iNow Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Ten oz said: What exactly would have been "dangerous" about giving the FBI full anatomy to run an investigation? Kavanaugh had multiple accusers and the FBI was restricted to only investigating one, given only a week, and wasn't able to interview either the accuser or accused. You are complaining about Hirono and what her comments could potentially mean for due process while totally ignoring the manner in which Republicans manipulated the FBI's investigation which would have been to best chance of due process. Not to pile on here, but... There were also at least 40 other people who spoke up and (several) said they could corroborate Fords story, but all of whom were ignored completely by the FBI. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/10/03/more-than-40-potential-sources-have-not-been-contacted-by-the-fbi-in-kavanaugh-investigation/23549713/ Quote More than 40 people with potential information for the investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have not been contacted for interviews by the FBI, NBC News has learned. <...> But sources close to the investigation, as well as a number of people who know those involved, say the FBI has not contacted dozens of potential corroborators or character witnesses. More than 20 individuals who know either Kavanaugh or Ramirez, who has accused the nominee of exposing himself to her while the two attended Yale University, have not heard from the FBI despite attempts to contact investigators, including Kavanaugh's roommate at the time But, I suspect I'll just be accused of hating the republican party and defending democrats tooth and nail, because that's just a whole lot easier to attack than the content of what I'm actually discussing. Edited October 10, 2018 by iNow 2
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, DrP said: In this though, it doesn't matter what party is in charge or who is president. The investigation was barred by the WH.. to me that is unacceptable whatever the party politics. Presumably those that barred it from happening. It is not the job of the Judiciary committee to provide a "full" investigation or put Kavanaugh on trial. If you are now advocating for a full investigation and/or trial outside of that, and not a change to due process or the presumption of innocence in current form, then I have no issue with that. Nor did I ever. (I did suggest a subpoena of Mark Judge to the committee instead of a limited committee/WH directed FBI investigation if you look back on my posts, but only because they had allowed Ford to testify and she offered inconclusive evidence) Edited October 10, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
DrP Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 25 minutes ago, Ten oz said: What exactly would have been "dangerous" about giving the FBI full anatomy to run an investigation? Kavanaugh had multiple accusers and the FBI was restricted to only investigating one, given only a week, and wasn't able to interview either the accuser or accused. Presumably the truth, else why cover it up? Maybe Harvey Weinstein's mistake was not running for governor - he should have run and had his investigations quashed by the WH. ;-)
NicholaiRen Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 17 minutes ago, iNow said: But, I suspect I'll just be accused of hating the republican party and defending democrats tooth and nail, because that's just a whole lot easier to attack than the content of what I'm actually discussing. I asked him the same question 8 times, and he never answered and instead simply mitigated around it to complain about the Republican party. Hard to have a debate with someone who just ignores what you say. 24 minutes ago, DrP said: In this though, it doesn't matter what party is in charge or who is president. The investigation was barred by the WH.. to me that is unacceptable whatever the party politics. Well, when you don't press charges(Ford Fault) the constitution doesn't guarantee any form of investigation. Moreover, it's a protection of the people to not simply allow investigations into people without an official reason, because the government will abuse it to simply dig up dirt on people. Look what the Republicans did with Hillary. Millions of dollars wasted on fruitless investigations, simply trying to dig up dirt. It was ridiculous, and I'm not interested in seeing it happen again. If Ford pressed charges against Kavanaugh, she and the Democrats would have had their investigation. However, they didn't. So if they want to complain that they didn't get an investigation it will fall on deaf ears for me. The reason they didn't want an investigation is that they knew they wouldn't have found anything based on sexual assault. There was not enough evidence to even investigate for a week, all they could do is simply interview people for character witnesses. The Senate publicly interviewed Kavanaugh and Ford, the FBI didn't need to. Instead, the Democrats wanted an unofficial investigation into Kavanaugh. Not because they wanted the truth about sexual assault, but because they wanted to dig up dirt on him elsewhere. In the U.S, if you're in trial and an investigation is conducted, only things that are found relating to the incident can be used. Otherwise, again, government abuse of power. So all the other dirt Democrats could have found, much of which I suspect would have been speculative(like Fords), wouldn't have been usable. And the Democrats didn't need that. They needed an excuse to simply investigate Kavanaugh without restrictions to try and do everything they could to frame him as a terrible guy to the American public. If it were allowed for investigations to be done without due process, trust me, they'd never get to the end of it. Again, simply refer to Hillary, the Republicans always found a convenient "lead" at the end of it that required them to do more investigations, and they'd scream and cry like children if they didn't get it. That should be illegal in my opinion, but it isn't. The exact same thing would happen with the Democrats. They'd call for an open investigation, they'd find nothing, and then at the end, they've found a convenient "lead" that simply mandates they do another investigation into that charge. And so on and so on. It creates a never-ending cycle where the Democrats would never be happy with the results until they found something to completely destroy the man with, just as the Republicans were never happy with the results. Now, you can disregard my entire argument with "Democrats would never do this" however I assure you they would. Donald Trump, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the supreme court, are steeped in partisan politics that results in just this type of behavior. IT's more important than ever to look at both sides objectively. It allows you to realize the overall strategy easily when you're no longer with a particular side and looking for why they're right. When you look at it objectively and don't assume that one party is simply above doing something, everything they do makes almost perfectly logical sense.
iNow Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 27 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: Not because they wanted the truth about sexual assault, but because they wanted to dig up dirt on him elsewhere Wow... more conspiracy thinking. Good times. Good stuff. Is it possible some senators wanted this? Sure, maybe. Can one proclaim it with such absolute certainty and not look like a blind partisan immune to reality? Not so much... 30 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: When you look at it objectively and don't assume that one party is simply above doing something, It sure is a good thing nobody here has done this. Perhaps unintentionally, but you appear to be attacking men of straw.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, iNow said: Wow... more conspiracy thinking. Good times. Good stuff. Is it possible some senators wanted this? Sure, maybe. Can one proclaim it with such absolute certainty and not look like a blind partisan immune to reality? Not so much... Can you deny it with any certainty and not look like a blind partisan immune to reality? (not saying you did)
iNow Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 Just now, J.C.MacSwell said: Can you deny it with any certainty and not look like a blind partisan immune to reality? (not saying you did) Directly in my post... the one you quoted in your reply... I openly acknowledge that it's possible some senators did this. Why does this have to be so hard? We surely agree on 95+ percent, yet get stuck for 20 pages on the other 5... 1
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 23 minutes ago, iNow said: Directly in my post... the one you quoted in your reply... I openly acknowledge that it's possible some senators did this. Why does this have to be so hard? We surely agree on 95+ percent, yet get stuck for 20 pages on the other 5... It probably in your case has more to do with the "Wow... more conspiracy thinking. Good times. Good stuff. " I think this simply takes away from the clarity. Anyone already sucked down into the abyss of the extreme left and extreme right, or perched on the edge ready to go in, are going to miss the moderate and balanced 95%. Ten oz has provided much more generally accepted statistics than you did with your graphic, but seems quite inclined to a "ends justify the means" thinking. He hasn't made it clear he supports due process and the presumption of innocence as we know it, and has in fact implied otherwise.
NicholaiRen Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 57 minutes ago, iNow said: Wow... more conspiracy thinking. Good times. Good stuff. Reasonable thinking. But since you apparently believe you have a more logical reason as to why the Democrats didn't simply press charges and get their investigation, please enlighten me. Otherwise, I will continue to maintain this position because it makes the most reasonable sense. Edit: I've explained out all of my reasoning, I explained the end results, I explained the motivations, and when you apply it to the current situation not only does it fit perfectly but it predicted everything that they did. Rather then simply dismissing it as "conspiracy thinking" perhaps you should actually tell me where you think I'm wrong. Edited October 10, 2018 by NicholaiRen
iNow Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Ten oz has provided much more generally accepted statistics than you did with your graphic, but seems quite inclined to a "ends justify the means" thinking. He hasn't made it clear he supports due process and the presumption of innocence as we know it, and has in fact implied otherwise. Just one hour ago, directly in response to you, he said exactly this: “An investigation is what I have advocated. Believing the women to me means having a real investigation” This shouldn’t be so hard... 2
Ten oz Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: Democrats have no power in Congress. The Senate Judiciary committee is majority Republican. It is Republicans who who controlled the hearings, the FBI investigation and the confirmation vote. What exactly did Democrats do which you feel I should be upset at? An investigation is what I have advocated. Believing the women to me means having a real investigation which doesn't ignore all but one accuser, puts a timeline on the investigation, and doesn't allow for interviews of the people involved. In my opinion one would only ignore accusers and scratch them from being interviewed if one doesn't believe them. 3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: It probably in your case has more to do with the "Wow... more conspiracy thinking. Good times. Good stuff. " I think this simply takes away from the clarity. Anyone already sucked down into the abyss of the extreme left and extreme right, or perched on the edge ready to go in, are going to miss the moderate and balanced 95%. Ten oz has provided much more generally accepted statistics than you did with your graphic, but seems quite inclined to a "ends justify the means" thinking. He hasn't made it clear he supports due process and the presumption of innocence as we know it, and has in fact implied otherwise. How is advocating that sexual assault claims be investigated anti due process?
NicholaiRen Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ten oz said: How is advocating that sexual assault claims be investigated anti due process? When we advocated that an investigation must be made, you said this: On 10/8/2018 at 1:24 PM, Ten oz said: The status quo 20% of women are raped and 63% never come forward in part out of fear of not being believed. You rather we all just with that than believe women because you fear some miniscule (relative to the 63% of rape victims that never come forward) number of men might falsely accused? We'd do right by more people if we believe women while working towards improvements then sitting with the status quo while working towards improvements. That is simply a statistical fact. Doing right by the largest number of people is while continuing to improve the system makes far more sense to me. That's how it's anti-due process. Because you're changing your position and pretending @J.C.MacSwell and I are fools to not notice it. Edited October 10, 2018 by NicholaiRen -1
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 25 minutes ago, iNow said: Just one hour ago, directly in response to you, he said exactly this: “An investigation is what I have advocated. Believing the women to me means having a real investigation” This shouldn’t be so hard... It is hard though. I don't know whether his advocating of an investigation is additional or instead of his earlier stance on due process. He hasn't clarified...he's simply pulled a "Hirono".
iNow Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: Since you apparently believe you have a more logical reason as to why the Democrats didn't simply press charges and get their investigation, please enlighten me. Happy to. It would not be the decision of “the Democrats” whether or not to press charges. It’s the decision of Ford and her lawyer. On top of that, these charges would fall under local jurisdiction, not federal, and the specific county of Maryland that would have said jurisdiction has a statute of limitations preventing this. Hope that helps! https://www.apnews.com/61a3e6e55ca044688e7d93a89eb26a23 24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: It is hard though. I don't know whether his advocating of an investigation is additional or instead of his earlier stance on due process. He hasn't clarified...he's simply pulled a "Hirono". Unless one tries very hard not to understand him, it seems abundantly clear to me that Ten Oz is not against due process. Edited October 10, 2018 by iNow
zapatos Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Ten oz. I am sure you think that sounds good, but it just demonstrates that after 19 pages you still don't get the main point with regard to rush to judgement, disregard for due process as we know it, and the presumption of innocence as we know it. Regardless of strategy, honesty, or who is guilty, what Hirono said, implied, and did not qualify...it is a dangerous position that you seem to be advocating. You seem to think that you can turn it on or off for reasons you feel are appropriate. Can you not at least understand that if these fundamental "changes to the status quo" are made, you might not get to choose when and how they are applied...those in power will. With all due respect, I think it is you who is missing the point. The Kavanaugh hearings were not a trial. Due Process has absolutely nothing to do with any of this unless charges are filed. Presumption of innocence is not necessary. Even if the Judiciary Committee believed Kavanaugh they could have decided not to move him forward for a vote for any reason, such as that they thought he was too divisive. The "status quo" you mention is not that the Senate follow Due Process, but that they use their own judgement on how to vote. This was a job interview, not a trial. EDIT: Spelling and grammar. Edited October 10, 2018 by zapatos 2
Ten oz Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 On 10/4/2018 at 6:52 AM, Ten oz said: Yes, that is the short version of the rest of my post. Step up and do the right thing is something we all should strive to do. Nothing objectionable there in my opinion. Saying Ford needs to be believed doesn't negate due process. If you walk into your local law enforcement office to file a complaint wouldn't you like to be believed? Of course a thorough investigation would follow but upfront shouldn't one be treated with respect? How would you feel if your house were robbed and after calling law enforcement they showed up to take your statement full of suspicion, doubt, and repeatedly challenging whether or not you made the whole thing up. That wouldn't be good service. Rather they would show up and take you complaint at face value and treat you with respect. Then they'd investigate. On 10/4/2018 at 10:14 AM, Ten oz said: If you reported a crime to law enforcement they word believe you, take your word at face value, and investigate. Believing a report doesn't preclude a proper investigation. 30 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: When we advocated that an investigation must be made, you said this: That's how it's anti-due process. Because you're changing your position and pretending @J.C.MacSwell and I are fools to not notice it. Above are a couple posts of mine from last week which, typos aside, clearly state that I fully support an investigation. My position hasn't changed.
CharonY Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 2 hours ago, iNow said: Not to pile on here, but... There were also at least 40 other people who spoke up and (several) said they could corroborate Fords story, but all of whom were ignored completely by the FBI. I think one of the things folks are hung up is that they think in terms of the alleged assault as the subject of the investigation rather than conduct and suitability of the person for the supreme court (which, as xth reminder, is the actual mechanism at play). Within the realm and scope of the hearing, we do have learned that BK has issues as a candidate, to an extent where legal scholars as well as a retired supreme court justice have raised issues. Not about the fact that he attempted sexual assault, but because of his performance, including open partisanship with more than a hint of conspiracy theories, lack of commitment to judicious inquiry as well as temperament. As such, and I am repeating myself here, due process and presumption of innocence are mechanisms that are irrelevant to those questions. Whether the alleged assault happened is a different matter, though it was early in this thread conflated into one already early in this thread. Now, it is rather obvious that it would be very difficult to validate the records of either party, considering only three people could really testify to the events and none of them being impartial (i.e. Kavanaugh, Judge and Blasey Ford). The whole talk about due process seems to try to shift the discussion to ascertain that as long as Kavanaugh does not get convicted in court, Blasey Ford must be a liar. And why many folks react negatively to that is because of the overall larger issue mentioned before that this burden not only lets rapists go free (which due to lack of evidence may be inevitable), but also then presents victims with unsuccessful claims as liars. 9 minutes ago, zapatos said: This was a job interview, not a trial. I just can't believe how often that has to be repeated. 2
NicholaiRen Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, iNow said: On top of that, these charges would fall under local jurisdiction, not federal, and the specific county of Maryland that would have said jurisdiction has a statute of limitations preventing this. They'd prevent a conviction, but not an investigation. Remember, this is a job interview, not a trial. 19 minutes ago, iNow said: It would not be the decision of “the Democrats” whether or not to press charges. It’s the decision of Ford and her lawyer. This is something I didn't account for, honestly. However, now I'm curious as to why Ford doesn't want to press charges. 12 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Above are a couple posts of mine from last week which, typos aside, clearly state that I fully support an investigation. My position hasn't changed. Great. So you agree that it should be innocent until proven guilty and that we should not lean towards believing one person over another based off of Gender, Race, etc, regardless of what the accusation is? Edited October 10, 2018 by NicholaiRen
Ten oz Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: Great. So you agree that it should be innocent until proven guilty and that we should not lean towards believing one person over another based off of Gender, Race, etc, regardless of what the accusation is? One would need to believe the women to even launch an investigation. A point CharonY explain well in a previous post. On 10/4/2018 at 3:06 PM, CharonY said: Or rather the opposite is true. If law enforcement does not believe the victim, it typically does not to to a prosecutor. In the particular quotes as, already mentioned, due process has not entered yet, as obviously the case has not entered the judicial system. And in fact, if there is no assumption of credibility of the victim, they won't. Due process therefore cannot come before assessment of the credibility of the victim.
CharonY Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: They'd prevent a conviction, but not an investigation. Remember, this is a job interview, not a trial. Who would do that investigation outside of the FBI? And as we know, the scope was extremely limited. 9 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: However, now I'm curious as to why Ford doesn't want to press charges. The reasons are her own and before someone takes it as evidence that it did not happen (again) it is a very common occurrence among victims. More importantly, perhaps is also the fact it is unlikely that prosecutors would go for it. After all, and I repeat myself here within a few minutes, only three folks could realistically testify to the veracity of the event and none of them were impartial. That aside, iNow also mentioned statute of limitations, which would apply if it was not treated as a criminal case. A second degree assault would be considered a misdemeanor, for example. Edited October 10, 2018 by CharonY
Edwina Lee Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) To me, the key issue about the appointment of Karvanough isn't about his personality, but very importantly, one of judicial independence. Judges are meant to be politically neutral. Here, Karvanough is a clear Pro-Life law maker. His appointment is clearly there to push the US backwards on the law on abortion. He should have refused his appointment on the grounds that he is not politically neutral for the purpose of his appointment. He did not, and that reflects extremely badly on his suitability in the Law profession, and on his character. Edited October 10, 2018 by Edwina Lee mis-keyed before message was finished.
zapatos Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, NicholaiRen said: So you agree that it should be innocent until proven guilty and that we should not lean towards believing one person over another based off of Gender, Race, etc, regardless of what the accusation is? In the US people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. No one that I've seen is disputing that so you can feel safe not asking that question again. On the other hand, that is not a universal standard in all aspects of society, e.g. Advise and Consent of Supreme Court Nominees. Since courts are different than other aspects of society, it is important not to conflate the two. Edited October 10, 2018 by zapatos
iNow Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 1 minute ago, zapatos said: Since courts are different than other aspects of society, it is important not to conflate the two. Depends on one’s perspective and motivation. If the intent is to unnecessarily divide people who otherwise largely agree, then conflation is a great tactic. Warring at the margins... If, however, the intent is to find common ground and come together as a people, then you’re quite right. Avoiding conflation is important. Focus on common ground. Readers must decide for themselves who falls where. 2
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, zapatos said: With all due respect, I think it is you who is missing the point. The Kavanaugh hearings were not a trial. Due Process has absolutely nothing to do with any of this unless charges are filed. Presumption of innocence is not necessary. Even if the Judiciary Committee believed Kavanaugh they could have decided not to move him forward for a vote for any reason, such as that they thought he was too divisive. The "status quo" you mention is not that the Senate follow Due Process, but that they use their own judgement on how to vote. This was a job interview, not a trial. EDIT: Spelling and grammar. Due process is about rights. It is incorrect to think that it takes effect only after charges are filed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process If you read carefully you will notice I included "rush to judgement" which of course can take place well before any hearings or trial. As I have alluded to a number of times to those complaining about his evasiveness throughout the hearing process, and his characterization of himself in high school/college, I think Kavanaugh was well aware that he was in a job interview...which at times deteriorated into character assassination... but one in which he was successful in getting the job. Edited October 10, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
zapatos Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Due process is about rights. It is incorrect to think that it takes effect only after charges are filed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process From your link... Quote When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law. What law do you think was not being followed in this process?
Recommended Posts