Do YOU not understand that expecting an accused person to ask for an FBI investigation into themselves, is friggin ridiculous?
I have seen multiple calls, here, and other places, that Kavenaugh should call on the FBI to investigate him if he wants to clear his name, with the implication being that if he doesn’t, he has something to hide. If I accuse you of not paying your taxes, will you call the IRS to audit yourself?
Back in the day, if you didn’t confess to being a witch, that meant you were a witch. The logical fallacy is similar.
Not at all. If there was a serious allegation against me, and I was innocent, I’d beg for an investigation from an objective third party. I’d be desperate for it, in fact.
Are you saying that you wouldn’t? You’d just be happy with a serious allegation against you, that you know is false, sitting out there, uninvestigated?
AFAICT, the only thing she’s ‘retracted’ is the claim that this incident really happened. If she’s retracted her claim that people at school were talking about an incident that sounded like this, linky please.
‘Investigation’ is one person posting on Facebook?
I mean, I’m all for definitions evolving as usage changes, but this seems a bit … extreme.
No. I’d be outraged by the accusation, flatly deny it, expect the burden of proof to be on the accuser (you know, the way it’s supposed to be), and probably handle this with* much less poise* than Kavenaugh has.
One of the things being negotiated is who should testify first. I think that’s extremely important. I think whoever goes first, “loses”. The advantage of hearing the other’s testimony and modifying yours is huge.
Does anyone think it matters who goes first? Who do you think should go first? Who should decide who goes first? Should whoever went first, be allowed to come back?
Further, should the other witness(es) be allowed to listen to the other’s testimony? (either in person or outside the room through closed-circuit TV).
When a person is accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser, NOT the accused. Were you asleep in civics class, or do you live in a tinpot country where that is not the case?
Yeah, that could be it, sure. Or it could just be you fluting your membership in the elite aristocracy of TPM Prime! Not, of course, to say that TPM is not a font of wisdom and intelligence, without which no citizen can hope to be well-informed…most certainly it is!
But you would do well to emulate the reserved and decorous behavior of other Dopers too modest and demure to publicly announce their elevation to such status! No doubt, there is some pleasure to be had from the rush of admiration and approval that results, but its all a bit unseemly, don’t you think? Or don’t you?
If there is only a first slot and a second slot, I prefer the second slot. But if my co-partisans control the ability to provide me a third slot, I’ll take first and third. I suspect that is what will happen in this case if there is a hearing.
If I were credibly accused of attempted rape, I would certainly hope that the claim would be investigated. If I had the opportunity to have the FBI do the investigation I would certainly take it.
This will not happen to me for several reasons: a) [most important] I have never attempted to rape anyone (giving me an advantage over Kavanaugh). b) If I had attempted to rape anyone I would know about it, because I don’t spend my weekends getting blackout drunk. Finally, possibly as a consequence of (a) and (b), I have never been accused of rape.
But not in connection to anything I’ve said, which is what you implied.
That’s what they all say …
The law does not determine what’s ethical and moral.
SC appointments are very high stakes but are a relatively rare situation and laws are not carved out in connection to issues that might theoretically arise during such proceedings.
I agree. And this will be tailored to Kavanaugh. So he will either go second (and last), or first and third. He will under no circumstance go first only.
That’s an advantage. He’s going to get a lot of these “minor” advantages.
She had enough foresight to hire a lawyer, set up and take a polygraph test, and set up a list of conditions that must be met before she will testify. But not enough to prepare for actually testifying.
She has said that she won’t testify, has no first-hand knowledge, and is not willing to provide details about what she alleged. If it helps, she didn’t retract the claim - she deleted it and said that she has no idea whether or not the incident happened.
“Investigation” is Senate staff contacting her, and finding out what I mentioned.
As I said earlier, nothing will ever be enough. But enough is enough, eventually, for reasonable folks. Whether or not Democrats will admit this remains to be seen.
Burden of proof is about judicial proceedings and stupid Internet arguments. It isn’t about a person’s reputation. See, for example, OJ Simpson.
If someone ever accused you of doing something really bad, and you’re content with much of the world thinking that it is maybe/probably/definitely true even if you aren’t sent to jail or whatever, that’s your choice to make. It just boggles my mind that given very serious accusations, a person would prefer to not put the matter to bed, but instead rely on a principle and in so doing risk living the rest of your life with a cloud over your head…
Do you think setting a list of conditions to testify takes approximately the same amount of time as preparing to actually testify? Because I think I could do the first in 15 minutes.The latter might take me more time, but you may have better time management skills than me.
It will be determined, by a vote of eleven to ten, that a victim of a witch hunt facing the prospect of being broken on the wheel due to the scurrilous accusations of some hussy (who is likely no better than she should be)… That such a blameless soul deserves every advantage to present his case.