Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?

[Cloud Cover]

FJAG: I read those reports and more than less looked at the persons comments -on average- that were interviewed and complained. A record of anti-Bush (primarily Academic) commentary that ran completely counter to the judicial history of the man. In particular, he had been sceptical and challenging on de novo cases for which there was already an existing remedy. And yes, he did not consider the state as an untrustable  enemy of the people.
Still, I don’t think he should get the nod, his testimony was confrontational, he chose words poorly, and opened himself up to inquiry that was self inflicted and I wonder just how many beers each week he really consumes. More than the average judge, apparently.
It may well be that from this past week forward there will never be a judge that is “ good enough”,but in this case he’s just not credible due to claims outside of the sexual misconduct allegations.

 

[FJAG]

Yet another of Kavanaugh's former classmates who say that he mischaracterized his drinking problem before the committee. This one's a male.

North Carolina State University professor Chad Ludington has joined a handful of other former classmates of Brett Kavanaugh in contradicting the Supreme Court nominee’s claims about his past drinking habits.

Ludington told the New York Times in a statement Sunday that Kavanaugh played down “the degree and frequency” of his drinking to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. He said he often saw Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption.”

Kavanaugh, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by three different women, denied in his testimony that there was any possibility he ever drank so much alcohol that he may have lapses in his memory.

Ludington called Kavanaugh’s answers about drinking a “blatant mischaracterization” based on his experiences around the judge when they attended Yale University together.  Ludington claimed he often saw Kavanaugh “belligerent and aggressive” while drunk.

More here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-classmates_us_5bb157bce4b027da00d46d72

[cheers]

 

[kkwd]

Marco Rubio had an analysis of this confirmation process.

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/09/28/rubio-blasts-parties-conduct-kavanaugh-hearing/

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The sworn statements by any complainant in an assault case (including sexual assault) is in fact evidence and not a mere "story". If believed then it is sufficient to convict.

I understand that then to be the initial evidence.

Nothing that has come to light about Kavanaugh's teenage and university years is remarkably different from what I observed (I went though HS and university at about the same time).  It's foolish to take things written in yearbooks at face value.  It's foolish to assume that the understanding of slang phrases can't differ, or that people sometimes misunderstand them (I know this by numerous examples).  It's foolish to assume that things people say - particularly boys and young men - reflect reality or actual intent rather than wishful thinking or posturing.  Most importantly, though, I know that virtually everyone I knew in HS or uni was a remarkably different person 5, 10, and 15 years later; many of those who were jackasses became serious, accomplished, straitlaced people.  To assume that a person is marked by youthful jackass-ery (excluding serious crimes) much later in life is a failing of the assessor, not the person.  The only relevant item in this case is the accusation of sexual assault.

>you want someone who potentially committed a serious sexual crime (and if he had been convicted would be on a list) to be a judge on the supreme court?

The problem with that is "potentially" is inflicted by mere accusation.  The bar has to be higher than that.

>Weinstein, Spacey, and Al Franken.

Weinstein and Spacey are not politicians.  But Keith Ellison is.  Or ask Democrats how they feel about Juanita Broaddrick, whose accusation has long-standing and was contemporaneous.  Or ask Democrats whether they will revisit Ted Kennedy's reputation.  Some Democrats are, in fact, treated very differently.

>she told a story and he got irrationally angry

Don't forget that Kavanaugh was also accused of orchestrating gang rapes, and was asked inane questions by committee Democrats.  His anger had more than one font.  Most people accused of orchestrating gang rapes should be expected to show emotion.

>impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton for a consentual if ill advised sexual relationship

Clinton was impeached for perjury, not for a sexual relationship.

Some people are outraged by Kavanaugh's emotional displays (temper); I am complacent - his anger was merited; his scolding (and schooling) of the Democratic committee members was warranted.

The concerns of the ABA from 12 years ago have apparently been resolved (his current rating); the committee stands behind the current rating irrespective of the committee chairman's personal initiative (the letter that got everyone so excited).

Politically, Republicans stand to lose their supporters if they don't vote to confirm, and they never stood to gain support from anyone not already in their camp.  If allegations against Kavanaugh are proven, there is an impeachment process.

 

[FJAG]

Brad.

I'm not worried that he was a jackass in high school and college.

I'm worried about the fact that he's lying about it now.

[cheers]

 

[Brad Sallows]

That part I don't get.  Why jeopardize the nomination over small beer, no matter how embarrassing it might seem?  Maybe he can explain himself; maybe not.  I won't be surprised if Republicans still vote to confirm - they vote to support one of their liars,  just as Democrats once did on behalf of one of theirs.

 

[Infanteer]

I can say that I haven't paid much attention to this, as I quite frankly don't care.

I can say, as my phone buzzes every 5 minutes with a lurid update, that it sure makes me appreciate the way our Canadian system works.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My take on this situation is that it is pretty much impossible to decern what the objective "truth" is anymore.

The deeper you delve, the more conflicting information you find. Depending on your political beliefs, you can arm yourself with excellent talking points from either side of the issue. But i dont really trust that any of that is actually the full truth.

Like Infanteer, I am past caring what the US body politic does to itself anymore.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Interesting article from the prosecutor who questioned Ford.

Breaks down all the inconsistencies.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36519/prosecutor-questioned-ford-shreds-her-case-5-page-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

[tomahawk6]

If a simple unsupported allegation is taken as fact then the rule of law is no more. There has to be protections in place or else lies are taken as fact.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If a simple unsupported allegation is taken as fact then the rule of law is no more. There has to be protections in place or else lies are taken as fact.

Thanks, you've just destroyed the election platforms of all Walter Mittys and most politicians....

 

[FJAG]

If a simple unsupported allegation is taken as fact then the rule of law is no more. There has to be protections in place or else lies are taken as fact.

An allegation, given under oath, is evidence, and if credible and believed (even if unsupported) can be accepted as fact by the trier of fact and used to convict. That is the rule of law in both your country and mine. The days when a woman's testimony needed corroboration are gone and good riddance.

. . .
Like Infanteer, I am past caring what the US body politic does to itself anymore.

Like you and Infanteer I frequently ask myself why I do care.

The only thing that I have come up with is that I have spent much time in the States and genuinely care about Americans. In many ways they are like us and I want to see them successful and happy. On top of that they are like a bull in a china shop. You can't ignore a country that is ten times our size and whose entertainment media comes into your home every night.

Trump, Kavanaugh, the whole Supreme Court issue and their Congress are not the genesis of their problem; they're symptoms of a much deeper, divisive issue based on conflicting philosophies that has the potential to spill over into our own society. I truly wish them good luck but am not optimistic that it will resolve itself any time soon.

[cheers]

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sex-Crimes Prosecutor: Claims From Ford Against Judge Kavanaugh Lack Sufficient Evidence
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sex-crimes-prosecutor-claims-from-ford-against-judge-kavanaugh-lack-sufficient-evidence-1538369619/

<snip>Rachel Mitchell said in a memo to senators, ‘I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case.’
By Natalie Andrews
Oct. 1, 2018 12:53 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON—The sex-crimes prosecutor hired by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations of assault against Brett Kavanaugh told the panel she wouldn’t have prosecuted the case, according to documents viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

More at link

 

[Xylric]

Having watched both during the proceedings, I'm led to conclude based on body language and other cues that both Kavanaugh and Ford were lying at times. Which makes things quite interesting in my opinion, because it's entirely possible for someone to lie without even realising it due to the fickle nature of memory. I don't doubt that Ford was assaulted in some fashion, but there's too many unanswered questions involved for me to be certain, as she appears to believe, that Kavanaugh was the one responsible. It's a difficult situation to be sure, and the reality seems to me that they were both lying and telling the truth in similar proportion - exactly what I would expect for memories from 20+ years before.

 

[Good2Golf]

Sex-Crimes Prosecutor: Claims From Ford Against Judge Kavanaugh Lack Sufficient Evidence
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sex-crimes-prosecutor-claims-from-ford-against-judge-kavanaugh-lack-sufficient-evidence-1538369619/ More at link

So the lawyer paid to say “there’s no basis for prosecution,” indeed said “there’s no basis for prosecution?”  Looks like she’ll be getting that paycheck. :nod:

G2G

 

[a_majoor]

Like T6, I fully agree the greater issue here is upholding the principles of the Rule of Law.

Whatever may or may not have happened, there is no way whatsoever to verify these allegations, and the nature and timing of them make it very clear this was a partisan character assassination attack.

Put yourself in the same situation: you are looking for a job or expecting a promotion, when suddenly you are accused.

There is no contemporious police report or complaint sworn out at the time of the alleged incident. There is no forensic evidence. Witnesses either deny the event took place, or cannot remember or offer different stories. Even the alleged victim's story is inconsistent and full of gaps and omissions.

How do you defend yourself?

The baying mob rejects the concept of presumption of innocence. You cannot prove a negative (this is a logical impossibility), and since the statute of limitations is going expired, eyewitness testimony is not, and cannot be considered reliable, but the call is out to fire you/prevent you from getting the job/denying your promotion.

And in the real world, there are plenty of people out there who are jealous and covet your job or promotion, or envious and wish to drag you down, or unhinged and do such things for whatever sick pleasure they draw from it. I doubt anyone here would like to live in a society with no filters or protections against such acts.

The end result is going to be the further erosion of the productive, high trust society we live in today. I doubt we want to see what comes after that.....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So the lawyer paid to say “there’s no basis for prosecution,” indeed said “there’s no basis for prosecution?”  Looks like she’ll be getting that paycheck. :nod:

G2G

Just like the democrat minion passing envelopes to Ford's lawyers. Of course, it must be unbelievable because they're Republican, but so far in all of this from day one, the democrats have been proven as the unscrupulous, lying cheats. I'll not pretend to take the WSJ at face value, but it is, supposedly, one of those sources even the left is comfortable with.

Now, unless you are prepared to say that justices and judges are incapable of separating the law from party loyalty, your vieled accusation against the prosecutors learned opinion being biased is just biased in its own right. And if that's truly your belief, why are you even interested in what is involved in picking a judge. After all, they will be whatever their purchaser wishes. Right?

What a laugh.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>it's entirely possible for someone to lie without even realising it due to the fickle nature of memory

If Ford and Kavanaugh each believed what they said to be true and made false statements without realizing it, then they might be mistaken, but not liars.

 

[Xylric]

>it's entirely possible for someone to lie without even realising it due to the fickle nature of memory

If Ford and Kavanaugh each believed what they said to be true and made false statements without realizing it, then they might be mistaken, but not liars.

True, as what I mean is that there's a threshold at which an honest mistake becomes a lie, and it falls to the intent of the statement to determine the difference. There's a concept I like to use in fiction which I refer to as a "truthful lie" - a statement which while objectively true is stated in such a way to lead the listener to believe an assumed falsity as fact. Likewise, there's the reverse - a statement which, while demonstrably false, leads the listener to accept an assumed fact as accurate. It seems very much to me that both types are at play, which makes it extremely difficult for an outside observer unfamiliar with the precise details to come to any sort of reliable and useful conclusion.

Simply put, I don't believe either of them have a genuine intent to deceive, which is what would make them liars, but I do believe that neither of them have been ideally truthful - which is something which should be plainly obvious, because deception is among one of the first skills humans pick up, as I've never encountered a two year old that *didn't* voraciously claim innocence over missing cookies.

No matter the outcome of these events, I simply think that if Kavanaugh isn't confirmed, the only thing that will happen is that in the eyes of a shocking proportion of the country, someone worse will get the next nomination. So, assuming worst case thinking on multiple fronts for a moment, along with assuming that is guilty of the things he is accused of doing, there comes a question to my mind - is it a reasonable course of action to appoint a sexual predator to the Supreme Court of the United States if the alternative is the possible cessation of any sort of bipartisan cooperation between the Left and Right?

Obviously, my thinking is much less severe in the long run. The only thing at all remarkable about the accusations against a judge being appointed to the highest court in the country he serves in is how unremarkable they are from a global standpoint. I can think of a few dozen examples in history who are far, far worse. No one's perfect, obviously, and I would truthfully say that even if he is guilty, it's more than possible for people to become better than they were. Denying him the nomination is reasonable, but destroying his life is not.

 

[Jarnhamar]

women who come forward with complaints of sexual assault and harassment must be supported and believed.

-Justin Trudeau

I can very much see us facing a similar situation as this approaching our next election. Sexual assault allegations are politically weaponized.