Passion, chaos as Kavanaugh confirmation vote nears - Polidicks

What an absolutely crap analogy. The whole thing about OJ is that there was a ton of corroborating circumstantial evidence. Mountains of it.

There's also the fact that she has made no such claim.

And here we have mountains made from a man constantly and consistently lying under oath about anything and everything. That is evidence that works directly against his assertion that 'it didn't happen'. The credibility of that defense is directly related to how credible he is as a witness and how much his statements hold under pressure and scrutiny - much like Dr. Ford's offense is directly related to how credible she is as a witness and how much her statements hold under pressure and scrutiny. They do if they're conducting a background check. They would go about it differently if they were seeking to prosecute, yes. They were not seeking to prosecute - but nonetheless they would also ask people what they thought of the person accused of the crime. That is a routine thing that investigators do.

What? No, no it isn't. Please provide any evidence at all that an investigative body cares about generalized rumors about someone when collecting corroborative evidence. I honestly don't think you know what the word "evidence" means. As a side note, it's impossible to have a real discussion if you're going to hyperbolize everything.

Not these allegations, no. But he was investigated for other improprieties and involvement in other potential criminal matters. ‘Grave Concern’ Regarding Re-Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh Proof is arrived at by considering evidence. That therefore proves its value. People have been convicted of rape based solely on a singular accusation by an accuser whose only evidence was their sworn testimony. There is precedence for this in every state. It is common and routine for domestic abuse cases to be tried over nothing more than literally testimony. That means it is 'real proof' because only evidence can lead to a conviction. I'll repeat that: Only evidence can lead to a conviction in a court of law - as testimony is a form of evidence that means that it is absolutely worthwhile. Don't believe me? I can bring up pages upon pages of criminal defense lawyers stating 'you better not go to trial in a case where your accuser is only submitting one piece of evidence where it's their testimony because that can and may send you to prison itself based on how credible that witness is and how much their depiction of events holds up under scrutiny'.

Please provide an example of this.

If the only way to prove it was to provide some form of physical evidence: How has anyone ever been convicted of domestic abuse or sexual assault solely by testimony alone? How are child abuse victim cases proven when there was no evidence that was able to be obtained?

Ginsburg's Dissent, Carmell vs. Texas

People are convicted of domestic about based on... wait for it... evidence! For example, there might be physical injuries, hospital reports, police reports, history of abuse, witness testimony, injuries to the accused hands, weapons found with genetic material consistent with physical attacks, etc.

Yes, with such evidence as... wait for it... testimony! I'm sure you have a suddenly radically different opinion about 'choirboys being molested by priests must be heard because they are innocent victims of the rapey catholic church' -- or do you believe that there's no problem there? You're trying to take a side because you don't want to be 'on that side' because you think 'anyone and everyone can accuse me of anything which means I can just lose everything I have at the drop of a hat' and that is not how the legal system works, sorry.

Yes. The reason for that is not the presumption of guilt. It's to keep them from killing each other.

Yes, absolutely possible. That's perjury and it is its own crime. Well, I asked and I guess this is you wanting a Criminal Defense Lawyer whose job it is to ensure clients like you do not go to jail to set you straight on that. So here you go. There is always a risk that an accuser will be very believable, and in theory, a very believable accuser can be enough for a conviction. Therefore, even in a “he said, she said” situation, it is critical to have an experienced criminal defense lawyer with excellent trial skills defending you. A little kid detailing a graphic sexual assault by a priest is different from a grown woman detailing a graphic sexual assault is different how, excluding the ages and religious authority of either described assaulter? You empathize with the child more and don't empathize with the grown woman?

At this point im wondering if Jouska even watched the damn hearings.

Ok, so hold up for a second. How many people here are arguing that Kavanaugh should be found guilty of sexual assault based on the hearing. And how many are arguing that Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed for the supreme court based on the hearing. Because I think we're caught up in another pointless semantics argument, Jouska's arguing from the position that everyone in the thread wants Kavanaugh to be thrown in jail on Ford's testimony alone, which isn't what anyone's saying.

It's a god damn sworn testimony that, if found to be a lie, results in her being imprisoned for no less than five years. So it's an opinion that comes with 'you better not have made this shit up or have thought the opposite before'. In other words, if you weren't consistent in your testimony, even if it's based on opinions, that can put you immediately in hot water. And that's why you typically only testify as to matters of fact because otherwise you better really, truly, absolutely be sure that you have not held the opposite opinion on that subject. Be pissed off then. It legally is - so long as the testimony is found compelling if it aligns with the facts as they are known, they have no visible or discernible reason to lie, they are a credible witness, the defendant has nothing to offer which discredits the claim, and a jury finds the opinion compelling. If you think 'third party opinions' aren't enough to prove a case in a court of criminal law, I now expect you to tell me that Expert Witnesses are worthless, are never used, and their testimony never results in a jury being moved to convict under preponderance of the testimony given. No, it's literally PR. "Woman jailed, found innocent, and released in domestic abuse case." "Man jailed, found innocent, and released in domestic abuse case." Assume you must pick one of these headlines to minimize the amount of damage done to your police department. Which of them do you choose? I have a sneaking suspicion you know which one is which and what the consequences of each one are. You are arguing from a position where the world must be just and so therefore we must call out all injustices as we see fit blindly and broadly. The problem with that is that your view does not hold up against the real world -- decisions do have to be made and either person being jailed would be called sexism by some portion of the population -- and this is literal psychological fact that, generally, people tend to empathize more with women. Therefore, if you do not know the facts of a case and you don't have time to suss it out -- but you don't want to leave it to chance that you drive off that night and someone winds up dead as a result -- you pick the option that is the best of all your 'literally all bad' options. Also, I'd like to point out that you characterizing it as 'every male indiscriminately' only demonstrates your ignorance of the actual statistics in that. Certainly a majority, yes, but 'every male' is absolutely ridiculous hornswaggle. If police officers were psychic and people weren't duplicitous liars then sure, they'd just lock up the violent one. If nobody's violent at the time they arrive on the scene, who do they lock up exactly? "Nobody, because they didn't see either of them acting violently?" That happens, sure -- but only if they don't think the people involved have the temperament -- and so they'll treat them both as being violent abusers and see if either of them reacts. Which, I'm sure, you would state is ridiculous because 'how can they treat them as violent when they have no evidence outside of a report calling them to that location that someone was abusing someone else', no? You want to make it sound like you know all the right choices -- but you, put in those situations, would also only be able to guess as to the right choices.

Apparently to you the reason why this is happening is that its because its a woman who accused a man. Instead of "Shitty human individual did something terrible to another human individual" like how everyone else is seeing it. Nobody gave a fuck about what sex they are.

You know, i'd probably take the time to explain that being 21, living on my own for about 4 years, being sexually abused during most of my years in High School, paying bills, and owning a shit car probably makes me "Grown Up" But clearly you're the most responsible adult in this situation.

tl;dr of what's going on?

I wouldn't lose my shit and cry and scream as an adult man looking to join a lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in the country, And then lie to the hearing's face.

Ford: Testifies he committed sexual assault on her at a party in Kavanaugh's college years; another man was present - Judge. She does not lie in her testimony - she is forthright, answers all questions, and dodges none -- making sure that she's always correct before she answers. She submits her sworn testimony and is willing to speak with the FBI regarding everything she has testified to and cooperate in any way. She is willing to provide any physical evidence required of her if it's requested (it never is). Kavanaugh: Testifies the allegations are ridiculous while asserting it's a conspiracy theory by the Clintons, declaring war on Democrats, and then proceeding to lie about literally anything and everything. His alibi is a calendar that he has had complete control over for decades and statements that were later found false by what feels like near-everyone he came into contact with at his college, but in particular those who were closest to him but outside his closest circle of trust. All other questions that he does not lie about he dodges or mischaracterizes the facts of; even daring to accuse a Senator of being a black-out drunk when she asks if he has ever blacked out.

That doesn't say as much as you think. Kavanaugh didn't support an FBI investigation because, besides that line of questioning just being a tactic to put him at odds with Senate republicans and doing nothing to curry favor with Democrats who already pledged to not vote for him, it wouldn't have actually yielded anything conclusive and instead would have only served to delay until the midterms which, along with the stakes inherent to a SCOTUS seat, is what this is actually about. The nature of the supreme court, where the the judges sit for a lifetime at the same time the judicial branch has become more politically involved given legislative deadlock and deep ideological conflict, means that its vacancies create such a power vacuum that, when the country is as divided as it was in the 1850s, politicians will fight and fight dirty. The senate majority is incentivized to push him through and have an investigation to satisfy a few marginal figures like Flake and Murkowski, the other side is incentivized to attack with murky 'reasonable possibility' agitation claims such as that Kavanaugh wants to repeal Roe v Wade, opposes indictment of a sitting president, is a racist that supports profiling of muslims, etc. to rile up a base for the midterms, improving their chances at the senate whilst at the same time delaying confirmation until then. In some cases, it's also about people styling themselves for a future presidential run. This is just a chess game and all about power. Did you actually expect a moral and just outcome from this, given the stakes? I don't know about this. If we are going with the argument that reasonable doubt doesn't matter here and it's about reasonable belief in a possibility, which in a nice, civc-minded, and rational world wouldn't just be a canvas for political and ideological interests to paint a picture, even that is troublesome as people struggle for any bit of impartiality. All the people she named didn't corroborate her story and her best friend didn't even know Kavanaugh or what party she was referring to, the actual year has varied across documents, details like the number of other people in the room or the whole party varied, the location is largely unspecified and we still don't know how she got there or back, or what Keyser has to do with the latter. She doesn't know either. There's a couple other questionable things too. The fear of flying is contradicted, her claustrophobia is contested by an ex-boyfriend, she manages to remember specific things that'd otherwise hurt her story like only having one beer, etc. Overall, she doesn't remember much and some of what she does remember has been subject to a bit of change while reasons (like flying) given for her sake to delay the actual hearing have holes in them, further giving the right the impression of politicking on top of the late nature of the letter reveal instead of some rigorous job interview. Does any of this actually mean she wasn't assaulted by Kavanaugh? Nope. That's where this discussion falls apart. The lack of conclusiveness leaves a vacuum that's going to be filled by bitter warfare. Why? The reveal and the subsequent proceedings were handled poorly because they failed to not make this look like desperate political strategy. This was never about truth because this is about a greater zero-sum game of power. Nobody will be convinced, nothing will be settled, the greater conflict that has filled the air while these formalities take place is just going to escalate. How this is handled doesn't matter outside of fomenting mass movements to the polls or the streets in response to the rising stakes in the game and bombshells to come. When it comes to this story, will probably never know for sure. I doubt it even matters at this point. We do know, however, that republican midterm enthusiasm is rising while democrats are going to try to use this to sharpen a cultural edge. I don't think it bodes well for democracy.

Can you back up this claim?

Here's a thing. There's no doubt that men have been falsely accused, but the amount that happens is so small in comparison to the amount of sexual assaults and rapes that go unreported or are glanced over. But thanks to this administration and all the bullshit red-pill level retardation that has been brewing over the past few years. They somehow grouped that shit on the same level, even though its far from being that common. And since it isn't that common, people who are a part of the persecution complexes that fuel these movements start to think that sexual assaults/rapes don't happen as often since the idea of people being falsely accused is held on the same pedestal of occurrence. As a dude who has put up with a bunch of bullshit for being the "Weird Kid" who was constantly told he was lying or was told by the teachers and coaches that whatever the fuck the older classmates we're doing to me in the locker-rooms was nothing but "Boys being Boys." (Won't go into detail, but the shit they did to me terrified me of the concept of Sex for years until i went to Therapy). This idea of a constant fear of every victim being a liar/wanting fame/wanting to get revenge fucks up everyone's chances, man or woman, who try to report the sexual abuse or assault to others in their attempts to explain their situations. Cause of these narratives of victims being liars. people often times question us more often and hold us with more doubt and contempt and believe we're trying to make up false stories to slander the suspect. Even though we're just telling the truth. Its fine to question people about their experiences to make sure everything is factually correct about the assault that occurred. But this is no longer about fact checking, what's happening now with Kavanaugh and Trump's administration is anything BUT fact checking, they're completely sweeping it under the rug under the guise of this "He was victimized" narrative. Trump and company don't give a flying fuck about people being falsely accused. They just don't consider sexual assault or abuse something that should be taken the time and effort to combat against. They don't consider it a crime. They consider it "Locker Room Talk" or "Boys being Boys". And worse is that they also push the idea that if you've experienced it, their suggestion is to toughen up and deal with it and just let it happen. Cause apparently we aren't in control of our abuser's sexual urges. This is why if Kavanaugh gets elected, I've lost all faith in this country.

are you human wait, scratch that - are you even a mammal? Apparently, lots of people have been arrested during protests, including Amy Schumer. To be honest, Amy Schumer should be arrested, but just for crimes against comedy, not this shit... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45754771

Ah the tried and tested code phrase for "I have no emotional intelligence and I don't care if I'm wrong"

Conservative posters here should never ever complain about partisanship and leftist biais when theyre defending a potential rapist who is insanely biaised and hate democrats accessing the highest court of the US, just because hes part of your camp. This trash bag wants to remove gay marriage and abortion rights, screams like a child and refuses all investigations, proving guilt. I hope youre proud of your candidate. Also Jouska people bringing up your absolutely trash posting history is absolutely relevant when you keep posting garbage. You keep telling people you disagree with to "grow up" in here, thats some nice projecting. This conservative partisanship is what's gonna doom the US. It's already severed your relationships with your best allies. Nothing like it exists in the free world.

Local forum reeling as man still has bad opinions

I'm surprised Chuck Grassley is allowed to give a speech standing upside down for all the bullshit coming out of him now.

I feel like this thread just cycles through Jouska demanding proof that he raped her, Jouska being explained that reasonable suspicion is sufficient when we're talking about a Supreme Court nomination, Jouska being given good reasons to be suspicious, Jouska flipping back to "yes but where's the proof".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3jx4WIUYy4