Discussion»Questions»Politics» How "credible" could an accusation be when a time and place cant be established and all witnesses deny it ever happened?
A fair point, but how can anyone with any questions about his/her character qualify to be appointed for life to the highest court of law in the US? Justices of SCOTUS must have absolutely clean backgrounds and be beyond reproach. If Kavanaugh is confirmed and anything questionable is proven later, then you're faced with possible impeachment, a process the nation doesn't need. President Trump and the GOP would be much better off if he nominated Judge Barrett.
Certainly never stopped anyone in the past. Just look at all the "winners" who have been appointed. Please understand it is all about politics - the whole point being, by whatever means, to stop the President from acting - on anything they can. Need more be said?
Well you can choose to believe that if you wish. But how do you or any or us know? Don't you see that such an assumption is based on your being sure that if not then people would have come out of the woodwork with accusations? Simply does not work that way and if we expect that it will we cheapen the whole purpose of government with prurient interest and "dirt". No one is perfect or without blame or sin. It simply does not work that way.
All we have is what is known. What else is there to believe, unless one chooses to be paranoid?
This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at September 30, 2018 10:50 PM MDT
But why be "paranoid" about what is not our business anyway? We cannot know everything not should we want to know everything. We cannot control the actions of others nor should we even try to. They have their lives, we have ours, no need to feel "paranoid" unless in some way we feel threatened.
Hello stu bee I think that is a dangerous precedent. So all that need happen to derail a nomination is for someone to make an unprovable, unsubstantiated salacious claim that her own witnesses dispute..Even a judicial nominee is entitled to their due process rights... So we do what you suggest, punish a man for no crime and nominate Amy Cohen Barrett, whats to stop someone from making a false claim about her, and then the next one..under your measure we may not see another justice on the court...in fact, let's just throw the concept of Innocent until PROVEN guilty out the window....For me, THAT is a process America doesn't need...
This post was edited by designer at September 29, 2018 6:07 PM MDT
Considering the era in which he attended high school and college, you don't think it plausible that he became a misogynistic brute when drunk? And her name is Amy Coney Barrett.
This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at September 30, 2018 2:59 PM MDT
I turned 22 shortly after graduating that year, and I knew plenty of frat boys and others on my Ivy League campus (not Yale, at least as an undergraduate) who thought nothing of drinking and doing a variety of drugs and getting girls drunk or high at parties and doing to or with them whatever they could get away with. Most grew up, sobered up, and have gone on to lead respectable, successful lives and careers as architects, attorneys, doctors, investment bankers (I knew one of them who got busted for selling cocaine in college), and one who is president and CEO of a very large and well-known corporation. At the same time, most are not in the public eye like Kavanaugh, so their not-so-perfect youthful pasts won't be exposed. But trust me, Kavanaugh could easily have been just like many privileged Ivy League preppy boys who did things while drunk and/or stoned that they weren't so proud of in the light of the next morning then and would just as soon forget years later.
And the salient issue here is that this is not a criminal court proceeding where the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and all the defense need do for acquittal is establish reasonable doubt. This is a very public vetting process to determine the worthiness of an individual for A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND. The standard that must be met by the candidate is and must be significantly higher than that of reasonable doubt. And I'm sorry, but you or a bunch of partisan senators with a political ax to grind saying that a woman like Christine Blasey Ford is not credible does not make it so. On the contrary, why would someone put herself on the line and lie about something like this in such a public setting? To paraphrase the old saying, is there not often fire where there is smoke?
This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at September 30, 2018 10:52 PM MDT
Hello again Stu Bee... The question made no judgement about woman herself, and I do not know what might have happened, but "could have" and "possibly" and "because he grew up during a certain era" just isnt good enough. Are we now going to disqualify anyone who grew up in the 70's and 80's simply because of the time in which they were born.. This is not a political ax, it is a constitutional ax, and the protections it provides I am grinding...
Ohhhh, she stated she is 100% certain...that changes everything, through em' to the wolves...she said so... He said he is 100% certain it did not happen....but he is a guy who was a young man in the 80's....throw em to the wolves
If their statements are in conflict, look at who has more to gain by being believed (or lose by not being believed) and believe the other party. That obviously is Kavanaugh, hands down.
In court. For the 23rd time, this is not a court trial. When it's a zero sum game of one person's word against another's, with no hard evidence on either side, it makes sense to look at who has the most to gain.
A woman never forgets the man who assaulted her. If he wears a mask, she remembers his voice, size, weight, smell, words and behaviour - unless drugged on ketamine, GBH or similar. Even slightly drunk, the adrenaline of fear is intense; it heightens perception, and one tends to remember very accurately what is intense as a young adult. In fact, it's worse than that. It replays endlessly in dreams until it becomes a form of PTD and interferes with normal relationships. The fact that others who were there don't remember it is easily explained. One, for obvious reasons, sexual assaults almost never occur in front of bystanders. Two, at such parties the guests are focused on their own dancing, eating, drinking, talking, etc - they are not prowling around looking to discover who's doing what to whom.
Stu Bee a few days ago.."ALL Trumpicans, Rosie? How do you know what an entire group of people are thinking and that they all think alike? I'm surprised that you are able and willing to exhibit such bigotry and prejudice. Aren't you better than that?
Stu Bee now...."Considering the era in which he attended high school and college, you don't think it plausible that he became a misogynistic brute when drunk?"
How do YOU know what an entire group of people who grew up during a "certain era" are thinking and acting?
Because as I said, I knew many. All I'm saying is that it's plausible, not that an entire group of people thinks or acts alike. You should read more carefully and thoughtfully and try not to see only what you need to make some point.
Her own witnesses did not deny it happened, they said they had no recollection of the occurrence. That may well be if they, like Kavanaugh, had too much to drink.
A few more sensitive questions and she would have cracked like Humpty Dumpty and told the real truth. She was hanging on by a thread, held up by the democrats constant pumping her up with praise. In my opinion. I was waiting for the hammer to fall but it never did. Personally, I feel she is a mental wreck, walking a thin line. She was NOT raped but some unknown guy (she believes) just tried to take her clothing off. She has a PHD in psychology and she is trying to say that "brief" encounter ruined her for life? give me a break. Don't believe it for a min.
So some guy "just tried to take her clothing off" without her consent? Huh? Who are you or anyone else to characterize what happened to another person as "just," especially if you weren't even there? GIVE ME A BREAK!
Stu Spelling Bee 