group who felt priveliged and untouchable, it seems. Similarly, I would expect the girls HS would have a small group living this way, and there is no mention that Ford, specifically, was part of that group. But I'd ask anyone saying, or even assuming, that Kav was part of the bad boy group would have to equally entertain that Ford was part of the bad girl group. My point here is that this was happening, both were there at the time, and both could have been invovled in such activities (one, either, or both)...but right now we have nothing saying either was. Nothing, except her vague memory of being accosted and believing it was Kav. The likelihood she was attacked is high. The likelihood it was Kav is low. The proof of either is nil at this point.
 
I've admired your posts in here to date, and really wanted to come back to this:

Also, the requirement of the law to exercise a presumption of innocence in no way requires the public to do so in casual discourse. Let alone assume it beyond reasonable doubt.

The standard of evidence should reflect the consequences. The consequence of going to jail is very high so the standard must be high. The consequence of people thinking you're a rapist is lower so the standard show be lower. And the consequence of not getting an extremely important job isn't that high either so neither should the evidence be.

For example, I would say that a plausible accusation of sexual assault should probably be sufficient cause to deny you a job working with children.

This idea that there is only one standard is outright false, and the idea that everyone and everything must be bound to it simply silly.

It's like people have taken the standard of evidence beyond reasonable doubt from the legal system and applied it to everything. In spite of the fact that even the actual legal system doesn't apply that standard for everything. If someone takes you to small claims court you're not gonna be assumed innocent beyond reasonable doubt. You're gonna get a preponderance of the evidence standard. Which means if the judge determines your guilt as any higher than 50%, in other words just more likely than not, that's satisfactory evidence of your wrong doing and you will lose.

Low consequences, low standard.

You are dead on in that this is NOT a legal exercise in the sense there are no charges and no prison terms staring anyone in the face (at least, not yet, there could be later if evidence surfaces). In another forum, someone was arguing that the defendant doesn't have to take the stand to answer these accusations, but it was pointed out (by someone of legal background, but more notably in Kav's corner rather than the Dems) that this is NOT a court of law. It is a SC nomination under consideration by the Senate (completely different environment and rules). He has to answer for accusations of this nature. But it only makes sense that he has to testify AFTER the details are provided by the accuser in order for him to be able to respond. Her lawyers asked for HIM to give testimony first, which simply is not how things work, at all, anywhere, ever.

One counter to this

The standard of evidence should reflect the consequences. The consequence of going to jail is very high so the standard must be high. The consequence of people thinking you're a rapist is lower so the standard show be lower. And the consequence of not getting an extremely important job isn't that high either so neither should the evidence be.

that I would put forth is that this is not 'getting an extremely important job' for the individual. Yes, it likely is for him personally, but this position is important to the nation as a whole. It's much bigger in terms of what it means for America over the coming years than it does for him as an individual. For that, the requirement of evidence should be pretty damned high. But this isn't a court hearing with a judge and jury, it's a senate hearing where those on the committee will cast their votes according to what they believe. Or, as we may sadly find out, they vote according to party interest over America's interest (and I say that in regard to BOTH parties).
 
I've admired your posts in here to date, and really wanted to come back to this:



You are dead on in that this is NOT a legal exercise in the sense there are no charges and no prison terms staring anyone in the face (at least, not yet, there could be later if evidence surfaces). In another forum, someone was arguing that the defendant doesn't have to take the stand to answer these accusations, but it was pointed out (by someone of legal background, but more notably in Kav's corner rather than the Dems) that this is NOT a court of law. It is a SC nomination under consideration by the Senate (completely different environment and rules). He has to answer for accusations of this nature. But it only makes sense that he has to testify AFTER the details are provided by the accuser in order for him to be able to respond. Her lawyers asked for HIM to give testimony first, which simply is not how things work, at all, anywhere, ever.

One counter to this



that I would put forth is that this is not 'getting an extremely important job' for the individual. Yes, it likely is for him personally, but this position is important to the nation as a whole. It's much bigger in terms of what it means for America over the coming years than it does for him as an individual. For that, the requirement of evidence should be pretty damned high. But this isn't a court hearing with a judge and jury, it's a senate hearing where those on the committee will cast their votes according to what they believe. Or, as we may sadly find out, they vote according to party interest over America's interest (and I say that in regard to BOTH parties).

Her lawyer demanded a show trial. Here's how it would work.
Kavanaugh testifies.
Ford's lawyer/legal team take some time to put together a statement that will be an effective response to what he said.
It's a complete joke of a proposal they knew would be rejected.
Ford will likely not testify due to the danger of perjuring herself, since there are two witnesses (Kavanaugh and Mark Judge) who deny the claim, and zero other evidence.
The real danger is the pathetic Republicans letting them delay, delay, delay until they can cook up other people to point the figure at Kavanaugh, or get to the month of October without the vote which would mean Kavanaugh will have to sit out for the next session.

If this is how the legal system worked the conviction rate would be nearly 100%, without plea deals.

And I agree both parties have been selling out the country since roughly the time of JFKs murder. That's why I voted for Trump, he was not a member of this club full of snakes.
 
Top