I agree with everything you said. I’m not sure what they expect guys in your position to do by taking the allegation “seriously” and “investigating” it. It is a cop out to refuse to answer the ultimate question of whether they believe that bald allegations are enough to imprison,fire, refuse to hire, or do whatever to an accused.
You can only do so much. You cannot recreate what happened in a hotel room in 2004 and give them any better answers than they already have.
We don’t know what an investigation will turn up, that’s why we would like to see an investigation, so that we know what an investigation will turn up.
As I said in the Kavanaugh threads about an investigation, is that an investigation is actually going to favor the accused more than the accuser in such a situation, as it is unlikely to turn up anything really corroborating the story, but it may very well uncover attempts at fabricating the story.
But, what it seems to me that you are saying here is that we should form our opinions as to the actions before we have as much information as we can have. There is no need to have the investigators tell anyone an opinion to have, that’s not their job. Their job is to give facts, not opinions. And you are asking people to form opinions without facts.
Do you tell the jury to make up their mind before they are given the facts?
You have your answer as to whether or not bald allegations are enough to imprison,fire, refuse to hire, or do whatever to an accused, and the answer is: No, they are not. But, they are enough to look more into the situation.
You just refuse to accept that answer, for what reason, I do not understand. Maybe because it doesn’t fit in with the mental picture you have of your political opponents or something?
I am a lawyer. Loach, I believe, is a police officer who investigates these types of crimes.
My point is, and Loach can possibly opine as well, that no, you do not investigate every allegation of a crime. Resources are limited and priorities have to be set. If before the investigation it is determined that it is unlikely to be fruitful, then you devote the manpower to the next case over here where there is a much stronger likelihood of finding evidence.
If think you shouldn’t devote resources to this 2004 case where the professionals have determined that it is unlikely in the extreme that evidence will be found, but they do so anyways because of political pressure, then resources are not used in this 2018 case which is fresh and evidence is out there spoiling.
This isn’t politically motivated. My positions have been consistent with regards to both Fairfax and Kavanaugh.
Well, what you said was that people should make up their minds without an investigation, and that asking for an investigation was a cop-out.
This is a bit different, though I still disagree. How do you know what an investigation will bear without doing an investigation?
I get it that there are always priorities, but this does seem to be one. There are some republican elected officials who would not inveistage even a recent case of rape, as their priorities were instead the investigation of undocumented immigrants, and that is where their resources were going.
My position has been consistent with both as well. Serious allegations of sexual assault should be investigated. Asking people to make decisions without one, and even calling it a “cop-out” for them for asking for one, is asking people to make uninformed decisions. Now, we can never be 100% informed on anything, but we should always try to have as much info as we can have before making a decision.
Snip. I know your positions are consistent and I have never once made the allegation that you are coming from a partisan perspective. I respect your side on this issue for its consistency.
The “cop out” statement is simply this:
We don’t know many of the facts.
Even with a thorough investigation, we still will not.
Therefore, in order to continue the discussion, we have to decide what we will do in a situation like this with no other evidence either way. It comes down to Tyson’s word against Fairfax’s word. What should be the result of that?
When we ask, we are told that more investigation is needed. Let’s assume that one is done and no more evidence comes forward. Should Fairfax resign? Should he be imprisoned? If he runs for Governor next term, do you hold this against him? Any or all of the above?
I think we all recognize the seriousness of the allegations, but at least our side is saying that you cannot really prove most of these cases one way or another. What then?
You don’t have to.You were clear the first time. This time, you didnt answer my question. I guarantee you one thing: having no investgation will turn up nothing, while having one might turn up something. Which option would you want if you were the accused, and were innocent?
I wouldn’t want an investigation either way. In a case like this, it’s basically impossible for an investigation to clear you. All that’s going to happen is have a bunch of rocks overturned that you probably don’t want.
Thinking about it, maybe that’s why they don’t let the accused decide whether there’s an investigation. Hmmm.
Yeah, I see your point. If I knew however that if there was a pretty good chance I’d be convicted of something I didn’t do, I’d have to go for choosing an investigation. Last I heard, Fairfax was calling for one. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything…
This. I think we have all done things that we are not proud of and would not like talking about 20 years later in a police department.
Imagine you are asked who Mary Smith is and that you don’t recall. It turns out that you met her and had a one night stand with her in college. You really don’t remember this, but after reflection the moment comes back to you.
Your critics will say that you were lying and your wife will now be asking if you really got so much tail in college that you don’t remember it all. Your young kids will look at you with disdain when your embarrassing secrets are exposed.
All for an investigation that has no chance of clearing your name.
So let’s just assume an investigation would be pointless and boot someone out of their job based on someone’s word and nothing else. Got it. Don’t see how this standard could be abused.
That’s kind of nonsensical. There isn’t any way of a good chance of conviction without an investigation. I guess you mean a good chance he’ll lose his job? Like Loach said, there’s very little chance an investigation will turn up anything useful. So whether you are innocent or guilty, calling for an investigation, while knowing your calls carry no weight, is optimum game strategy.
Well, either we form opinions based on no information whatsoever, or we try to gather as much information as we can to come to a conclusion.
I prefer the latter.
Well, I think that Fairfax should probably resign. This is a pretty big cloud over him, and even if he is completely cleared, it will be a distraction that prevents him from being able to govern effectively.
Why are you asking me if he should be imprisoned? That’s a stupid question to ask before we have had an investigation. There is a much lower standard for holding the public’s trust than being convicted of a crime, you really should know that.
If he gets himself cleared, then he should run for governor and hold this up as his trial by fire. If he doesn’t, then he shouldn’t run for governor, as people will not have the confidence that they need to have in their elected leaders for him to govern effectively
“Your side” also has a tendency to make things up about your opponents, if that passive aggressive phrase of yours is any indication.
Like I said, political leaders should be above reproach. It is a lower standard of evidence required to lose faith in someone than it is to throw them in jail. He can clear his name, and be above reproach again, but while these fairly credible allegations are over him, he cannot effectively govern.
If she wants to press charges, then an investigation will need to be conducted. I certainly do not support throwing him in jail without a trial, and a trial needs evidence, and evidence needs an investigation.
How would it not clear your name? If they are false charges, then an investigation is more likely to discover that than if the charges are true they are to discover more corroborating evidence.
In the course of the investigation, they will interview witnesses and peers. If it comes out that one of her peers says, “Yeah, she called me up and asked me to lie for her and to tell everyone that she had told me about this rape. At the time, she was actually excited that she had spent time with him.” then that is evidence that helps to clear your name.
Creating a false narrative leaves a trail of lies in its wake.
You didn’t explain it. You made up a scenario where it could happen. That proves nothing about what’s more likely. That’s why I didn’t quote it - I never imagined you thought that was a logical argument for what’s more likely.
In the course of the investigation, they will interview witnesses and peers. If it comes out that one of his peers says, “Yeah, women were always complaining about getting raped by him” then that’s evidence that won’t clear his name.
I guess when you combine our airtight explanations, it’s a 50-50 chance!
Yes, but the fabrication of the narrative would be a more recent event, and people are often more likely to come forward about a lie that they were asked to tell than a story they vaguely remember from decades ago.
Basically how the Mueller assault allegations fell apart. People came forward to tell that they were being asked (and paid) to lie about it, discrediting the allegations, and clearing his name.
If it is your opinion that it is as likely to uncover decades old memories from contemporaries at the time as it is for people to come forward for being asked to lie more recently, then that is not an opinion that I would agree with, and I have now given you one example of exactly the sort of thing that I am talking about.