Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[NorrinRadd]

How many times does it have to be explained to you that this is not an FBI matter?

FWIW, Dersh has said repeatedly that the FBI should investigate, and Judge My Cousin Vinny Napolitano says that in the analogous Thomas / Hill situation, Bush 41 paused things and had the FBI investigate.

[NorrinRadd]

This is why an FBI investigation is needed to avoid all this nonsense. If Kavanaugh was innocent - he'd be DEMANDING an FBI investigation, a thorough one!

I'm not so sure. I think if I were in that situation, assuming my innocence, I'd still resist having the FBI involved, because I'd view it as just a delaying tactic. I'd figure that even if the FBI took several weeks and exonerated me, an hour later the Dems would have some new accuser and demand *another* FBI investigation. They'd keep doing it right through the mid-terms in hope of getting control of the Senate and scuttling everything.

[carpedm9587]

And yet we work from presumed innocence where it’s the accuser that needs to provide evidence the event in question happened or happened how they described it.

Correct. It's one of the reasons I'm not a fan of trying people in the court of public opinion, and one of the reasons "I don't know" is the best I can muster at this time.

[carpedm9587]

A typical wishy-washy carpe response.

Which part was incorrect?

[carpedm9587]

Wat?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is part of the method of criminal judicial process and connected therein with the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". That's not what this is. This is not even a civil case where the standard would be the balance of probability. This is essentially a public job interview. The mere existence of rumors can be totally rational grounds for an employer not to hire someone and to go to the next candidate on their list.

Secondly, once an accuser makes an accusation, that in itself is evidence. Their testimony, their witness that the event happened, is evidence. There is not an onus on them to provide more evidence in order to be taken seriously.

In a lot of instances the evidence does just boil down to a he-said she-said situation where the only evidence is the testimony of the victim and of the accused. That's inherently 50-50 to begin with, and then you have to start considering things like the character of the two people, their backgrounds, the fact that we know from studies and past experience that only a very small percentage of such allegations turn out to be false etc. So if the accuser has a reasonable character background (e.g. is a university professor in good standing) then the chances the accusation is correct is probably >95%, and while that might not be good enough for a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard were this a criminal case, it would certainly be good enough for a balance of probability standard in a civil case or a "we have some serious concerns about this candidate" type standard that would be relevant to a potential employer which is really the relevant standard here.

I hadn't even thought about any of that. Thanks.

[carpedm9587]

So it comes down to you’re totally cool with destroying a man’s family, reputation, and life based on little more than roomer and he said/she said. I wonder if you’d be cool with the same happening to you?

A roomer might be someone you share a room with or rent a room to...

A rumor would be a story based on person to person without much/any supporting evidence.

[carpedm9587]

That's the thing - how in the world does one find "adequate" evidence to prove a negative?

It's not always possible. In this case, someone else could come forward as a witness to refute the claim. Or someone else could confess to being the person who did the deed. Or someone could provide evidence that Ford was elsewhere on the day/date in question. There are a bunch of possibilities, including the possibility that this will never be more than he-said/she-said. If the latter turns out to be the reality, then I'll probably stay in the "I don't know" position.

Well, that would make two of us. I can't help but have the sneaking suspicion that you're resisting coming to the conclusion misaligned with your political position, however. In the era of well-corroborated #metoo, these allegations are mighty thin gruel.

You can suspect what you wish, OBP.

I cannot help but have the sneaking suspicion that no words on my part are going to convince you that your suspicion isn't true, so I will avoid wasting the time/energy trying.

[Mountain Man]

FWIW, Dersh has said repeatedly that the FBI should investigate, and Judge My Cousin Vinny Napolitano says that in the analogous Thomas / Hill situation, Bush 41 paused things and had the FBI investigate.

As I understand it, Thomas and Hill were Federal employees at the time of the alleged crime, so it fell within the FBI's jurisdiction, and the accusation was relatively recent. This is a completely different scenario.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not so sure. I think if I were in that situation, assuming my innocence, I'd still resist having the FBI involved, because I'd view it as just a delaying tactic. I'd figure that even if the FBI took several weeks and exonerated me, an hour later the Dems would have some new accuser and demand *another* FBI investigation. They'd keep doing it right through the mid-terms in hope of getting control of the Senate and scuttling everything.

That seems to be their game plan, parade around one coached "victim" after another and hope that something sticks.

[Mountain Man]

Which part was incorrect?

I just don't buy into your post-modern "The truth is impossible to know!" existential crisis.

[lilpixieofterror]

Correct. It's one of the reasons I'm not a fan of trying people in the court of public opinion, and one of the reasons "I don't know" is the best I can muster at this time.

We can make a reasonable look at the evidence. Note that these accusations only came about after the first hearing after it became clear that the hearings went in Kavanaugh’s favor. The first accusations was known for weeks and yet no mention of it until it became politically convenient to do so. The others have been timed to keep him off balance and are pretty questionable themselves. See a pattern here yet?

[carpedm9587]

I just don't buy into your post-modern "The truth is impossible to know!" existential crisis.

Interesting. I don't recall saying that, or feeling in any sort of crisis.

[lilpixieofterror]

That seems to be their game plan, parade around one coached "victim" after another and hope that something sticks.

The last one reads like something from 50 Shades of Gray. It’s pretty much too ridiculous to take seriously.

[carpedm9587]

We can make a reasonable look at the evidence. Note that these accusations only came about after the first hearing after it became clear that the hearings went in Kavanaugh’s favor. The first accusations was known for weeks and yet no mention of it until it became politically convenient to do so. The others have been timed to keep him off balance and are pretty questionable themselves. See a pattern here yet?

I have little doubt that the Democrats have positioned the accusation(s) to be as politically potent as possible. How exactly does that make the accusations false?

[lilpixieofterror]

I have little doubt that the Democrats have positioned the accusation(s) to be as politically potent as possible. How exactly does that make the accusations false?

Perfect timing usually is only something that happens in movies. Sitting on an accusation and only using it as a final Trump card is about as suspicious as you can get. Why would you sit on something like that?