By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 'I was angry and I sent it': Another Justice Brett Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting

irstupid said:
SecondWar said:

Reread my response. I'm not talking about a scenario where you think it is somone, I mean a scenario where you categorically KNOW it is them who did it. 

They call you a liar, the papers says who made it up for attention. Somebody else says maybe it was possibly it was actually them (not who you 'falsely' accused) they don't remember that well. Guess that this random claim means you're definitely lying, as this other person can't be making it up like you are.

But you know it was them, their face burned I to your brain forever. Still, some people make a thread online that says you should go to jail because you're a liar and have ruined someone else's life with you accusations and pursuit of justice.

The problem is you are taking her side and believing her words. Just cause she says that she is 100% certain, and no mistake, ect, doesn't mean that it is true.

Actually I keep referencing either hypothetical scenarios or the alleged incident. Emphasis on alleged. Why is it not a problem that you believe him?

I equally just because he says 100% he didn't do it doesn't mean it's false.



Around the Network
spurgeonryan said:
Sad when inncocent men, including leaders have to fight to be proven innocent with meetoo.

Men are the new witches, and we are being hunted.

How do you know their innocent? Isn't it a bigger problem when guilty men get away with it?



NightlyPoe said:
Hiku said:

They didn't even bother questioning the woman who credibly (GOP members and Trump's own words) accused Kavanaugh after taking and passing the most accurate type of polygraph.

Was there something more Ford wanted to tell the FBI that she couldn't tell the Senate?  What's the basis of this complaint?

Not to mention him obviously committing perjury by claiming Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, among other things. And he's a judge. Who seemingly thinks it's ok to lie under oath. But it's ok to have a supreme court justice who doesn't give two shits about the oath?

Several people have confirmed that Devil's Triangle was a drinking game both at Kavanaugh's school and also by people who say Kavanaugh taught him the game.

And if you think they're all lying, I'll remind you that the term was used several times in that yearbook.  And then I'll also remind you that this was the early-80s and we're talking about a bunch of boys at a prep school.  Now, do you think it's likely that there was a ton of guys at Kavanaugh's school that yelled out to the world that they liked to get naked with other dudes?

The devil's triangle perjury is wishful thinking.

And it's not the first time he seemingly lied under oath, which is a criminal offense. Two other occasions were discovered in the hundreds of thousand pages of documents that the GOP didn't want Democrats to read until 15 hours before the hearing. And a criminal investigation into this was initiated in Washington, but as you know the GOP were not interested in waiting for the outcome of it, but decided to push him through as soon as possible as their candidate regardless of that.

The two charges of perjury that Democrats had previously been making were specious at best and relied on reading individual sentences instead of the broader scope of the answers.  For example, in one Kavanaugh said he wasn't handling Pickering's nomination.  Democrats found an email where he talked about the Pickering nomination.

Aha right!?  Well, no.  Kavanaugh, in his original testimony went on to say that he was somewhat involved and may even have participated in a mock hearing with him.  "Handling" meant more that Pickering was his judge.

Aside, Pickering was falsely accused of racism by Democrats.  So smearing a person's good name for political reasons is an old game for Democrats.

Same thing with the other one involving Democrats having their emails leaked.  Democrats actually knew this back when Kavanaugh was first confirmed as a Circuit judge, but didn't even accuse him of perjury back then, not because they didn't have documents, but because it was a ridiculous charge as it didn't contradict his full statement.

BTW, those leaked Democrat emails?  Well, they showed Democrats getting together to deny a Latino a judgeship specifically because they were afraid that he'd become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.  The method they decided to use?  Well, they just kept demanding documents be released until the Bush administration had to exert executive privilege, and then Democrats made him (Miguel Estrada) the first nominee ever killed by a filibuster.

Yeah, Democrats have been playing the game of making unreasonable demands for documents and then using it as an excuse for killing a nominee as well.  It's a favorite strategy.

Eagle367 said:
He still isn't fit for the supreme court. He was angry and shouting like crazy. I wouldn't want that for my supreme court justice. Just an outsider's perspective who's neither democrat not republican and as impartial as possible.

His reputation and life will never be the same.  His life will be permanently in danger because of this.  He has lost a job over this.  His daughters will face consequences.  His wife will face consequences.  This will be the first thing mentioned when he dies.

There's a certain smugness in the whole notion that having basic human emotions in response to an injustice is itself disqualifying.  It's not just you, I know that the final argument made against him was, "Well, we can't prove this, but look, he didn't take his public humiliation with humility.  That proves he's not qualified."  However, it's a ridiculous standard to put someone up against.

 

No it's not. He didn't lose any job. And the supreme court is a ridiculous job. A judge in essence has to stay calm and collected. A judge can't scream and shout at senators like that. Just like a cop can't break someone's hand if they insult him. Hell a cop isn't supposed to get angry when someone insults them to their face. There are plenty of jobs where you can't get angry even if someone insults you. And getting angry is different from getting angry and shouting at senators, Getting angry at a false accusation the moment you hear it is different from processing it and defending yourself from it in a professional setting. He was snug and angry and for some reason bringing up beer a lot. He knew he was getting into the supreme court and was just being spiteful and sort of rubbing it in the face of everyone at the hearing. That sort of disposition does not belong on any sort of supreme court. I wouldn't want such a guy to be a judge on any of my cases let alone deciding the future if my country's legal framework

 

 

Ntt



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Torillian said:
DonFerrari said:

Considering law have "innocent until proven otherwise", "burden of proof", "total and ample defense", "false accusations", "false testimony" even 2 or 10% is enough reason to not accept a simple claim as solid proof as many try to push for sexual assault trial don't you think?

I mean if you want to push your goalposts from "common" to "happens enough that we should not accept a claim as solid proof" I can agree. Though I'm unsure about your last bit of the sentence "not accept a simple claim as solid proof as many try to push for sexual assault trial don't you think?" If you're saying that you don't think an accusation should be enough to start a trial I agree, but I agree that it can't be the only evidence. I don't think a "simple claim" should be the only evidence for a conviction, but it's certainly a part of the evidence. 

Now, can we agree, however, that math does not work by "I found two examples I think it's common"?

I never did a math on two cases (anedoctes) making something common. Even if people try to make the less than 10% on the case of LGBTQI++ in population as normal (avoiding any significance of the world "normal"). But 10% occurrence is still common enough that is representative of something, sure it will still be a minority. And good that we agree that just word of testimony or accuser isn't enough for any trial (but sure it should be enough to start investigation) even if it's sexual abuse.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

SecondWar said:
spurgeonryan said:
Sad when inncocent men, including leaders have to fight to be proven innocent with meetoo.

Men are the new witches, and we are being hunted.

How do you know their innocent? Isn't it a bigger problem when guilty men get away with it?

For me it's quite a big problem that guilty people isn't punished. But judicial system all around the world is designed with the philosophy that is much much much better to let a heinous criminal free than to jail an innocent man, so a very big burden is put on the accusation side to prove their point.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
SecondWar said:
spurgeonryan said:
Sad when inncocent men, including leaders have to fight to be proven innocent with meetoo.

Men are the new witches, and we are being hunted.

How do you know their innocent? Isn't it a bigger problem when guilty men get away with it?

Sure it's a problem. A bigger problem though? I'd say an EQUAL problem..

Also, at least here in America, the burden is ALWAYS on the accuser to prove their accusation with evidence, NOT the accused. I can accuse you of stealing my Xbox One, but I'd then have to prove it. Otherwise you'd instantly have to deal with the unwarranted burdens of discrediting me simply because some random asshole with an axe to grind (in this case myself) decided to accuse you of such. These tactics are a slippery slope into lawlessness and anarchism.



 

"We hold these truths t-be self-ful evident. All men and women created by the.. Go-you know the.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

SecondWar said:
irstupid said:

The problem is you are taking her side and believing her words. Just cause she says that she is 100% certain, and no mistake, ect, doesn't mean that it is true.

Actually I keep referencing either hypothetical scenarios or the alleged incident. Emphasis on alleged. Why is it not a problem that you believe him?

I equally just because he says 100% he didn't do it doesn't mean it's false.

How do you know Dr. Ford didn't report this allegation for ill and/or mistaken reasons?   And do you think she's not mistaken and it happened as she described it?  Hmmmm...?



Hiku said:
o_O.Q said: 

"If you ever saw me say say something specific, call me out on it. If not, don't do this BS where you're assuming that everyone you talk to is of the same cookiecutter mindset you've convinced yourself of."

you should have more sympathy for me, you have no idea on the kind of toll being constantly disappointed has

 

"I've never once said "women are all credible". "

and i didn't say you did, what i was commenting on were the women involved with kavanaugh

You said it in a direct reply to me referencing Dr Ford as "credible", in the GOP's own words. And you even posed it as a question for me to answer. That's implying that it is somehow a point against my argument. But if I never agreed with it to begin with, it's not.

Think about your comment if you had omitted that sarcastic question.
You would have gotten the exact same point across, without unnecessary assumptions or implications that I'd be forced to clarify.

" And not only because that's an idiotic statement. I've said "accusers should be heard."

but isn't it just as idiotic to imply that accusers aren't heard? are you implying that women when they report their cases to the police are not taken seriously? why, therefore, have we made sexual assault and rape illegal? going as far in some cases as making staring too hard illegal?

You mean like how thousands of people, including some on this forum (perhaps you as well) were convinced that Dr Ford was lying before the hearing began?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. In her case, she surprised a lot of people, including myself, with her testimony. I was expecting something else, and I'm sure several GOP members, including Trump, would rather not have had to say afterwards that she was "credible". But they were obviously advised to say so, and that was because of how the hearing went.
Furthermore, the GOP had decided to move on with the confirmation before hearing her testimony as well. Mitch Mcconnell said as much several times. It was only when Jeff Flake changed his mind last minute that they decided to have an FBI investigation first. Brief, but none the less.

And yes we have laws against rape and sexual assault. But the law enforcement officers who enforce the laws differ as individuals. Some write the case off immediately depending on the circumstances. What she was wearing, how many glasses of wine she had, the relationship between the victim and assailant, etc. And like in this case with Christine Ford, it's very common for people to dismiss sexual assault allegations if they're brought forward years later. Around 2/3 of sexual assault victims never come forward, studies show. People should not criticize when, if ever, someone decides to step forward. Because it will be difficult no matter when they decide to do it.

And in a recent case here on this forum, I remember a person posting that he "read that she said yes" and decided that the allegation was untrue.
Nowhere in the article did it say that she said yes. In fact, it even said that the alleged perpetrator himself said that she said no several times.
And yet you have people forming very strong opinions about very serious charges, while having the gall to claim they read it, without reading even a fraction of it. Let alone properly.

So yes, people are commonly not interested in hearing the victims before they form their opinions. They make their decisions based on a few cliff note points, and call it a day. Or call them liars.

"Because a statement from someone who may or may not be who NYT's source thinks he is, is not the equivalent of a polygraph test and a testimony under oath."

i guess so, but he's an accuser right? so we should hear what he has to say right?

That's what I'm saying. It would be nice if he stepped forward, like she did, so we can get the full story. Anonymous accusers are never treated with the same credibility as named accusers who testify under oath.

"Who seemingly thinks it's ok to lie under oath."

but any reasonable person doesn't think that the example you provided above is evidence of lying anyway so i really don't know how to respond to that, do you have another example?

Well let's start with Devil's Triangle. Some of his former classmates have backed up his claim that it was a drinking game. Others however, including his roommate, say that it was, as we know, a common sexual reference. And they're certain that he lied about it. Now aside from picking who to believe, let's say they're both right. Someone named a drinking game after a common sexual reference. So then that means that Kavanaugh just threw out a common sexual reference, without any context, under a list of his accomplishments in his yearbook, but was actually referring to a drinking game.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't just write "69" in my yearbook as an accomplishment with no further context, unless I wanted people to think I was referring to the sexual position.

Which leads me to another time he very obviously lied under oath. In his yearbook, under his list of accomplishments he also wrote 'Renate Alumnius', referring to a female friend of his at the time.
Nobody on this planet would read that comment, again, without any further context, and not think it was referring to them hooking up. That's how she took it as well when she found out about it. Kavanaugh however, under oath, claimed it meant something nice, and not what everyone thinks it means. And there's no way Kavanaugh didn't know how people would interpret it when he wrote it. Complete BS.

And then there's his explanation of the term "Boofing". He claimed it was flatulence. But people from his school claim it means something going into you rectum, rather than out of it.
And then there's two cases regarding his involvement of a court nomination around 2003. I went into detail about that in my reply to NightlyPoe above.

you don't mean the classmates who claim they don't recall there even being a party right?

I don't know. But it's just people remembering that they and others at the school were talking about it happening, at the time that it allegedly happened. A rumor that went around.
I mentioned that not due to whether or not they were there, but because this allegation didn't originate from the accuser herself, but from various classmates who remembered hearing about it at the time. That's at least an interesting distinction from some of the other allegations.

"You mean like how thousands of people, including some on this forum (perhaps you as well) were convinced that Dr Ford was lying before the hearing began?"

i've not seen that from a single person... what i did see was skepticism... what i did see was people who justifiably called out #believewomen as the retarded bullshit that it is because they understand that women are capable of being deceitful 

 

"I'm sure several GOP members, including Trump, would rather not have had to say afterwards that she was "credible""

trump initially said that she was credible and then resorted to the mockery after the testimony and after her "witnesses" denied the event took place

 

"And yes we have laws against rape and sexual assault. But the law enforcement officers who enforce the laws differ as individuals."

and what do you plan to do about that? turn them into the borg?

 

"Around 2/3 of sexual assault victims never come forward, studies show."

if they never came forward and therefore no investigation took place... how do you know that they are victims?

 

"So yes, people are commonly not interested in hearing the victims before they form their opinions. They make their decisions based on a few cliff note points, and call it a day. Or call them liars."

as is the case with any crime or any claim really and you aren't going to change that by pushing cases that then in the final analysis turn out to be bullshit as has happened in this scenario, not with ford but with other accusers

 

"Nowhere in the article did it say that she said yes. In fact, it even said that the alleged perpetrator himself said that she said no several times."

and where is your proof that this happened?'

 

"I don't know about you, but I wouldn't just write "69" in my yearbook as an accomplishment with no further context, unless I wanted people to think I was referring to the sexual position."

he was also a dumb teenage boy and like many he probably bragged about having sex to his peers as most do, i suppose you didn't but most do its actually quite normal behavior for boys of that age so i'm not really understanding your point

 

"Which leads me to another time he very obviously lied under oath"

uh hold on, what was the lie being evaluated above? you haven't actually reached a conclusion as to what it was, you actually seemed to concede that he was referring to a drinking game, which again, would not be unusual since many teenagers drink and have sex at the same time 

 

"Kavanaugh however, under oath, claimed it meant something nice, and not what everyone thinks it means."

ok so am i correct in assuming you do not possess psychic powers and therefore, would not be able to read his mind? if i am correct what are you going on about? i mean are you serious?

let says it did mean something "bad" which you seem to equate with fucking her

first off why would that be bad? and why would it be lying under oath?

i mean is the underlying idea here that sex is bad? 

 

"And there's no way Kavanaugh didn't know how people would interpret it when he wrote it. "

again lets say he bragged about fucking some girl at school

i mean i seriously do not believe i'm having this conversation but again why do you equate sex with bad?

i mean is the idea here that if he drank and had sex in high school then he must be guilty of raping at least one of the girls he went to school with?

 

"And then there's his explanation of the term "Boofing". He claimed it was flatulence. But people from his school claim it means something going into you rectum, rather than out of it."

so... your only real evidence is a made up word that doesn't have a meaning? ok

 

". But it's just people remembering that they and others at the school were talking about it happening, at the time that it allegedly happened. "

even though the main witnesses she brought up don't remember the party, there's somehow a rumour of a girl getting assaulted at that party? ok



SecondWar said:
spurgeonryan said:
Sad when inncocent men, including leaders have to fight to be proven innocent with meetoo.

Men are the new witches, and we are being hunted.

How do you know their innocent? Isn't it a bigger problem when guilty men get away with it?

So men should have to survive smear campaigns no matter what?



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

NightlyPoe said:
Eagle367 said:

No it's not. He didn't lose any job. And the supreme court is a ridiculous job. A judge in essence has to stay calm and collected. A judge can't scream and shout at senators like that. Just like a cop can't break someone's hand if they insult him. Hell a cop isn't supposed to get angry when someone insults them to their face. There are plenty of jobs where you can't get angry even if someone insults you. And getting angry is different from getting angry and shouting at senators, Getting angry at a false accusation the moment you hear it is different from processing it and defending yourself from it in a professional setting. He was snug and angry and for some reason bringing up beer a lot. He knew he was getting into the supreme court and was just being spiteful and sort of rubbing it in the face of everyone at the hearing. That sort of disposition does not belong on any sort of supreme court. I wouldn't want such a guy to be a judge on any of my cases let alone deciding the future if my country's legal framework

1.  If he didn't lose a job then call up Harvard and tell them to un-cancel his class next semester.

2.  Kavanaugh wasn't acting as a judge.  He was acting as a man accused of a heinous crime.  They are not the same thing.  You call him smug, but what is really smug is to destroy a man's reputation and then judge him based on his emotional reaction to it.  Particularly from the childish bad-faith senators who behaved MUCH worse than him.

3.  He didn't know he was getting into the Supreme Court.  At the time that he made his statements that was very much an open question.

4.  The comparison to a cop committing battery is nonsense.

I didn't know about the Harvard thing. First things first, this isn't point scoring for me like how your republicans and democrats do it. This is genuinely me thinking of my own country and what sort of person I want in the supreme court. I would want an above average person. That means above average in logic, in reason, in emotion and all other calibres. I would also want an impartial person who does well to keep his biases to his personal life. So when you say anyone would react like that, i'm saying I don't want anyone on any supreme court, I want the best most competent ones. That's what I am saying. If anyone will behave like that, why not just get a run of the mill judge. And he was there in his capacity to show what kind of justice he will be on the supreme court, like it or not. And he knew he would win. I'm not saying this is a republican thing, but in general parties in any country always stick to their man, more so in US these days, so he 99% knew he was a supreme court justice. Only the formalities remained. If you pretend you didn't know that, then I'm sorry but you have a bias whether you know it or not. So all in all what I saw of Brett cavanaugh, I wouldn't vote for him is all I say without any sort of affiliation bias



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also