Politics And Current Events

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:13 pm

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest he's a serial rapist, but if this is 'drunk Brett' it wouldn't be that surprising that this was not a one-off. But unless and until someone else comes forward, it must be treated as such.

Friend of a friend on Facebook earlier today:
I'm going to say this out loud. Probably shouldn't, but...

In my youth I acted in ways towards young women I'm not proud of. Nothing that would be considered criminal, but reprehensible none the less.

Should I be disqualified from certain positions of authority today because of actions I took 40 years ago?

Absolutely.

There are vast numbers of young men who, given the same circumstances I found myself in, did NOT act in loathsome ways. Those people deserve to be far ahead of me for consideration for positions of power.

Being elevated to great power is a privilege, not a right. Sins can be forgiven. They shouldn't be ignored.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:14 pm

I mean I hate to keep saying this, but we are not talking about Al Franken levels of groping or inappropriate comments, but an attempted forcible rape, sexual assault, with an element of something much worse with the part about the covering up of the mouth.

If that was reported to you, when exactly would you think would be the right time to tell your own party's folks, let alone the opposite party?
Ford didn't want this out, correct? Now, I'm not saying that it was kept quiet because of that, but do they have more of a moral responsibility to spread the word or to keep it quiet for Ford, who wanted it kept confidential?
The question I have is why bother bringing this to your Congressperson's attention if you wanted it kept confidential? What was your expected endgame?

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:15 pm

I mean I hate to keep saying this, but we are not talking about Al Franken levels of groping or inappropriate comments, but an attempted forcible rape, sexual assault, with an element of something much worse with the part about the covering up of the mouth.

If that was reported to you, when exactly would you think would be the right time to tell your own party's folks, let alone the opposite party?
Ford didn't want this out, correct? Now, I'm not saying that it was kept quiet because of that, but do they have more of a moral responsibility to spread the word or to keep it quiet for Ford, who wanted it kept confidential?
Well... when you’re appointing someone to a lifelong appointment that has ramifications to law it seems like the correct choice is to make sure the allegation is true or not. So you should probably report it.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:16 pm

I mean I hate to keep saying this, but we are not talking about Al Franken levels of groping or inappropriate comments, but an attempted forcible rape, sexual assault, with an element of something much worse with the part about the covering up of the mouth.

If that was reported to you, when exactly would you think would be the right time to tell your own party's folks, let alone the opposite party?
Ford didn't want this out, correct? Now, I'm not saying that it was kept quiet because of that, but do they have more of a moral responsibility to spread the word or to keep it quiet for Ford, who wanted it kept confidential?
Well, there were closed door hearings where sensitive national security and other subjects were breached. Why not use that forum to make mention of this?

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:18 pm

Also, the population of people who could've leaked the name is limited to Congressperson Eshoo, Senator Feinstein, and their respective staffs. When Feinstein forwarded the letter to the FBI (who in turn forwarded it to the White House, who then forwarded it to Sen Grassley), the name was redacted.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:19 pm

I'm not sure the implication is that he's a serial rapist. Maybe for some it is though. However, for argument's sake, let's say her version of events is true. A one-time thing. Should someone that did that be on the Supreme Court? That becomes the question.
If the facts are taken most favorable to the accuser in this situation which, if I'm understanding them is: an intoxicated juvenile male, thirty-five years ago, forced himself on a girl at a party and she ran away before any sexual touching happened, and it's not part of a demonstrated pattern of misconduct. Do I think that's substantial enough to negate a judicial career? No, I don't. For a number of reasons that range from moral to legal. The greatest mitigating factor being the age and intoxication, and the statute of limitation on rape in DC being 15 years. That 15 years is for 1st and 2nd degree offenses that actually occurred, mind you. It's 10 years for lesser offenses. So we're a quarter century past anything actionable here.

Normally intoxication isn't a grant of leeway to me; however, coupled with the juvenile status is does mitigate it some. Juveniles are not supposed to partake in alcohol specifically because the ability to make judgement decisions are even more diminished. Do I think the actions of a drunk high school kid three decades ago inform how someone will act on the SCOTUS? Absolutely not.

Again, all of the above is hypothetical because you asked. I don't believe that the claim is bona fide at this time.

It may be fun, or politically advantageous, to view these #metoo claims as some kind of expedient 'gotcha', but it's an absolute perversion of justice in almost every case. No rules of evidence, no standard of review, no jury of peers; just some blathering on social media and then lost jobs and broken careers. Are some deserving? Sure. But how do you really know?

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:29 pm

I mean I hate to keep saying this, but we are not talking about Al Franken levels of groping or inappropriate comments, but an attempted forcible rape, sexual assault, with an element of something much worse with the part about the covering up of the mouth.

If that was reported to you, when exactly would you think would be the right time to tell your own party's folks, let alone the opposite party?
Ford didn't want this out, correct? Now, I'm not saying that it was kept quiet because of that, but do they have more of a moral responsibility to spread the word or to keep it quiet for Ford, who wanted it kept confidential?
The question I have is why bother bringing this to your Congressperson's attention if you wanted it kept confidential? What was your expected endgame?
That's my question as well. If we take her at her word, it's certainly something that has continued to bother her through her life. Not sure what her hope was.

slappybrown
Posts: 16580
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:19 pm
Location: Lifelong Alabama Football Fan

Politics And Current Events

Postby slappybrown » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:29 pm

Working from the position that the allegations are true as recounted -- imo if you hold down a woman with your hand over her mouth while your boy turns the stereo volume up to avoid detection when she is screaming in an attempt to engage in sexual relations against her will, drunk or not, 17-year old or 18-year old, you belong in the trash can, not the Supreme Court. I would never in a million years vote aye on his nomination in a world in which the allegations are true.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:36 pm

Too bad we don't know if they're true. Or even had an account that was taken contemporaneously with the alleged incident. A recounting 30 years later, with a name attached 5 years after that just does not have enough weight to shitcan an otherwise stellar record. This isn't Brock Turner stuff.

I can't believe reasonable people consider that to be justice.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:38 pm

I'm not sure the implication is that he's a serial rapist. Maybe for some it is though. However, for argument's sake, let's say her version of events is true. A one-time thing. Should someone that did that be on the Supreme Court? That becomes the question.
If the facts are taken most favorable to the accuser in this situation which, if I'm understanding them is: an intoxicated juvenile male, thirty-five years ago, forced himself on a girl at a party and she ran away before any sexual touching happened, and it's not part of a demonstrated pattern of misconduct. Do I think that's substantial enough to negate a judicial career? No, I don't. For a number of reasons that range from moral to legal. The greatest mitigating factor being the age and intoxication, and the statute of limitation on rape in DC being 15 years. That 15 years is for 1st and 2nd degree offenses that actually occurred, mind you. It's 10 years for lesser offenses. So we're a quarter century past anything actionable here.

Normally intoxication isn't a grant of leeway to me; however, coupled with the juvenile status is does mitigate it some. Juveniles are not supposed to partake in alcohol specifically because the ability to make judgement decisions are even more diminished. Do I think the actions of a drunk high school kid three decades ago inform how someone will act on the SCOTUS? Absolutely not.

Again, all of the above is hypothetical because you asked. I don't believe that the claim is bona fide at this time.

It may be fun, or politically advantageous, to view these #metoo claims as some kind of expedient 'gotcha', but it's an absolute perversion of justice in almost every case. No rules of evidence, no standard of review, no jury of peers; just some blathering on social media and then lost jobs and broken careers. Are some deserving? Sure. But how do you really know?
If they're taken most favorable to the accuser, he forced himself on her, groped her over her clothes, tried to take her clothes off, and covered her mouth to prevent her from screaming. That said, you raise valid concerns.

slappybrown
Posts: 16580
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:19 pm
Location: Lifelong Alabama Football Fan

Politics And Current Events

Postby slappybrown » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:38 pm

I think you know I was working from the post MWB made that you were responding to. Were I on the committee as it stands right now -- with Kavanaugh denying and no contemporaneous evidence -- I would weigh their testimony and decide who I found credible.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:41 pm

Too bad we don't know if they're true. Or even had an account that was taken contemporaneously with the alleged incident. A recounting 30 years later, with a name attached 5 years after that just does not have enough weight to shitcan an otherwise stellar record. This isn't Brock Turner stuff.

I can't believe reasonable people consider that to be justice.
You seem ready to just throw it out, without even further investigation. Is that justice?

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:41 pm

They still have to get the 50 votes, and to be honest, I would prefer another Gorsuch to a Cavanaugh. I'd prefer a judge with conservative principles than a political actor in the positon.
Are you misspelling his name on purpose?

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:48 pm

slappy,

The 'reasonable people' line wasn't directed at anyone here or even this situation; it's the underlying premise of the whole #metoo effort and it bugs me.
Too bad we don't know if they're true. Or even had an account that was taken contemporaneously with the alleged incident. A recounting 30 years later, with a name attached 5 years after that just does not have enough weight to shitcan an otherwise stellar record. This isn't Brock Turner stuff.

I can't believe reasonable people consider that to be justice.
You seem ready to just throw it out, without even further investigation. Is that justice?
From a practical standpoint the time for investigation was 25-35 years ago. If we afford that this situation warrants a heightened level of scrutiny, fine, investigate. But who investigates? If it's an open session where she says he did it and he says he didn't (where we are now), without further evidence yes I'm happy to throw out the letter. The letter has political motive and is completely unsubstantiated; it certainly doesn't approach a 'without a reasonable doubt' threshold.

I'll join the pitchfork crowd if there is some kind of corroboration from a credible witness or some kind of tangible evidence. But given the political motive here that evidence is going to have to be both reliable and compelling to get me to shift.

The idea of someone giddily skipping into SCOTUS free from past indiscretions on a 'technicality' is abhorrent to me, I'm with you there. I just don't see this situation, as it stands today, as anything resembling that at all.

CBear3
Posts: 7665
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Politics And Current Events

Postby CBear3 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:52 pm

Devil's advocate, because I'm with dodint at the moment:

She may have wanted to keep her story private, in the hope there were other stories. That other victims had come forward in confidence, as well, and there would be strength in numbers. Once her name got out, she had two choices:
1) Say you lied (and lose your license) to make it go away
2) Stand up for your recollection of the events.

If the accusations are true, it's a difficult position. He faced no repercussions for his actions, and while the criminal statute of limitations is up, it's hard to reward him when just learning about this. The flip side, if we're all about rehabilitation, is that it seems nobody else has come forward and that he hasn't attempted this kind of action in 30 years of adulthood. He's an upstanding member of society, so there's no reason to punish him now.

That goes back to my thoughts on what the intent of punishment should be. Is it public safety? Is it to prevent reoccurence? To teach a lesson? Is it to serve as a deterrent to others in the future?

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:52 pm

I mean I hate to keep saying this, but we are not talking about Al Franken levels of groping or inappropriate comments, but an attempted forcible rape, sexual assault, with an element of something much worse with the part about the covering up of the mouth.

I agree this is very different than Al Franken. Al Franken's groping behavior was not only witnessed by multiple people, it was captured on film. Here, two of the three people who were supposedly in the room have flatly denied that it ever happened. The accusation against Franken was substantiated and corroborated. The accusation against Kavanaugh is neither. Also, the accusations against Franken related to recent, adult behavior, while the Kavanaugh accusations relate to something that happened 35 years ago and while the accused was a minor.

Yep, totally different.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:58 pm

I agree, that as things stand now, this shouldn't be an indictment on Kavanaugh. I do think it should be investigated, I guess by the FBI. If further reliable information comes out the corroborates her story, he shouldn't be on the Court. I don't see that happening.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this happened,either as she said it did or some slight variant of it.What is in it for her to make this up? What's her angle?

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:00 pm

I agree, that as things stand now, this shouldn't be an indictment on Kavanaugh. I do think it should be investigated, I guess by the FBI. If further reliable information comes out the corroborates her story, he shouldn't be on the Court. I don't see that happening.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this happened,either as she said it did or some slight variant of it.What is in it for her to make this up? What's her angle?
It could be an entirely different person that did this to her.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:03 pm

He's right. That's one of many scenarios where an innocent person is getting railroaded. Did she ever say if she was drinking too? It's tough to ask without looking like you're victim shaming but in a situation where it was being tried fairly her state of mind and ability to recall would absolutely be a fact investigated.

Again, my issue isn't Ford or Kavanaugh or any of these folks; it's the lack of formal adjudication that kills me.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:05 pm

That certainly is a possibility.

MR25
Posts: 18478
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:58 pm
Location: Gamehendge

Politics And Current Events

Postby MR25 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:13 pm

Two of the three totally denied it because those two happen to be implicated in the accusation.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:18 pm

I believe Ms. Ford's lawyer said she had been drinking, but was not drunk.

Other credibility problems that I see, with quotes from this Wash Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... d7bc6593c7
After so many years, Ford said, she does not remember some key details of the incident. She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15, around the end of her sophomore year at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda. Kavanaugh would have been 17 at the end of his junior year at Georgetown Prep.
Ford said she does not remember how the gathering came together the night of the incident. She said she often spent time in the summer at the Columbia Country Club pool in Chevy Chase, where in those pre-cellphone days, teenagers learned about gatherings via word of mouth. She also doesn’t recall who owned the house or how she got there.
Ford said she remembers that it was in Montgomery County, not far from the country club, and that no parents were home at the time. Ford named two other teenagers who she said were at the party. Those individuals did not respond to messages on Sunday morning.
She said she locked herself in the bathroom and listened until she heard the boys “going down the stairs, hitting the walls.” She said that after five or 10 minutes, she unlocked the door and made her way through the living room and outside. She isn’t sure how she got home.

Ms. Ford claims this event was so traumatic that it affected her for years thereafter. But she cannot remember when the party happened, who invited her to the party, who owned the house, where the house was, how she got there, or how she got home. Is it credible that she could vividly recall the details of the alleged incident but not any of those other details?

MR25
Posts: 18478
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:58 pm
Location: Gamehendge

Politics And Current Events

Postby MR25 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:23 pm

From a psychological standpoint, yes, abosultely.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:25 pm

From a psychological standpoint, yes, abosultely.
Definitely. That said, not knowing those details makes her seem less credible.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:32 pm

I thought the normal was to not remember key aspects of the assault, but remember everything else?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Cagsjr724, Dickie Dunn, MrKennethTKangaroo, NAN, skullman80 and 98 guests