B Kavanough and MeToo

[swansont]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What exactly do you accept as contradicted? Is it because some disagree with the overall impression he gave of his drinking? Or do you have something specific? You have an opinion. It may be correct, or it may not. You have nothing close to a confirmation, I am sure you understand the difference.

These were not opinions. They were contradictions by people who observed him drinking. i.e. eyewitnesses

10 hours ago, MigL said:

I must have mis-read this, Swansont.
"But if it were, a judge would instruct the jury that if they find a witness to not be credible, they may dismiss all of their testimony. Since Kavanaugh was evasive and untruthful, that would be grounds to do exactly that"

But what you said was "testimony would be disallowed by a trial judge" which is not the same thing. Do you see the rather significant difference here?

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think if there is anything that can be confirmed as untruthful it would likely have been on Jake Tappers list:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/29/fact-check-jake-tapper-brett-kavanaugh-denial-claims-orig.cnn

There were 2 things Tapper included:

1. Kavanaugh claimed that the alleged witnesses denied the allegations. Tapper correctly points out that this was not strictly true, they denied knowledge of it, which is not the same thing.

2. Kavanaugh claimed the drinking age at the time was 18. Tapper points out that the drinking age was 18 in Maryland  at the time of the incident, and would change to 21 in Maryland prior to Kavanaugh turning 18.

 

#2 is incorrect. There was a grandfather clause such that those 18 at the time of the change were still allowed to legally drink. It would not fully change to 21 until June 30, 1985.

As he wasn't 18 at the time, he was not grandfathered in. He claimed he was legal.

"The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink"

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimum_purchase_age_by_state

This would not directly affect Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged incident as he was 17 at the time in any case. When he turned 18 he would have had to drive 10 minutes to D.C. to legally drink. But in any case there is nothing untruthful about what he claimed. It explains the easy access to alcohol for high schoolers at that time. (Let's not forget that as a 15 year old Ford admits to drinking at that time...she remembers it as 1 beer at the time of the incident, but was not questioned on it, or how much she tended to drink)

For Jake Tapper, Swansont, and other fact checkers out there...You are entitled to your opinion...Not your facts...

(   that's a takeoff on Tappers frequent closing line on CNN)

Indeed. The fact is he claimed he was legal, because the drinking age was 18. It was not a true statement.

[Ten oz]

@swansont, Kavanaugh is a Judge. As boasted he's a Yale graduate. Providing knowingly misleading testimony, citing partisan conspiracies, and challenging Senators who questioned him is all ugly behavior by Kavanaugh. If this were a trial Kavanaugh would have been found in contempt of court must likely in my opinion. J.C.MacSwell and MigL seem to be saying they don't care about his behavior or fitness for office. Rather they seem to have a philosophical issue with the fact Ford's claim have been included in his nomination process in the first place. I get the impression they feel it is unfair to Kavanaugh that anything he has not been proven guilty of  in a court of law would be brought of. Video could come out tomorrow showing Kavanaugh violently hold Ford down covering her mouth and MigL and J.C. MacSwell would still argue that everything up to the release of the tape had been unfair. They don't seem to care whether he is guilty or innocent. They seem to care that he is treated as 100% innocent every second up to the moment he is proven 100% guilty.

MigL has repeatedly stated that Kavanaugh's fitness for the bench doesn't matter. Opening sentence of MigL's OP is " This is not about B Kavanough's suitability for the Supreme Court". J.C.MacSwell and MigL are doing mental gymnastics that I find disingenuous . I have attempted to stick exclusively to merits of the misconduct claim but the Senate hearings are purely about Kavanaugh's suitability. It is precisely what the Constitution empowers the Senate to evaluate and vote on. Not his guilt or innocence in any specific crime. Suitability is the purpose of these hearings yet per the OP it is off topic to consider suitability. This isn't a trial the Senate job here isn't to determine if Kavanaugh violated a federal or state statutes. This processes only purpose is to determine his lifetime appointment.  Ford wrote her Representative, Senator Feinstein, a letter regarding the assault months before hearing began and her Representative brought it up during the hearings. That is how representative govt works. The way this conversation has been boxed in by the OP does it a disservice in my opinion. I do understand MigL's and J.C. MacSwell's point about being innocent until proven guilty but MigL and J.C. MacSwell don't seem to understand the point of the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings.   As such we are all just posting past each other. 

[Silvestru]

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Ford and her Husband claim (sworn affidavit) that Ford named Kavanaugh to her therapist back in 2012.

This is not a trial but I have a question about the oath of the therapist regarding confidentiality. Even with Ford's permission can she disclose such details that took place during therapy?
Also seeing as this would be such a huge boost for Ford's credibility (if the Therapist confirms or shows the notes) why hasn't she pressed this topic more. 
From what I could follow from this case and please correct me but she first generally mentioned that she spoke to some people about the Kavanaugh and revealed the therapy thing later in the case "job interview process".
 

This is speculation on my part but If I would be Ford this would be my main focus. I would even discuss with the therapist before coming out with this accusation publicly.

Another speculation and please be gentle with me on this one - I am not familiar with Doctor Ford's life but  if I had her alleged horrible experience, during therapy, this topic would be the main one to discuss. It wouldn't be a name that I mentioned in 2012. I understand not talking about it with your husband, family as it is a huge stigma but why are you even going to Therapy if not to try to cope or heal is in anyway possible from such experiences.

I am really on doctor Ford's side on this but I just found this a bit curious.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

@swansont, Kavanaugh is a Judge. As boasted he's a Yale graduate. Providing knowingly misleading testimony, citing partisan conspiracies, and challenging Senators who questioned him is all ugly behavior by Kavanaugh. If this were a trial Kavanaugh would have been found in contempt of court must likely in my opinion. J.C.MacSwell and MigL seem to be saying they don't care about his behavior or fitness for office. Rather they seem to have a philosophical issue with the fact Ford's claim have been included in his nomination process in the first place. I get the impression they feel it is unfair to Kavanaugh that anything he has not been proven guilty of  in a court of law would be brought of. Video could come out tomorrow showing Kavanaugh violently hold Ford down covering her mouth and MigL and J.C. MacSwell would still argue that everything up to the release of the tape had been unfair. They don't seem to care whether he is guilty or innocent. They seem to care that he is treated as 100% innocent every second up to the moment he is proven 100% guilty.

MigL has repeatedly stated that Kavanaugh's fitness for the bench doesn't matter. Opening sentence of MigL's OP is " This is not about B Kavanough's suitability for the Supreme Court". J.C.MacSwell and MigL are doing mental gymnastics that I find disingenuous . I have attempted to stick exclusively to merits of the misconduct claim but the Senate hearings are purely about Kavanaugh's suitability. It is precisely what the Constitution empowers the Senate to evaluate and vote on. Not his guilt or innocence in any specific crime. Suitability is the purpose of these hearings yet per the OP it is off topic to consider suitability. This isn't a trial the Senate job here isn't to determine if Kavanaugh violated a federal or state statutes. This processes only purpose is to determine his lifetime appointment.  Ford wrote her Representative, Senator Feinstein, a letter regarding the assault months before hearing began and her Representative brought it up during the hearings. That is how representative govt works. The way this conversation has been boxed in by the OP does it a disservice in my opinion. I do understand MigL's and J.C. MacSwell's point about being innocent until proven guilty but MigL and J.C. MacSwell don't seem to understand the point of the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings.   As such we are all just posting past each other. 

Is it not possible that as Non Americans we don't fall in to the trap of the extremely polarized views that are all to prevalent in the U.S. right now?

This is from the original post:

On 9/22/2018 at 8:35 PM, MigL said:

This is not about B Kavanough's suitability for the Supreme Court, nor whether he is innocent or not of the accusations levelled against him ( and certainly not about D Trump ).
The issue I want to discuss is whether the MeToo movement has made Due Process a thing of the past. It is no longer 'innocent until proven guilty', but guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. Have we, in our rush to provide a level playing field for victims of sexual assault, taken away the rights of a group of people ( males ) to a fair trial ?
The fact that a woman, with dubious recollection ( self admitted ) of events that happened over 30 yrs ago, is to be believed beyond doubt, and could potentially ruin a man's life, unless he can prove himself innocent ( and even then, there will always be suspicions ), seems more than a little skewed.

Is this the kind of 'new justice'  system we  need/want ?

And I realize the problems with getting women to report abuse, but surely there has to be a better way than demonizing all men.
Men are human and a certain number of them will do vile things.
But women are only human too and a certain number of them will use this 'new justice' for their own vile ends.

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

I will re-iterate my position...

I don't like B Kavanough. I find C Blasey Ford much more likable and sympathetic.
 And I don't think he would be a good candidate for the Supreme Court.

But that has nothing to do with which story is more 'robust' and guilt/innocence of the allegations.
Justice should not be subjective.
 

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

I will re-iterate my position...

I don't like B Kavanough. I find C Blasey Ford much more likable and sympathetic.
 And I don't think he would be a good candidate for the Supreme Court.

But that has nothing to do with which story is more 'robust' and guilt/innocence of the allegations.
Justice should not be subjective.
 

Right, but you do realize that Kavanaugh's suitablity for SCOTUS is what Ford is testifying to? If is why she wrote to her Senator rather than walked I to a police department and filed a complaint. 

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

I will re-iterate my position...

I don't like B Kavanough. I find C Blasey Ford much more likable and sympathetic.
 And I don't think he would be a good candidate for the Supreme Court.

But that has nothing to do with which story is more 'robust' and guilt/innocence of the allegations.
Justice should not be subjective.
 

Your OP said "The issue I want to discuss is whether the MeToo movement has made Due Process a thing of the past. It is no longer 'innocent until proven guilty', but guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. Have we, in our rush to provide a level playing field for victims of sexual assault, taken away the rights of a group of people ( males ) to a fair trial ?"

So why mention Kavanaugh at all? He is not on trial. This is not an issue of legal justice.

 

[MigL]

This was my comment on the first page...
"But maybe you're right, B Kavanough is a bad example to use because he might not get the appointment for other reasons."

These political topics, however, seem to take on a life of their own and go in differing directions.
But we're here now, so we'll make the best of it.

Even though this is not a trial, and he won't be doing jail time, is his life not adversely affected by these allegations ?
And is that fair if that is all they ever turn out to be ?

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

Even though this is not a trial, and he won't be doing jail time, is his life not adversely affected by these allegations ?
And is that fair if that is all they ever turn out to be ?

Yes, his life is adversely affected by these allegations.

If the allegations are not true, then the adverse effects are not fair.

If the allegations are true, then the adverse effects are fair.

Sucks for him if the allegations are not true, but what are you going to do? Unfortunately there is no way to bring such allegations to light and force an investigation unless the allegation is made public. At best we can punish the person making the allegation if untrue and it was done with malice.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Silvestru said:

This is not a trial but I have a question about the oath of the therapist regarding confidentiality. Even with Ford's permission can she disclose such details that took place during therapy?

As she and her husband were the patients,  they can give consent to waive confidentiality. 

 

3 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Also seeing as this would be such a huge boost for Ford's credibility (if the Therapist confirms or shows the notes) why hasn't she pressed this topic more. 

Who do you mean with "she"? After all, it is the senate asking the questions. As one of the lines was to figure out whether she was credible they rather pressed on aspects that they thought they could find contradictions (e.g. repeated question on lie detector tests, flights etc.). And note again this was not a fact-finding mission per se.

 

3 hours ago, Silvestru said:

From what I could follow from this case and please correct me but she first generally mentioned that she spoke to some people about the Kavanaugh and revealed the therapy thing later in the case "job interview process".

That was not the timeline. Based on the affidavits her first direct naming of Kavanaugh was 2012 during couple therapy with her husband (which her husband said in an affidavit). The other affidavits indicated that she mentioned him as assaulter at different times between 2012 and 2018.

3 hours ago, Silvestru said:

It wouldn't be a name that I mentioned in 2012. I understand not talking about it with your husband, family as it is a huge stigma but why are you even going to Therapy if not to try to cope or heal is in anyway possible from such experiences.

I think you are under the misconception that in therapy it was the only mentioning of Kavanaugh as assaulter. According to her husband she mentioned to him that she was assaulted around the time when they got married (~2002) but did not name Kavanaugh (which is not unusual). She only did it while they were in the couple's therapy. That seems to be almost textbook behaviour. Often giving someone 

I am not sure what you mean with "not a name that I mentioned in 2012". Considering that was part of the therapy it would be precisely the time to give her assailant a name and to conquer her fears. But maybe I am not understanding you correctly.

Edited October 1, 2018 by CharonY

[Silvestru]

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Who do you mean with "she"? After all, it is the senate asking the questions. As one of the lines was to figure out whether she was credible they rather pressed on aspects that they thought they could find contradictions (e.g. repeated question on lie detector tests, flights etc.). And note again this was not a fact-finding mission per se.

I understand but it sounds like questioning the therapist would make things a lot more clear. If there are indeed notes that you can timestamp somehow to 2012 then you have actual evidence of this story not being politically loaded. (I have serious doubts it is but it would clarify the situation) 

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That was not the timeline. Based on the affidavits her first direct naming of Kavanaugh was 2012 during couple therapy with her husband (which her husband said in an affidavit). The other affidavits indicated that she mentioned him as assaulter at different times between 2012 and 2018.

Thank you for clarifying that.

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think you are under the misconception that in therapy it was the only mentioning of Kavanaugh as assaulter. According to her husband she mentioned to him that she was assaulted around the time when they got married (~2002) but did not Kavanaugh. She only did it while they were in the couple's therapy. I am not sure what you mean with "not a name that I mentioned in 2012". Considering that was part of the therapy it would be precisely the time to give her assailant a name and to conquer her fears. But maybe I am not understanding you correctly.

I meant that it would be the main focus of therapy not just a random mention. I would also be curious of what the therapists advice was regarding this. Maybe she had a part in encouraging her to come forth to the public.

Apologies Charon, I realise I am not bringing much to the table information-wise and I am confused at how this is being handled as (as many mentioned already) it is not a trial, it is an "interview". As an uneducated in US politics outsider looking in, I can say that I have never seen such haos and so many diverging agendas all into one case/trial/interview thing. I am not trying to be insensitive as both parties here are undergoing stress and pain but I find this the most interesting "incident" that happened in the last few years. I can only hope that there will be a clear end to this and we will know what actually happened.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Silvestru

[CharonY]

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

Even though this is not a trial, and he won't be doing jail time, is his life not adversely affected by these allegations ?
And is that fair if that is all they ever turn out to be ?

Well, it is negatively both their lives, so clearly it is not one-sided. Also as Zapatos said, is it still unfair, if he actually did it? 

[swansont]

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

Even though this is not a trial, and he won't be doing jail time, is his life not adversely affected by these allegations ?
And is that fair if that is all they ever turn out to be ?

That's true of anyone accused of a crime. What do we do — stop prosecuting crimes based on eyewitness testimony, because it could be mistaken? People have been wrongly convicted of crimes and paid a much higher price than Kavanaugh will.

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, Silvestru said:

I meant that it would be the main focus of therapy not just a random mention. I would also be curious of what the therapists advice was regarding this. Maybe she had a part in encouraging her to come forth to the public.

Oh I see. It is not clear what the main topic of the session was (for all we know it could be marital issues) and the assault could have been a minor point. Or maybe it was the main point, after all, the session have not been released (AFAIK). 

 

3 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Apologies Charon, I realise I am not bringing much to the table information-wise and I am confused at how this is being handled as (as many mentioned already) it is not a trial, it is an "interview". As an uneducated in US politics outsider looking in, I can say that I have never seen such haos and so many diverging agendas all into one case/trial/interview thing

The big issue really is that SCOTUS positions have always been politicized as they are life-time appointments and currently in the US the positions are extremely polarized, especially as the republicans blocked Garland (an Obama nominee) and they already had Gorsuch. I suspect democrats are happy to kick a bit of a fuss but they do not have the voting power to actively block someone themselves. There is also the parallel to the confirmation of Clarence Thomas, where Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual misconduct. The interview conducted by Dems and Reps is almost painful to watch. A comparison is made here.

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, it is negatively both their lives, so clearly it is not one-sided. Also as Zapatos said, is it still unfair, if he actually did it? 

All politicians and their appointees are subject to public criticisms. It is neither fair or unfair that Trump attacks Jeff Sessions on twitter or that some political aids get booted from restaurants. No one is forced into these very public positions which impact the lives of everyone in the country. I don't pity any of them from Hilary Clinton to Trump or Brett Kavanaugh. A political appointee crying about being criticized publicly is like a Football running back crying about being tackled during a play in my opinion. 

[CharonY]

Criticism, yes. Even public shaming to some degree. Death threats are a bit beyond that, I would say (just because it has not been mentioned before). 

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

A political appointee crying about being criticized publicly

While it is more than merely criticized, I take your point. Someone in that position should handle these situations better. I can't help but think that a woman in a similar situation  crying while applying for a highly prestigious position would be seen as weak.

[koti]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

 At best we can punish the person making the allegation if untrue and it was done with malice.

 A law enabling conviction to jailtime without parol of people commiting false rape acusations would be something beneficial to everybody.

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, koti said:

 A law enabling conviction to jailtime without parol of people commiting false rape acusations would be something beneficial to everybody.

False accusations of crime can already lead to jailtime. Not sure why you would add no parole. Considering that folks conducting sexual assault do get parole. Also, what sentence would you give someone who made false accusations, but did not name anyone (which is the majority of false accusations)?

Edited October 1, 2018 by CharonY

[MigL]

As Swansont said...
"That's true of anyone accused of a crime. What do we do — stop prosecuting crimes based on eyewitness testimony, because it could be mistaken? People have been wrongly convicted of crimes and paid a much higher price than Kavanaugh will."

That is why I don't like accusations and allegations made online, trough the press, or in 'job interviews'.
This subverts Due Process as the rigor of testimony can't be directly challenged. On both sides.
If you know the incident happened then file criminal charges
We might actually never know if this particular incident happened or not.

Edited October 1, 2018 by MigL

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, koti said:

 A law enabling conviction to jailtime without parol of people commiting false rape acusations would be something beneficial to everybody.

Seems like extreme (and frankly kneejerk) legislation for something that only happens in around 6% of cases. Existing laws seems to cover those cases. 

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

We might actually never know if the incident happened or not.

As a job interviewer, I'd be satisfied with a decision NOT to hire a justice who reacted to pressure from politicians the way Kavanaugh did. It was his decision to be nasty while Ford had to behave like a good girl to get any credibility at all.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Criticism, yes. Even public shaming to some degree. Death threats are a bit beyond that, I would say (just because it has not been mentioned before). 

While it is more than merely criticized, I take your point. Someone in that position should handle these situations better. I can't help but think that a woman in a similar situation  crying while applying for a highly prestigious position would be seen as weak.

Obviously no crimes should be committed and if any are law should be enforced. 

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

As Swansont said...
"That's true of anyone accused of a crime. What do we do — stop prosecuting crimes based on eyewitness testimony, because it could be mistaken? People have been wrongly convicted of crimes and paid a much higher price than Kavanaugh will."

That is why I don't like accusations and allegations made online, trough the press, or in 'job interviews'.
This subverts Due Process as the rigor of testimony can't be directly challenged. On both sides.
If you know the incident happened then file criminal charges
We might actually never know if this particular incident happened or not.

Just a minor point but Due Process never comes into play.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

 

That is why I don't like accusations and allegations made online, trough the press, or in 'job interviews'.
This subverts Due Process as the rigor of testimony can't be directly challenged. On both sides.
If you know the incident happened then file criminal charges
We might actually never know if this particular incident happened or not.

People filing charges, or simply bringing unseemly behavior to the attention of people in charge often face retribution (in addition to no action being taken to fix the behavior). You need to fix that, before you can reasonably expect people to come forward and report these incidents at a higher rate. And even then, it's a lot to ask of them if they have to re-live a trauma in order for the system to proceed.

 

[iNow]

After a huge public backlash, the White House today authorized the FBI. to expand its abbreviated investigation and interview anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

That is why I don't like accusations and allegations made online, trough the press, or in 'job interviews'.
This subverts Due Process as the rigor of testimony can't be directly challenged. On both sides.

And I assume that is why in interviews only proven testimonies are used as well as legal documents, right? Heck, depending on where you work and on which level, background checks do include the interview of character references by the FBI. And as Phi mentioned, in normal interviews your conduct will be closely monitored, especially under stress (heck, that is the whole shtick of assessment centres).

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

After a huge public backlash, the White House today authorized the FBI. to expand its abbreviated investigation and interview anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week

Huh, things are changing fast, aren't they? I was somewhat surprised that they did not authorize looking into Swetnick as her allegations as well her affidavit seemed to be by far the weakest.