Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Anita Hill Says Kavanaugh Accuser Hearing 'Cannot Be Fair'"

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/25/65148..._medium=social

"A fair process would start with a "real investigation," Hill tells All Things Considered, saying the absence of other witnesses raises concerns about a he-said-she-said situation."

No, a fair process would begin with at least 2 witnesses. There is no reason that the FBI needs to jump around like a puppet with every accusation. If that were true we would have someone claim that they were black out drunk but knew for sure Kavanaugh did something because as he was doing something someone yelled out his full name. After the 2 week investigation proves that is false, the woman says my bad, I guess I was so drunk I just thought this was the case. Then another person comes forward, ad infinitum.

Please note, the crime of sexual abuse almost always will have lots of physical evidence as a witness. DNA (which we have used for over 36 years), witnesses (if this was a party surely there were other people there), photographs (if you thought you were going to die then surely a photograph will show that you were harmed), ripped clothing, etc. Of course we are usually shown police reports and criminal charges that were dropped or settled out of court. Likewise there is usually other evidence that a life changing event took place (girl left the school, maybe got into fights at school, rumors were floated, she began seeing a therapist, etc). Apparently this woman began seeing a therapist 10 years ago, 26 years after this event?

This is a hearing, not a court. If this were a court I would refuse to press charges based on a lack of evidence. But since it is a hearing we do want to hear from her, who knows when she speaks others might also come forward.

Sure enough she has spoken and we do have some evidence as a result. First, she wants Kavanaugh to go first, that is absurd. He should know what he is being charged with before having to respond. However, it does indicate that she is concerned about the veracity of her own testimony. For example, if she says the party was in July and Kavanaugh can prove he was out of the country with his family then it would prove she was wrong.

She also insists that the senators ask her the questions and not a lawyer designated by them. That proves clearly that her motive is political.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, a fair process would begin with at least 2 witnesses. There is no reason that the FBI needs to jump around like a puppet with every accusation. If that were true we would have someone claim that they were black out drunk but knew for sure Kavanaugh did something because as he was doing something someone yelled out his full name. After the 2 week investigation proves that is false, the woman says my bad, I guess I was so drunk I just thought this was the case. Then another person comes forward, ad infinitum.

Please note, the crime of sexual abuse almost always will have lots of physical evidence as a witness. DNA (which we have used for over 36 years), witnesses (if this was a party surely there were other people there), photographs (if you thought you were going to die then surely a photograph will show that you were harmed), ripped clothing, etc. Of course we are usually shown police reports and criminal charges that were dropped or settled out of court. Likewise there is usually other evidence that a life changing event took place (girl left the school, maybe got into fights at school, rumors were floated, she began seeing a therapist, etc). Apparently this woman began seeing a therapist 10 years ago, 26 years after this event?

This is a hearing, not a court. If this were a court I would refuse to press charges based on a lack of evidence. But since it is a hearing we do want to hear from her, who knows when she speaks others might also come forward.

Sure enough she has spoken and we do have some evidence as a result. First, she wants Kavanaugh to go first, that is absurd. He should know what he is being charged with before having to respond. However, it does indicate that she is concerned about the veracity of her own testimony. For example, if she says the party was in July and Kavanaugh can prove he was out of the country with his family then it would prove she was wrong.

She also insists that the senators ask her the questions and not a lawyer designated by them. Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses."
"The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable."

The Senate Judiciary Committee refuses to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault. Senator Chuck Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses." "The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable." That shows that Grassley's motives are purely political.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Senate Judiciary Committee refuses to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault. Senator Chuck Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses." "The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable." That shows that Grassley motives are purely political.

On the contrary. Grassley is just carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, to "advise and consent."

But let me quote Senator Maize Hirono for you zeek,

"Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Senate Judiciary Committee refuses to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault. Senator Chuck Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses." "The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable." That shows that Grassley motives are purely political.

It is a hearing and it is highly publicized. If hearing this woman speak encourages others to come forward then it can create a snowball effect. It is difficult to imagine that anyone abused by this man is not aware of what is going on. Likewise anyone who has anything of note could contact a democratic senator who would make sure it was heard. Obviously the committee needs to control the process, someone will and if not them then who?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is a hearing and it is highly publicized. If hearing this woman speak encourages others to come forward then it can create a snowball effect. It is difficult to imagine that anyone abused by this man is not aware of what is going on. Likewise anyone who has anything of note could contact a democratic senator who would make sure it was heard. Obviously the committee needs to control the process, someone will and if not them then who?

No more justice here? No more presumption of innocence?

Look what they did to Clarence Thomas. Look what they did to Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson. Look what they did to Roy Moore.

If these women refuse to speak up for 36 years, and then remain silent when the FBI did those 6 exhaustive background checks on Kavanaugh, when will we begin to identify false witnesses and punish them?

The #MeToo movement was entirely predicated on powerful men preying on young women vying for jobs which these same powerful men could provide them. Think Harvey Weinstein of Miramax. That is the sole reason these young girls remained silent. Their careers were at stake.

A teenage Kavanaugh, however, had nothing to offer these woman to prevent them from reporting these crimes. Even if similar sexual "crimes" were reported, or any crime for that matter, and Kavanaugh was acquitted, either as a juvenile or an adult, then there would be some credibility to their complaints. But there has been none of that. By every account, examined 6x by the best investigative agents in the world, this judge led an exemplary and perfectly squeaky clean life until Senate hearings were concluded.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No more justice here? No more presumption of innocence?

Look what they did to Clarence Thomas. Look what they did to Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson. Look what they did to Roy Moore.

If these women refuse to speak up for 36 years, and then remain silent when the FBI did those 6 exhaustive background checks on Kavanaugh, when will we begin to identify false witnesses and punish them?

The #MeToo movement was entirely predicated on powerful men preying on young women vying for jobs which these same powerful men could provide them. Think Harvey Weinstein of Miramax. That is the sole reason these young girls remained silent. Their careers were at stake.

A teenage Kavanaugh, however, had nothing to offer these woman to prevent them from reporting these crimes. Even if similar sexual "crimes" were reported, or any crime for that matter, and Kavanaugh was acquitted, either as a juvenile or an adult, then there would be some credibility to their complaints. But there has been none of that. By every account, examined 6x by the best investigative agents in the world, this judge led an exemplary and perfectly squeaky clean life until Senate hearings were concluded.

I informed 3 students today that their actions had eliminated them from any chance of being appointed to the Supreme Court 40 years from now.

I'm sorry I was not aware that Kavanaugh had been accused of a crime. Just saw the news, wow! Imagine the restraint of this woman knowing that the man involved in having her gang raped was being nominated to the Supreme court and not saying anything for 2 months.

Imagine how totally inept our FBI is that they never picked up on this!

The presumption of innocence does not work here. If Kavanaugh is innocent these women are guilty, if they are innocent he is guilty. This has to be investigated and the guilty parties must be held accountable.

But the days of civility are done, henceforth indiscretions committed by 15 year olds will be part of these hearings.

[Ohio]

I don't get it.

Are you breathing sarcasm or shock?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't get it.

Are you breathing sarcasm or shock?

I am trying my best to be open.

1. If someone were lying they would be afraid of being caught in the lie and being convicted of the crime. As a result you would expect vague responses like they don't remember the party or the date. Sounds to me like they are laying the groundwork for reasonable doubt. Likewise if they say they were blackout drunk. Both of these accounts would be ripped to shreds in a court of law with a top notch attorney. It sounds utterly absurd to me to have a drunken orgy with Brett taking his pants off, this girl being blackout drunk, and then incredibly she comes to at the same time someone calls out his entire name "Brett Kavanaugh". The third accusation is one I have only just heard and haven't had time to examine. But it also sounds incredible. How could the FBI have missed this? Surely if this woman was raped there is a police record. If she was gang raped at a bar then one would think the police had collected a list of everyone there. Then what exactly is the accusation, no one is accusing him of rape, rather they are saying he got women drunk who were then raped by others. What does that mean? He was at a bar buying drinks for himself and women. Is that a crime? Also I am unclear if these other women will go on the record, if they won't, then I don't consider these to be anything that should be considered. I also wonder why someone who claims he was involved in a gang rape would keep that to themselves all these years? Did the FBI ever hear this in the 6 background checks they did? None of this makes sense. What about the last two months? Why is this being dropped at the last minute. It has the appearance of a desperate attempt to delay the vote.

2. Prior to the accusation of the gang rape my attitude was that Kavanaugh had not yet been accused of a crime. Rather some term about sexual behavior was being used by the media. But as you pointed out it wasn't an abuse of power, the accusation was that as a teenage drunk he was a jerk. Since then we have changed the drinking age from 18 to 21 for exactly this reason. So your "presumption of innocence" would only apply to the accusers since if they were lying that would be a crime. There is a biologic reason why we treat teenagers differently from adults. As a HS teacher the jerk comments you see from him on his yearbook are so common it would be absurd to make this a basis to deny approval of nominees.

3. The precedent here is horrifying. Instead of looking at this man's credentials, resume, and professional behavior he is being accused of getting drunk as a kid, being obnoxious when he is drunk, and OMG buying drinks for women at bars.

So, I am hopeful there is actually more to it than this and will come out today. But at the moment my impression of the Democrats has plummeted. Another great example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.