U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-26-2018, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
19,329 posts, read 9,102,284 times
Reputation: 18653

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
Only if one operates in the world of mindless binary politics, where anything that doesn't 100% support one's party automatically supports the other one. In the real world, however, people can have nuanced views that don't just parrot an apparatchik's bullet points. Call me a horrified centrist because I don't believe the ends justify the means. Maybe you do, but I don't. Mueller's investigation? I'm all for it because there are actual loose ends to investigate, e-mails, transfers of cash, informants, and a host of other concrete building blocks for a case.

Which leads to the FBI question, which I consider absurd. What exactly would they look into? How would they even begin? I mean, let's start out with the unreliable set of recollections on the part of Christine Ford:

1) She's not sure in which house the alleged incident took place, nor the street, nor the year or the month. She's not sure how old she was at the time of the alleged incident.

2) There are no witnesses.

3) The four people she identified being at the party, including her longtime friend, deny any knowledge of the party. I'm pretty sure that, 35 years later, they're not denying it to stay out of hot water with their parents. Her friend Leland Keyser claims to have never met Kavanaugh or being at any party where he might have been present.

4) She originally claimed that she spoke with two friends immediately after the event, but neither friend has any recollection of that conversation.

Seriously. With this sketchy statement, riddled with holes, are you actually supporting the notion that the nation's law enforcement agency swing into action to track down and interview the attendees of a teenager's party 35 years ago? Especially a party that the supposed witnesses don't even remember attending? Do you remember parties when you were in high school? If you are over the age of 50, can you remember what happened at a party that long ago? Can you remember who came, who said what, and who did what? I mean, hell, I'm not much of a drinker and I can't remember what happened on many social occasions a year ago, let alone thirty-five. After a while, unless you're a complete introvert who only gets out once every five years, they tend to run together.

I mean, the questions would border on satire if it weren't so serious. "Ma'am, was the basement pine-paneled? Can you describe exactly who got wasted? What did Mindy say that got Joe so freaked out? Who hurled in the Jones' potted plant out on the patio? Do you remember the name of Lucy's weird stoner friend, SweetPea, the one in the Grateful Dead shirt? Sir, how blotto were you? How many bong hits were you into at that point?" The one time I threw a party when I was a junior, it was all just a daze to me. The only thing I really remember was some girl throwing up in the kitchen garbage can and my waking up the next morning thinking, "Oh, hell, I've got to clean all this up before my parents get home tonight." That and running a carpet cleaner while nursing a three-alarm hangover. Never again.

How exactly would this work? And would any of their findings be anywhere close to reliable? Exactly what kind of investigation could these guys even begin to organize? Unlike Mueller, calling for an investigation in this circumstance isn't a quest for truth. It's a fantasy at its most charitable, a stalling tactic at its most cynical.

The other thing? False Memory Syndrome is an actual thing, you realize. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...emory-syndrome

And, once again, the obvious question is this: If the Democrats had actually been so concerned about these charges, if they had actually been serious about learning the truth, they would have called for an investigation two months ago, rather than a handful of days before the vote. Anybody with the least bit of objectivity would understand that.
If the FBI investigated, I would be comfortable with their findings. Period. If they said there is insufficient evidence to determine if anything happened, I would be satisfied with that finding.

In my career I once worked with a private investigator who had to investigate just such a nebulous sex claim. The task assigned him was to determine if:

a. There was sufficient evidence to support the charge against him
b. There was sufficient evidence to dismiss the charge against him
c. There was insufficient evidence to come to any conclusion about the charge against him

The school system and I (as school principal) agreed to abide by the conclusion of the private investigator (who, btw, had been a police investigator). The investigator interviewed all the people possibly involved -- 3 adults and about 18 students, plus the student who brought the charge and the student accused. The conclusion was there there was insufficient evidence to come to any conclusion about guilt or innocence. It was treated as a "she said, he said", and the matter was simply dropped.

I don't know what it is that you guys are so afraid of. Except that you're afraid there is substance there. Otherwise, you would have nothing to fear by an investigation.

 
Old 09-26-2018, 06:34 PM
 
4,142 posts, read 1,693,141 times
Reputation: 13121
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
If the FBI investigated, I would be comfortable with their findings. Period. If they said there is insufficient evidence to determine if anything happened, I would be satisfied with that finding.

In my career I once worked with a private investigator who had to investigate just such a nebulous sex claim. The task assigned him was to determine if:

a. There was sufficient evidence to support the charge against him
b. There was sufficient evidence to dismiss the charge against him
c. There was insufficient evidence to come to any conclusion about the charge against him

The school system and I (as school principal) agreed to abide by the conclusion of the private investigator (who, btw, had been a police investigator). The investigator interviewed all the people possibly involved -- 3 adults and about 18 students, plus the student who brought the charge and the student accused. The conclusion was there there was insufficient evidence to come to any conclusion about guilt or innocence. It was treated as a "she said, he said", and the matter was simply dropped.

I don't know what it is that you guys are so afraid of. Except that you're afraid there is substance there. Otherwise, you would have nothing to fear by an investigation.

I'm not afraid of anything. I don't have a political stake in this. What I am concerned about is how an allegation this bereft of any evidence has merit. I do not want to reward this as a tactic to use against future nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat.

As far as your nebulous sex claim is concerned, how long after the alleged incident did the investigation begin? Given the fact that the accused student was still in school under your purview as an administrator, it couldn't have been very long at all. If it was indeed that immediate, even then the results boiled down to a 'he said/she said.' Let me repeat. Even after interviewing a host of people your investigation turned up snake eyes.

Now, take that instance of yours, and add thirty-odd years to the timeline. Add the alleged witnesses who, under oath, testify that they have no recollection of the event described by the accuser. I mean, they've already testified under oath. What more is left to investigate?

I can tell you what the FBI will say. "We interviewed a handful of witnesses who confirmed their previous testimony that they have no recollection of the events of that night. Dr. Ford's lifelong friend claims she wasn't present at any such party, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never heard of this event until it hit a few weeks ago."

I think if there's any motive to be questioned here, it's yours. Any objective person would look at this and say, "How can we possibly verify this woman's claims? The witnesses she named rebutted her account." Politically speaking, you're the one who has skin in the game.

Last edited by MinivanDriver; 09-26-2018 at 06:44 PM..
 
Old 09-26-2018, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
19,329 posts, read 9,102,284 times
Reputation: 18653
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
I'm not afraid of anything. I don't have a political stake in this. What I am concerned about is how an allegation this bereft of any evidence has merit. I do not want to reward this as a tactic to use against future nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat.

As far as your nebulous sex claim is concerned, how long after the alleged incident did the investigation begin? Given the fact that the accused student was still in school under your purview as an administrator, it couldn't have been very long at all. If it was indeed that immediate, even then the results boiled down to a 'he said/she said.' Let me repeat. Even after interviewing a host of people your investigation turned up snake eyes.

Now, take that instance of yours, and add thirty-odd years to the timeline. Add the alleged witnesses who, under oath, testify that they have no recollection of the event described by the accuser. I mean, they've already testified under oath. What more is left to investigate?

I can tell you what the FBI will say. "We interviewed a handful of witnesses who confirmed their previous testimony that they have no recollection of the events of that night. Dr. Ford's lifelong friend claims she wasn't present at any such party, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never heard of this event until it hit a few weeks ago."

I think if there's any motive to be questioned here, it's yours. Any objective person would look at this and say, "How can we possibly verify this woman's claims? The witnesses she named rebutted her account."
Well, if there is an investigation, and there is insufficient evidence to come to any conclusion, I think that will actually make such accusations less likely. So I don't see where there's a reward.

You have a point. The investigation in the situation I was talking about happened within a week of the incident. But the point was, the result of the investigation ended the matter. Sure, the accuser and her mother (who ironically was another school principal) were p---ed off, but they had nowhere to go. It ended the situation.

"Any objective person" would come to that conclusion? There are millions of Americans on each side of this issue.

But this is the problem in this country right now. The inability of either side to look at the other side and say, "Well, they have a point". Either in this thread or another thread (I'm too lazy to go back and find it now), I pointed out that the unwillingness of young women to report sex crimes at the time they occur is a legitimate concern. Despite all the reasons they may not report such a crime, it's still a legitimate concern WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. However, in this case, we're not talking about criminal prosecution. We're talking about not getting a job after what is, essentially, a job interview process. For every teaching position we had open, I interviewed roughly a dozen people on average. Eleven didn't get the job. That's life. Almost all of us have been in that situation. People don't get jobs they apply for, for a myriad of reasons. That's life. If Kavanaugh doesn't get this job...he still had a judgeship for life. Poor fellow. If a teacher candidate had these kinds of accusations against him, I wouldn't hire him. Better to elsewhere. If a teacher already working for had these kinds of accusations against him, that would be a very different situation, because he could lose his job over unsubstantiated claims.

Last edited by phetaroi; 09-26-2018 at 06:54 PM..
 
Old 09-26-2018, 07:19 PM
 
9,547 posts, read 7,479,248 times
Reputation: 23394
Who is being denied the LEGAL presumption of innocence? Individual people (not on a jury) are free to have any opinion they wish. So what's the problem?
 
Old 09-26-2018, 07:59 PM
 
4,142 posts, read 1,693,141 times
Reputation: 13121
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
Who is being denied the LEGAL presumption of innocence? Individual people (not on a jury) are free to have any opinion they wish. So what's the problem?

Well, yeah. You can think anything you want.



But that's not the issue here. It's the willingness of a nomination of a Supreme Court judge to be held up due to unsubstantiated claims from 35 years ago, claims that have been rebutted by Dr. Ford's own witnesses.



Here's the problem with saying you believe her, however. By saying, "I believe her," then you are automatically buying into an accusation without a shred of proof based on nothing more than who she is and who he is. Did Kavanaugh do this? I don't know. I literally don't know one way or another. Because I don't know what the evidence is. Is there foundation to her statement?



But what I do know is that anyone, man, woman, white, black, latino, straight, gay, Methodist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, whoever, should not have a de facto pronouncement of guilt or innocence hung around his or her neck just because he or she falls within a particular identity group. Ultimately, it is the reduction of people into stereotypes, with people acting as judge and jury based on who they are rather than what they did. In that sense, saying, "I believe her because she's a woman" is no different than saying, "I believe her because she's white."



More to the point, if you simply shrug and say, "Hey, what's the harm? My opinion doesn't matter," I would argue that it does matter. For when we form lynch mobs, especially those based on well-orchestrated political operatives, then no one is really safe.
 
Old 09-26-2018, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
19,329 posts, read 9,102,284 times
Reputation: 18653
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
...


But that's not the issue here. It's the willingness of a nomination of a Supreme Court judge to be held up due to unsubstantiated claims from 35 years ago, claims that have been rebutted by Dr. Ford's own witnesses.



Here's the problem with saying you believe her, however. By saying, "I believe her," then you are automatically buying into an accusation without a shred of proof based on nothing more than who she is and who he is. Did Kavanaugh do this? I don't know. I literally don't know one way or another. Because I don't know what the evidence is. Is there foundation to her statement?



But what I do know is that anyone, man, woman, white, black, latino, straight, gay, Methodist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, whoever, should not have a de facto pronouncement of guilt or innocence hung around his or her neck just because he or she falls within a particular identity group. Ultimately, it is the reduction of people into stereotypes, with people acting as judge and jury based on who they are rather than what they did. In that sense, saying, "I believe her because she's a woman" is no different than saying, "I believe her because she's white."



More to the point, if you simply shrug and say, "Hey, what's the harm? My opinion doesn't matter," I would argue that it does matter. For when we form lynch mobs, especially those based on well-orchestrated political operatives, then no one is really safe.
1. What's the hurry? If he may be innocent today...that innocence will still be true a week from now. Why not investigate.

2. Ford fully passed the lie detector test. (I know what you're going to say, but this is not a court of law). Maybe he should take one.

3. Now you're trying to bring race and gender into it. Just stop.
 
Old 09-26-2018, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Midwest
3,834 posts, read 6,793,941 times
Reputation: 6014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone View Post
These sorts of crimes are often he said/she said situations where it's hard to really prove if anything actually happened. Because of this they are notoriously difficult to prosecute, and guilty perpetrators are often set free. It's been said that it's better to let a thousand guilty people go free than let one innocent person be punished, but that leaves a lot of victims without justice in sex related crimes. Should the presumption of innocence apply to sex crimes, or in the interests of justice for victims should the onus be placed on the alleged perpetrator to prove their innocence?
Your powers of reasoning are notably absent, PM.

If it's a false charge, then guess who the victim is: The alleged perp.
Easy way to get back at your ex for real or imagined slights? Charge them with a crime that will smear their reputation to the ends of the earth and almost everyone they know will always have that "Hmmm...did he or didn't he?..." question in their minds.

You are talking about Soviet style "justice."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_M View Post
With the massive number of False accusations, hell no.



I do think that Falsely accusing someone of a sex crime is so heinous that the individual should be shot on sight though. And falsely Insinuating a sex crime be punishable by life in prison without the chance of parole. But that's just my own, pie-in-the-sky, opinion.
I can't disagree.
 
Old 10-01-2018, 11:23 AM
 
871 posts, read 206,995 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
I'm not afraid of anything. I don't have a political stake in this. What I am concerned about is how an allegation this bereft of any evidence has merit. I do not want to reward this as a tactic to use against future nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat.

As far as your nebulous sex claim is concerned, how long after the alleged incident did the investigation begin? Given the fact that the accused student was still in school under your purview as an administrator, it couldn't have been very long at all. If it was indeed that immediate, even then the results boiled down to a 'he said/she said.' Let me repeat. Even after interviewing a host of people your investigation turned up snake eyes.

Now, take that instance of yours, and add thirty-odd years to the timeline. Add the alleged witnesses who, under oath, testify that they have no recollection of the event described by the accuser. I mean, they've already testified under oath. What more is left to investigate?

I can tell you what the FBI will say. "We interviewed a handful of witnesses who confirmed their previous testimony that they have no recollection of the events of that night. Dr. Ford's lifelong friend claims she wasn't present at any such party, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never heard of this event until it hit a few weeks ago."

I think if there's any motive to be questioned here, it's yours. Any objective person would look at this and say, "How can we possibly verify this woman's claims? The witnesses she named rebutted her account." Politically speaking, you're the one who has skin in the game.


Any objective person would wait to see what the FBI discovers, or not.


Any objective person wouldn't be saying "This is what the FBI will say"


You are entirely political in this. I don't know who you think you are fooling (other than yourself perhaps). I say that as someone who actually doesn't give two hoots about the outcome - but when going for a job interview for one of the highest posts in the land and doubts have been cast (and for which there are hundreds of other good Republican candidates) then to the extent they can be practically investigated they should. If they don't find anything, then the vote can proceed. If they do and its an issue, then he should withdraw. Move on to the next republican judge waiting for that top job.
 
Old 10-01-2018, 12:44 PM
 
4,142 posts, read 1,693,141 times
Reputation: 13121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chint View Post
Any objective person would wait to see what the FBI discovers, or not.


Any objective person wouldn't be saying "This is what the FBI will say"


You are entirely political in this. I don't know who you think you are fooling (other than yourself perhaps). I say that as someone who actually doesn't give two hoots about the outcome - but when going for a job interview for one of the highest posts in the land and doubts have been cast (and for which there are hundreds of other good Republican candidates) then to the extent they can be practically investigated they should. If they don't find anything, then the vote can proceed. If they do and its an issue, then he should withdraw. Move on to the next republican judge waiting for that top job.

Good God, you're so wrong. Let me guess. Anybody who doesn't automatically toe a party line is obviously batting for the other team, right? Man, it must be something to live in such a black-and-white universe.

I'm fully in favor of an FBI investigation. One week? Heck, take a month. I'm kind of interested in knowing what the truth is. However, I'm not hopeful that they'll turn up anything after such a long span of time.



What I object to is a rush to judgment, something you seem particularly prone to.
 
Old 10-02-2018, 06:41 AM
 
Location: Elysium
5,883 posts, read 3,169,954 times
Reputation: 4084
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
Good God, you're so wrong. Let me guess. Anybody who doesn't automatically toe a party line is obviously batting for the other team, right? Man, it must be something to live in such a black-and-white universe.

I'm fully in favor of an FBI investigation. One week? Heck, take a month. I'm kind of interested in knowing what the truth is. However, I'm not hopeful that they'll turn up anything after such a long span of time.



What I object to is a rush to judgment, something you seem particularly prone to.
What do you mean take one month, take until after the election. That is unless the Republican Party holds onto the Senate in which case keep digging while the House of Representatives vote to impeach. And then hold on until the next Presidential election.

Finally when all is done we can accuse the next nominee of the other party of raping prepubescent children as minority party tries to hold out until the nation becomes a single party state like California is today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top