information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumorJust because I told other people something does not mean they can substantiate my statements. These folks do not "collaborate" my innuendo. Jeez, even Judge Judy refuses to let witnesses testify to hearsay evidence.
Look, some have taken exception to my "war on women" in the Kavenaugh Affair. I have a deep-seated antipathy to tyranny. The bedrock of freedom and our Constitution is the concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Automatic assumption that any witness, claimant, accuser, or defendant is inherently more believable based on the the number of chromosomes one might possess is the direct antithesis to this foundation. It has nothing to do with politics nor misogyny on my part. It has nothing to do with sex (gender is a language construct). It is about fairness. It is about our basic rights as a human.
If we are going to determine guilt based upon "who" provides the evidence we might as well determine guilt or innocence via Trial by Ordeal. If he weighs more than a duck he is a rapist. How about we bind and gag them both and throw them in the Potomac? We can determine guilt or innocence by the survivor? The testimony of a noble, a king, a white man, nor a woman should carry more weight than your word or mine. We all must be equal before the law.
No one should be convicted in actual court or the court of public opinion by unsubstantiated innuendo. Failure to give basic evidence such as time and place and potential witnesses is no more than a basic attack; it is accusation, no more. And further, as indicated by the opening, the fact that Dr. Ford told her husband, her neighbor, her therapist, and her kids' baseball coach in the last few years is not evidence either. Their testimony is hearsay. The testimony of others reported to be at the supposed party is evidence. Unfortunately all of those witnesses deny the event or claim they were never there.
Compurgation is not evidence either. Just because a whole bunch of people can swear they believe her, that is not evidence.
It very well may be that what Dr. Ford says happened did indeed take place. It is entirely up to her to prove it. To do otherwise takes us down a road no one is going to like in the future.
If we are to give more credence to the testimony of a person because of womanhood, what happens to the claims of a transgendered person? Do we believe them more or less? This is not just a slippery slope, it is an ice covered vertical drop.
Welp, nice to see all you right-wing candy-asses are still alive and bellyaching as usual.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, Kavanaugh's confirmation is not a trial. No one is deciding "guilt" or whether to throw The Brettster in jail. This is a JOB INTERVIEW and denying him a seat on SCOTUS does not amount to ruining his life (as the darling Lindsey Graham has opined), so drop the histrionics. No one needs to "prove" a thing. Senators vote their conscious — although I'm pretty sure our GOP legislators would happily confirm The Kav if they found a voluminous stash of Rohypnol in his dop kit.
As far as I'm concerned, any SCOTUS nominee who waltzes onto FOX to defend himself is instantaneously outed as a partisan political operative. Imagine if a DEM nominee had gone on Rachel Maddow for the same purpose. It's like saying: No worries! I got yer back and to hell with everyone on the other side of the aisle!
Also feel free to explain to me what the big rush is all about. Scalia's seat was vacant for 422 days. And since I'm here, I'll go out on a limb and assume any number the resident readership cheered "zero tolerance" when Trump was ripping families apart for a misdemeanor. Why does this white privileged male deserve endless benefit of the doubt?
Not to worry, y'all will win. FratBoy will sit on SCOTUS where he will gleefully empower giant corporations to your peril, elevate King Trump far and away above the law, and strip you (or more likely your kids) of any chance of long term financial stability as he and the rest of the righties ensconce education and health care as wealthy privileges.
You did notice I said "in the court of public opinion", did you not?
ReplyDeleteSay, what is your position on Keith Ellisson? How about Corey Booker, who admits he sexually assaulted a girl in high school? We will not even discuss Bill Clinton or Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy.
Say, since it is just a "job interview", I guess you had no problem with putting off the SCOTUS "job" while new "company" officers were put in place (per the Biden Rule) back in 2016? Oh wait, you did.
I miss your commentary. But why so much anger?
huh. I didn't say one word about the accusations, but you immediately turned to WhatAboutism! and ChangeTheTopicism!
ReplyDeleteUm ... I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton got impeached over the Lewinsky matter and there is no doubt Ted Kennedy's wealthy white male privilege got him a "mulligan" for the dreadful Chappaquiddick incident, exactly like it will elevate The Brettster to SCOTUS.
As for Ellison and Booker, I promise you that if those scandals grow legs, the men will meet their fate. WhatAbout Weinstein and Franken and Cosby? And yes, the "liberal media" is covering this:
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/25/17901120/keith-ellison-abuse-allegations-minnesota-ag-karen-monahan
As for your second paragraph, I don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Do not put words in my mouth. If you want to reference my opinions, quote me directly with a link to my writings. Everything I do is public.
And yeah, as the entire world literally laughs in the face of our clown POTUS and this idiotic Kavanaugh circus plays out, I'm plenty angry.
"This is a JOB INTERVIEW"
ReplyDelete39 words into your rant.
Have you ever considered it is possible for people to disagree? I found most of Obama's administration just as awful as you do the Trumpsters. It is OK. We will all be fine. Relax, have a beer. I have learned the hard way that spending time focusing on what is wrong in your life means you miss out on what is good and right in your world.
Here is an honest question. Has your life been changed in any material, concrete way for the worse by the election of Trump?
I happen to think a man's political opinion does not automatically make him guilty, as the honorable Senator from Hawaii has opined. I think it is up to the accuser to prove a case. I think that no person should be given "automatic" belief based on genetics: be it skin color or sex. I don't think wealth or lack of it should be in indicator of honesty.
I'm funny that way, I guess.
You're still at "guilty." This is a confirmation hearing and if a senator thinks a nominee is sexist or racist or biased toward corporations, they have every right to vote NO on his POTUS placement, just like every regular jane and joe when they hire or reject an employee, be that a manager for the purchasing department or a babysitter or a coach.
ReplyDeleteTo that end, this guy just handed over a decades-old calendar and essentially said: since I did not indicate 'attempted rape' on this document, it never happened. Seriously? This is the great legal mind we're going to put on SCOTUS? How does that hold up in your court of public opinion?
Stop the big rush to confirmation. Have the whole investigation. Interview all parties. Ask The Kav exactly what he meant in 2015 when he said, “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.”
And yes, people disagree all the time. It is my experience that whenever a rightie says that, or opines about how "it happens on both sides," they are cornered and unwilling to concede. As for the ramifications of the Trump administration on me personally, I honestly cannot detail them in public. They are professional in nature and deeply, deeply disturbing.
Ok, what word is better than "guilty"?
ReplyDeletea rush to judgment perhaps, but that fits the whole we gotta wait narrative that has been the democrat agenda since day one of this fiasco.
I might have a little more understanding if the whole thing did not reek of rank politics, starting with Feinstein sitting on the letter for weeks and weeks until it appears the only "logical" answer is to "investigate/
What is there to investigate? Unless she comes up with something more concrete Thursday it is a he said/she said issue. How do you investigate a crime that the victim cannot provide when where or how? What will change in the coming weeks, days, months or years? The witnesses she has provided debunk her story.
"What is there to investigate?"
ReplyDeleteKavanaugh's latest on-the-record accuser (there are now three as well as a slew of former classmates attesting to his drinking ways back in the day), Julie Swetnick, is a security clearance holder who has done work at the Treasury Department, the U.S. Mint, the IRS, the State Department, and the Justice Department.
I'm pretty sure she knows the legal consequences of committing perjury on a sworn legal affidavit that her lawyer, Michael Avenatti*, formally submitted to the Judiciary Committee today.
I can't stomach regurgitating the details of her accusations, but they're not hard to find. Google it.
I should think you'd want an investigation just to see if she committed perjury. As for the "debunked" witnesses, they're mealy-mouthed claims are mostly the not-to-my-knowledge and I-don't-recall sort. Get them under oath. Find out the truth.
*Y'all voted to put a reality TV gameshow host into the Oval Office and now y'all can enjoy the supporting cast.
^^^ "their mealy-mouthed .." not "they're mealy-mouthed .."
ReplyDeleteI am spoiled by Facebook's editing feature for comments.
The man would be better off being tried in a court of law. Much of this stuff would be thrown out, not allowed, with only the facts remaining. The court of public opinion has no standard of proof, other than emotions and feelings. In criminal court the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, additionally, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. And that's all I'm going to say about it.
ReplyDeleteWelcome eob. It's reassuring to know someone is sane out there.
ReplyDeleteYou are wasting your breath with this crew
they all bought t-shirts saying I'd rather be Russian than a democrat.
The word independent isn't in their vocabulary.