Kreepy Kavanaugh
- Thread starter gotsnowgotslush
- Start date
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
The obvious question is, "It seems that you are perhaps mixing up details from two or more different gatherings as to who was in attendance; is it not possible that just as you cannot say for sure who "pushed you into the room" it is hard to be certain that all of the people you have attached to this traumatic event were actually there or standing for details lost through time?"
Emerson40
An evening spent dancing
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Posts
- 13,838
Oblimo
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Posts
- 4,273
It’s valid because it’s true. It’s entirely up to the Senate committee to decide what fairness standards to apply, and hell, each senator can decide on their own calculus for their own vote. And we many never know what those are.
Considering the committee’s GOP senators are hiding behind a woman’s skirts, I find it doubtful that any one of them will have the balls to tell the public, “She did not convince me beyond a reasonable doubt.”
[QUOTEThe only reason it's even being suggested in that light is because this particular accusation wouldn't pass muster under any circumstances.[/QUOTE]
I agree that her allegations would most likely not prevail in a criminal trial or civil trial for damages.
But they are sufficient for an investigation to be opened. Which is what clever Democrats are arguing, not that Kavanaugh is “guilty”, but that the allegations need more vetting than they are getting.
It wouldn't pass muster in an HR department at any major corporation.
Pfft. I honestly wish it did. But it doesn’t. And even if it did, there’s the next step, which is what kind/level of evidence is sufficient to remove the presumption and then put the onus on the accused to put forth evidence of their own which puts the onus back on the accuser.
Civil trials are like games of hot potato. The hot potato is “the burden of moving forward.” The longer it takes you to hand the hot potato to your opponent, the more you are burned. The goal is to get your opponent stuck with the hot potato long enough that they drop the potato, ie, settle out of court.
Criminal trials are not much different, except the potato is much heavier and hotter, and the defendant can be rotting in jail even before the potato is passed to him.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Posts
- 19,247
BS People fly all the time that are afraid to fly. Do they try to MoMA Mia’s the amount they fly? Yes
yes...true, but she used THAT excuse JUST last week to delay the hearings....YOU dont find that......ODD?
how come you havent mentioned the 2 that said THEY may have been the one who attacked Blah Z?
HOW COME?
Oblimo
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Posts
- 4,273
What? A corporate HR department has a due process duty to employees it disciplines?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
They have a responsibility (not enforced by law, mind you, but by their continued employment) to minimize risks of wrongful termination suits.
Do you have any how easy that is in the vast majority of US jurisdictions, where the “at-will employment” doctrine is law?
...
Did you really just say that? Seriously?
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
"Would not likely prevail?"
If you had these facts including sworn statements from HER witnesses that the party surrounding the alleged event never happened and went to court, not only would you joy "prevail," you would likely be sanctioned and probably countersued for slander of he was not a public figure. If criminal charges were brought a suit for malicious prosecution is not off the table.
This is well below any minimal standard of proof.
As far as "investigate?"
Investigate, what?
We have five people she says are the only potential witnesses. All four of the others refute her story. What else would you have them do submit the four to torture? Waterboarding?
It's reasonable to discount Kavanaugh's denial as well as judges denial because there's some culpability there. But there is no reason for the other two to deny that a party ever happened with those 5 people. Her close friends denial was especially categorical. She explicitly stated that she had not ever attended a party that Kavanaugh was in attendance.
What would you have the FBI do go to every home and look for 36 year old fiber samples to see if any of that bolsters her claims? We can't even narrow it down to a specific hosts home. Since they were apparently no parents home it would seem likely that if such a party existed that it would be the home of one of the four people. She doesn't even know that detail. How would you know to go to some party if you had no idea whose parents weren't home? How would you not know who was the host of the home that you were in?
These are not missing details from someone who is simply lying. These are missing details from someone who doesn't remember the basics of an event which is the hallmark of a composite memory. This is exactly the same sort of phenomenon that we all experience when we remember a dream from the night before and you can remember how it all seemed to make sense at the time but in the light of day many of the details just don't mesh with each other.
The only thing at all about her story that gives me pause is that she had to have known, no to some extent to know who his friends were. That had to be at least someone that she knew from afar and it seems unlikely that Kavanaugh would not know her if she knew him possible but not likely.
The other thing about this that twigged my radar was I did not like Kevin. Riding out his wife to go on the defensive before she even presented her testimony because it doesn't really matter what his wife of today thinks about what happened 36 years ago. That's like Hillary being on there when Bill was lying to the cameras about not having sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski.
I don't like the idea of the wife as a prop. Especially when she has absolutely no first-hand knowledge whatsoever about what he might have or might not have been like as a teenager.
Last edited:
Oblimo
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Posts
- 4,273
Would you prefer if I added “very most” before the “likely?” I try to avoid predicting the future in absolute terms, especially since I have no personal experience in criminal court. I’m only stating my opinion.
What do you base your confidence of these predictions on?
Tell that to the Spanish Inquisition.
Well, an investigator would start with interviewing her, and see where, if anywhere, things might lead.
You know, for someone who does not want this case tried in the court of public opinion, you sure have made a lot of judgemental opinions based solely on what the media has reported to the public.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
That is a valid point. It also underscores the problem of time in knowing who/what/when/why/where.
Yes, Republicans did a flea-flicker to a female prosecutor for the questioning because they are not stupid and know what it will look like to have men contradicting her, but they did the right thing. Not because Mitchell is a woman, but because she is an experienced prosecutor who is fair and skilled at getting details with sensitivity from victims. My view is that Ford is an actual victim of some version of an event likely pretty close to her remembrance. There is no way to know if it actually was Kavenaugh or not. Mitchell is not there to plant doubt but to prove for how solid her memory is.
I tend to believe Kavanaugh mostly because the kind of boorish behavior that she reports doesn't usually stop even as men mature. Probably also because it is politically expedient to believe that of him.
From a crisis management perspective if there was a shred of truth to this as far as it being Kavanagh and he actually had an awareness and remembrance of this the simplest thing to have done would have been for him to own it and disavow his past behavior. That would have been unbelievably simple for him to simply say gosh that was a drunk and stupid thing to do and I am so glad that I now know who that woman was because that's been lost to my remembrance so let me take the opportunity to apologize to you now.
The fact that he didn't means he is stubborn or innocent.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Where did I say or imply I didn't want this tried in the court of public opinion? We are the public we're trying it right now. That's the only place this is going to be tried it's the only place it could be tried.
What's known is known and it's all that's ever going to be known.
With what is known the side accusing Kavanaugh already lost they're never going to admit it.though.
I have no problem at all with beard being actually tried in the court of public opinion. What I do have a problem with is people completely disregarding what is known about the incident. What is known about her glasses. What is known about her memory and the actual science of what we know about memories and how fungible they are and still deciding that they simply want it to be true about Kavanaugh despite there being no evidence whatsoever that it is true.
When half the country decides that he's guilty simply because they don't like his politics that's a ridiculous skew of the court of public opinion. It wouldn't matter what he did or didn't do. They didn't like him regardless. They're not going to like him better if she recants.
We have a Dem Senator saying she knows he is lying because his cases reflect blahs, blahs blahs, he hates women.
If that's the reasoning it isn't actual reasoning and it needs to be completely disregarded.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Posts
- 19,247
I don’t think pompous and angry is a good strategy for Kavanaugh, but I guess that is what he is going to go with.
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Fair enough.
My original sentence said something to the effect of "Unlike accusations of Clinton committing actual rape..."
I lost the accusation part while cleaning up some word salad.
My bad.
Not that he is NOT an actual rapist, mind you...
But we were talking about who is accused of what and who is enabling whom.
maybe he should CRY like SHE did
what right do YOU or anyone have to say he shouldnt be ANGRY?
HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE
how come you havent mentioned the 2 that said THEY may have been the one who attacked Blah Z?
HOW COME?
here is your chance to (pretend) IGGY me
Luk
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Posts
- 32,404
Wait... Is AJ on the stand?
silver gurl
Kiss it....
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Posts
- 22,377
I was listening to talk radio today. A very high percentage of women, will either not ever discuss their assault or will wait many years to talk about it.
So unless you are a doctor of psychiatry and work with women, I strongly suggest not to call her a liar. You are in no position to say so.
So unless you are a doctor of psychiatry and work with women, I strongly suggest not to call her a liar. You are in no position to say so.
Similar threads
