Nobody believes that a Republican would hear of a credible allegation of sexual misconduct by a rising conservative star, and would want that allegation investigated instead of covered up, even if it meant the rising star would fall?
Sadly, I agree: the chances that a Republican leaked this letter are near zero.
Sorry for the delay in responding. My problem with these types of cases, whether in the political arena or outside of it, is that there is typically no way of proving the truthfulness or falsity of the allegation because it typically: 1) happened in private with no witnesses, 2) happened some time ago, and 3) unlike in a murder case, there is and will never be any physical evidence. As we have seen in this case, these allegations will almost always be he said, she said with people on each side bringing their own subjective judgments to the table and believing one side or the other based upon their own personal biases and experiences, whether fair or not.
Now, I have female relatives; I absolutely do not want them sexually assaulted. I also do not want to be falsely accused of sexual assault. This presents a very difficult issue which as a civilized people we need to have a level head and come to a positive solution of how to solve this conundrum.
Of course, we do not do that. First, the left makes it a point that we should always believe “the victim.” Well, we haven’t determined that there is a victim! This poisons the well. I’ve been in pretrial conferences where even the judge is saying “the victim.” If she is a victim, judge, then we can all go home except for my guy!
Also, if she is a victim, then we should definitely believe her!
When this is pointed out, the left changes the statement to that she needs to “be heard.” What does that even mean? Anyone who alleges a crime is “heard.” What it means is that there are special rules for sexual assault allegations in that, because of the problems listed above, we don’t demand precision from an accuser.
We don’t demand time (even the year), place, or any corroboration other than the testimony of the accuser. There is no way to test the story because any inconsistencies are explained away. She remembers all of the details? What a brave woman and a solid witness. She forgets key details? That is typical of sexual assault victims.
She marches in and looks the accused in the eye? Bravery. Something really did happen to her. She slinks in and refuses to look the accused in the eye. She has suffered trauma. After what that man did to her, how can she be expected to look her in the eye? If she cries, she is remembering the trauma. If she does not cry, she has shown bravery and empowerment and she will not let that man revictimize her!
Missing in all of this is that except in the most extreme cases, an accused cannot ever exonerate himself. He cannot prove, for example, that he was out of town for the three month period of the allegations. His only defense is to merely deny the allegations that the left is already predisposed to believe.
Indeed, let me repost what you said:
Notice what you did there? You went from allegations of sexual assault to a definitive conclusion about people committing sexual assault. All in one paragraph.
So this system is terribly flawed to begin with, but the Democrats have weaponized it into a “playbook,” that if allowed to succeed, will increase false allegations (since, by definition, they will always work unless inherently incredible) and disqualify otherwise good people from high office.
But at least if this works, Kavanaugh might only lose a seat on the Supreme Court. Across the country, men with no access to quality lawyers and quality experts can expect to spend years if not their lives in prison based upon this meaningless standard.
Wow. "the Democrats’ eh? :dubious: Have you forgotten the attacks on Bill Clinton? :rolleyes:
Look, this is *one instance. *Not part of a series. Nothing like this was used vs Gorsuch. Why? Well, *because there’s no such thing as a “Democratic playbook” for sexual accusations. *
The GOP Playbook- The Big Lie: Birtherism. Secret Muslin. Swiftboating. Accusing Hillary of murdering Vince Foster.
The rest of your post is pure rape apology.
You spend paragraph after paragraph detailing what we already know about rape allegations. Yes, they’re hard to establish as true or false. At the same time, we are inclined to believe people who claim they were the victim of a crime. This is a difficult thing, make no mistake - although given that false rape accusations are relatively rare, while actual cases of rape are not, this makes at least some sense. Please note that none of this applies to a trial standard. Nobody here is encouraging people to convict of rape based solely on hearsay! If this were a trial, it’d be an open-and-shut case - Kavanaugh would walk, because, um, duh. Nobody with any power wants that kind of justice.
But as has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread and others, this isn’t a trial. It’s a job interview. Our standard of evidence there is considerably lower.
And then it comes to the actual topic of the thread, and you spend exactly one small paragraph repeating what I already know you believe:
(Bolding mine.) Okay. Fine. You believe this. Now what’s the evidence? What, exactly, are you alleging, and where’s the evidence for it? So far, we’ve seen one recent republican supreme court nominee face accusations of sexual assault. I have to go to (ironically) a job interview so I won’t rehash the last 3 pages here, but… c’mon. The bolded? That’s what I want evidence for. So please, let’s talk about that.
IT’S A FUCKING JOB INTERVIEW, NOT A TRIAL!
Christ, how many times do we have to repeat this? Nobody is saying Kavanaugh should go to jail for this! :mad:
Ad nauseum is right. When was the last time you got sworn in at a job interview?
It would help if people weren’t trying to simultaneously elevate and water down the process at the same time.
OH IT’S THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND.
OH IT’S JUST A JOB INTERVIEW.
…yep! Its just a job interview for a lifetime appointment at the highest court in the land. I’m glad we’ve cleared that up for you.
Well I mean… In context, both of those statements are true and reasonable, even together. This isn’t a court case about whether or not Brett Kavanaugh should go to prison, it’s just a job interview. If he fails the test, his punishment will be only being on the second most important court in the country.
At the same time, its a job interview for a really important job. And like in every job interview, you have the same asymmetry. Getting the wrong guy really sucks, dodging a good candidate just means you bring in the next candidate. The more important the job, the starker this asymmetry.
If it was a job interview, he’d be able to truthfully say that he has no previous convictions or pendimng charges and be done with it.
This was an inquisitorial process. Not that it was a bad thing, but to argue it was not quasi-judicial is disingenious.
It’s a very important job. But the standards of evidence are not what we’d use for a criminal trial or even a civil one. In fact they more or less parallel - a job interview.
In other words, completely arbitrary.
Ok, so let’s say that Kavanaugh is confirmed. Do you think Dems will use the “playbook” again?
And, is it really a playbook if it is used about once every 27 years? I’m just curious why some people think that 1991 was all fabricated, but then the “playbook” was totally ignored for Alito, Gorsuch, and Roberts. And Harriet Miers, while we’re at it. And then suddenly this “playbook” roars back into fashion for one particular nomination in 2018 – after dozens and dozens of very controversial judicial nominations are confirmed over Democratic opposition – and then it is represented as that nobody else will ever be confirmed again to any high position.
This all makes as much sense as the whackadoodles getting obsessed with Obama’s birth certificate, but even they didn’t go the extra step of saying that we will never again have a real American elected to be President because of that.
This thread should really become the “Republican playbook on ignoring/dismissing allegations of sexual harassment, assault, and rape”, since unlike with the Democrats, there actually is a significant trend just in the last couple of years for the Republicans in ignoring and dismissing allegations of sexual harassment, assault, and rape – starting with Trump, then to Roy Moore, and now to Kavanaugh, along with a handful of congressfolks and staffers being shuffled around after such credible allegations.
The Democrats need to pin this to Republicans with every appearance and every ad. This is the party that tolerates sexual assault and rape, to the point that they continue to celebrate a president who bragged about violating the consent of women on multiple occasions.
“The party of sexual assault must be defeated”. That should be the refrain at the end of every TV appearance by a Democratic candidate or office-holder.
Maybe they can get Hillary and Corey Booker to join!
Then on to the other major issues of our day - “The Scourge of Drunk Driving”, a PSA by Beto O’Rourke, “Domestic Violence is Bad” by Keith Ellison, “Why Your Private Health Information is Sacred” by Sheila Jackson Lee. And then a heartfelt address by Maxine Waters on “Respect - It’s for Everyone!”
Regards,
Shodan
What the fuck are you talking about? What are you responding to? What Democrats in office are celebrating someone who bragged about sexual assault and violating consent on multiple occasions? What Democrats in office are fighting against thoroughly investigating any allegations of assault?
Seriously. Cite, please, for what the fuck you’re talking about.
Mm, get Laura Bush instead for maximum impact (no pun intended). After all, O’Rourke never actually killed anyone.
Heh. For somebody who was previously all het up about accusations made against a Republican without what you considered sufficient evidence, you sure seem willing to believe anything bad about a Democrat without even a direct accusation, much less evidence. Just because the guy accused of threatening (and carrying out) doxxing against Republican senators was an intern in Rep. Lee’s office, you jump directly to the conclusion that she herself was responsible for the doxxing threats.
I can give you three names of clients that I am representing in post conviction proceedings that are serving effective life sentences because of uncorroborated accusations. This type of attitude allows that.
Further, I give no credence to these “statistics” regarding false allegations vs. true allegations. What is the science behind it? What counts as false and what counts as true? I’ll bet my three guys count as “true.” As almost all of these cases are based upon uncorroborated allegations, unless God is on the witness stand, such a comparison can never be made, especially when people in the other thread proclaim Ford and Hill’s allegations as “true.”
It definitely seems to be. Simple allegations will lead to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is a rapist, a drunk, and a liar.
My allegations is not that Democrats manufacture sexual assault allegations. Oh, they are certainly looking for them, but the “playbook” is when they find them to pump them up to level 15. Guilty as charged based upon the allegation. Your side declared him guilty when the allegations came out, and some have said that* even if he is innocent*, then fuck him because women have been not believed for too long and we should balance the scales on his back. It is not enough to say that he is too conservative, there must be destruction of him personally and professionally.
Clarence Thomas is Exhibit B. No corroboration. No hard evidence, but again the posters in the other thread are talking about how he might have company on the Supreme Court with Kavanaugh.
Then we have the secondary effects. As I have repeated and is now verified with an investigation, there will be no corroboration of these events, but you get embarrassing dirt on a candidate. Thomas liked his porn. Kavanaugh liked his beer. Your side also smears and taunts in the media for weeks until both Thomas and Kavanaugh lashed out at their accusers. OMG, they don’t have the temperament to be judges!!! It’s almost like beating a dog with a baseball bat for an hour straight and then when he snaps at you, complain about how vicious the dog is. Let’s make something stick because the goal is to keep this person off of the Court no matter who we hurt in the process.
And, again, yes, it IS a job interview. But what are the standards of a job interview? No standards? Perfection? No beer in college? A mere accusation means no job for you? I hope you don’t have someone in your past with an axe to grind.
:dubious: Hey, if Obama and Hillary Clinton can handle it, so can they, right? I really don’t think conservatives have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about “smears and taunts in the media”, not after their constant frenzied savaging of Obama and Clinton (to name just a couple examples).
Wow. 1991 and now 2018. Thirty years or so.
“Playbook”? Must be awful dusty.
So let’s say that Ginsburg retires or dies and Trump gets to appoint a 3rd SCOTUS nominee. And Democrats discover that this nominee, too, also has a history of sexual misconduct. Is there a way they could bring such accusations forward without people accusing them of running a sexual-assault-playbook/routine?
For as long as the discussion about this human stain lasts.
It kills their argument. It kills it dead. Therefore, they can’t acknowledge it. They can’t see it, they can’t hear it, they can’t admit it into their reality to the greatest extent possible. If they do, it’s over: They either have to admit that they don’t want to hold Republican nominees to any kind of human standard, or they admit that they’re utterly unwilling to believe women when they come forwards about rape and sexual assault. Possibly both. Probably both, taking the totality of the state the GOP is in right now into account.
This is the Republican Heart of Darkness, and the Heart of Darkness is decadent and depraved.