Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Aroura]

[quote pid='1816938' dateline='1537534289']
I appreciate that.

[/quote]


I had a big long response written out, but it was messy because I can't respond neatly, plus I promised myself not to get emotionally involved in these political debates.

My final comment (feel free to respond, and if I don't respond back please know I'm not ignoring you, I just need to step away) Is that what you are doing, intentional or not, advances the culture where woman (and men, and children) can be assaulted without consequence.  Because you are making excuses for the accused ahead of time, instead of waiting impartially to hear all evidence. You believe you are being impartial, but your language is subtly, but surely, victim blaming. Because you are saying she might be lying, or mistaken, or politically motivated, you unintentionally add weight to the people leaving this woman death threats and the like, who change only one word...from might to is.  

I hope that someday, your eyes are opened to how you've unintentionally contributed to a very harmful aspect of culture, and how you might change your thinking in the future, and I hope it doesn't take a personal tragedy to do it.

---

I don't know how to break up the quotes for better responses.  Something I need to learn to do!

Copy and paste this portion of the person's post:

(quote='Aroura' pid='1817015' dateline='1537541569')
but brackets instead of parenthesis.  End quote before using it again for the next section.

Thank you!

It's a pain in the ass to do on my phone.  I'll have to try again when I'm on my laptop.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And I'm still waiting on your explanation of what you mean by "unfounded slander," "slander," and "exploitation."

??? I cited the NPR article, here… https://atheistforums.org/thread-56486-p...pid1816605 . It summarized what Anita Hill claimed but did not provide any further evidence to support her claims.

Additionally, now that you've claimed that Democrats have unfairly used the Anita Hill charge and the Blasey Ford charge to their advantage, I'd like you to be clear in how you think it is unfair.

Sen. Diane Feinstein sat on Ford’s letter since July. She didn’t care enough give it to the FBI back then. She didn’t share it with the Committee during the confirmation hearings. No. She waited to the last minute after the voluminous document requests, paid protesters, and misrepresentations of his civil rights record didn’t work.

Whether the Democrats exploited either Ms. Hill or Ms. Blasey Ford is a claim that you have not supported in any real way.

It’s not a claim. It’s my opinion of Democrat strategy. Exploited is perfectly good term to use when describing someone attempting to leverage gossip for political gain.

If the allegations of Hill and Blasey Ford are true, then they aren't really "besmirching" anything except insofar as the accusation alone is itself damaging, but that can't be avoided, can it? So how is bringing these charges unfair or unethical

It is unethical because EVEN IF the allegations are true he would have been a minor. I have already made my view clear that a fair criminal justice system does not allow juvenile crimes to follow individuals for their entire lives.

It is unfair because it was initially presented by the Senator anonymously, does not specify when it supposedly happened, who held the party, where the party was at, or who might have actually been present. The accusation is vague to the point of being unfalsifiable. There is no way for Kavaugh to clear his name and, as you said, the accusation is itself damaging. And that seems to be the reason Democrats are bringing it up in the first place.

Finally, it is unfair to demand an FBI investigation when the FBI has no jurisdiction and Congress has no authority over an executive agency to order an investigation.

[RoadRunner79]

I appreciate that.

I had a big long response written out, but it was messy because I can't respond neatly, plus I promised myself not to get emotionally involved in these political debates.

My final comment (feel free to respond, and if I don't respond back please know I'm not ignoring you, I just need to step away) Is that what you are doing, intentional or not, advances the culture where woman (and men, and children) can be assaulted without consequence.  Because you are making excuses for the accused ahead of time, instead of waiting impartially to hear all evidence. You believe you are being impartial, but your language is subtly, but surely, victim blaming. Because you are saying she might be lying, or mistaken, or politically motivated, you unintentionally add weight to the people leaving this woman death threats and the like, who change only one word...from might to is.  

I hope that someday, your eyes are opened to how you've unintentionally contributed to a very harmful aspect of culture, and how you might change your thinking in the future, and I hope it doesn't take a personal tragedy to do it.

I can understand your concern, and what you are saying, but I also think it's harmful to not even be able to question such things as well.  To not look at the facts, and let the accused defend themselves.  Look at the discussion here, just questioning is claimed to be attacking and slandering (which is often over-dramatized in these types of things and doesn't help matters).  I also maintain that she could be telling the truth.  From the evidence so far, I don't think that this is going to be a particularly strong case, or that much is going to come from it (from the details as of yet). And it doesn't sound like their is much to add.  I don't believe in guilty until proven innocent.

edit: fixed some formatting

[Neo-Scholastic]

I hear a lot of people saying things like "if it is true" but what I am not hearing is this. If the allegations are false how can he prove his innocence?

[Angrboda]

Saying that someone denies such a serious charge is hardly justification for "serious doubt."  Additionally, only Kavanaugh has denied that the event happened and it seems reasonably plausible that, given the circumstances, he has considerable motive to lie about it.  So, then the question becomes why do you have serious doubt about Blasey Ford's statement, but apparently little doubt about Kavanaugh's?

Ford said there were 4 other people there besides herself.

Kavanaugh denies it. Judge (who was named as involved) denies it. These of course have motivation to deny it.

Another person who was allegedly there, but did not witness the assault, appears to be Patrick J. Smyth. He also denies that the event occurred:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/...index.html

So out of 5 people, 1 says it happened, 3 says it didn't, and we haven't heard from the last.

Last I heard, Judge simply doesn't recall. How is testimony that people didn't witness the assault testimony that the assault didn't occur? That would seem to imply that we have reasonable reason to believe they would have witnessed an assault if it had occurred. From my recollection, Blasey Ford is claiming that she and Kavanaugh and Judge were alone together in a bedroom. If my understanding is wrong, then please correct it. Otherwise, that seems that you have only one witness that it didn't happen, and that is Kavanaugh, as originally stated. It appears to be your claim that the two others were in the bedroom with Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, and Judge. It's getting pretty crowded in there. Can you link me to the statements of these other people because I haven't seen it. (I haven't read the news this morning, and there was nothing about this in any of the accounts I've read previously.)

Your article says that Smyth has no knowledge of either the party or the assault. That doesn't help any. (The article you cite doesn't claim that Smyth denies the assault took place. If you have an actual instance of him denying the assault, please provide it. If he simply has no knowledge of the events, I don't see how that introduces serious doubt that the event did occur. It additionally puts an inconsistency in Smyth's claims, that he both does and does not have knowledge of the events in question.)

If the article and Smyth's statement are any indication, you seem to be seeing what you want to believe rather than what's actually there.

[Jehanne]

Ford said there were 4 other people there besides herself.

Kavanaugh denies it. Judge (who was named as involved) denies it. These of course have motivation to deny it.

Another person who was allegedly there, but did not witness the assault, appears to be Patrick J. Smyth. He also denies that the event occurred:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/...index.html

So out of 5 people, 1 says it happened, 3 says it didn't, and we haven't heard from the last.

Last I heard, Judge simply doesn't recall.  How is testimony that people didn't witness the assault testimony that the assault didn't occur?  That would seem to imply that we have reasonable reason to believe they would have witnessed an assault if it had occurred.  From my recollection, Blasey Ford is claiming that she and Kavanaugh and Judge were alone together in a bedroom.  If my understanding is wrong, then please correct it.  Otherwise, that seems that you have only one witness that it didn't happen, and that is Kavanaugh, as originally stated.  It appears to be your claim that the two others were in the bedroom with Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, and Judge.  It's getting pretty crowded in there.  Can you link me to the statements of these other people because I haven't seen it.  (I haven't read the news this morning, and there was nothing about this in any of the accounts I've read previously.)

Your article says that Smyth has no knowledge of either the party or the assault.  That doesn't help any. (The article you cite doesn't claim that Smyth denies the assault took place.  If you have an actual instance of him denying the assault, please provide it.  If he simply has no knowledge of the events, I don't see how that introduces serious doubt that the event did occur.  It additionally puts an inconsistency in Smyth's claims, that he both does and does not have knowledge of the events in question.)

If the article and Smyth's statement are any indication, you seem to be seeing what you want to believe rather than what's actually there.

Translation:  "I do recall, but, it's no big deal; I was, after all, just a kid, but now, I do not want to be a felon by perjuring myself."

[John V]

Last I heard, Judge simply doesn't recall.

Wrong. "Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."

How is testimony that people didn't witness the assault testimony that the assault didn't occur?  That would seem to imply that we have reasonable reason to believe they would have witnessed an assault if it had occurred.  From my recollection, Blasey Ford is claiming that she and Kavanaugh and Judge were alone together in a bedroom.  If my understanding is wrong, then please correct it.

She said there was a party with herself and four others. Only two others were in the bedroom. Testimony by the two not in the bedroom that the party itself never occurred obviously counters Ford's claim.

Otherwise, that seems that you have only one witness that it didn't happen, and that is Kavanaugh, as originally stated.  It appears to be your claim that the two others were in the bedroom with Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, and Judge.  It's getting pretty crowded in there.

You're pretty snarky for someone who doesn't know the facts.

Can you link me to the statements of these other people because I haven't seen it.  (I haven't read the news this morning, and there was nothing about this in any of the accounts I've read previously.)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/...index.html

That's Judge. I linked to the other earlier.

Your article says that Smyth has no knowledge of either the party or the assault.  That doesn't help any. (The article you cite doesn't claim that Smyth denies the assault took place.  If you have an actual instance of him denying the assault, please provide it.  If he simply has no knowledge of the events, I don't see how that introduces serious doubt that the event did occur.  It additionally puts an inconsistency in Smyth's claims, that he both does and does not have knowledge of the events in question.)

If the article and Smyth's statement are any indication, you seem to be seeing what you want to believe rather than what's actually there.

You seem to be a moron, or more likely purposely obfuscating. Testimony that the party at which the assault allegedly took place didn't occur, is testimony that the assault itself didn't occur.

[Angrboda]

Your article says that Smyth has no knowledge of either the party or the assault.  That doesn't help any. (The article you cite doesn't claim that Smyth denies the assault took place.  If you have an actual instance of him denying the assault, please provide it.  If he simply has no knowledge of the events, I don't see how that introduces serious doubt that the event did occur.  It additionally puts an inconsistency in Smyth's claims, that he both does and does not have knowledge of the events in question.)

If the article and Smyth's statement are any indication, you seem to be seeing what you want to believe rather than what's actually there.

You seem to be a moron, or more likely purposely obfuscating. Testimony that the party at which the assault allegedly took place didn't occur, is testimony that the assault itself didn't occur.

Smyth's statement that he has no knowledge of the party is not saying that the party didn't occur. That doesn't follow. And since his statement is not evidence that the party didn't occur, we're left with two people who deny that a vaguely referenced party didn't occur. But since you haven't linked to their statement's, I can't assume that you're not misrepresenting them the same way you have Smyth. Who are these other two witnesses, can you at least tell me that much?

So not including the other two whom you haven't cited, we have a person who might have committed sexual assault and a person who might have witnessed a sexual assault and didn't report it and who also is a good friend of Kavanaugh's as witnesses. Is that correct?

---

Apparently, if I'm reading this correctly, there are six witnesses, some of whom claim that they can confirm that Kavanaugh knew of the sexual harassment going on with Kozinski, despite his denials. Ostensibly both Grassley and Feinstein did not feel their testimony relevant to the hearings. (link)

[downbeatplumb]

So let me get this straight, you want to rush a woman into doing something she isn't ready to do yet.

Much like the accused.

She can do what she wants; nobody is forcing her to do anything.

Aren't they though!

[Jehanne]

Last I heard, Judge simply doesn't recall.

Wrong. "Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."

How is testimony that people didn't witness the assault testimony that the assault didn't occur?  That would seem to imply that we have reasonable reason to believe they would have witnessed an assault if it had occurred.  From my recollection, Blasey Ford is claiming that she and Kavanaugh and Judge were alone together in a bedroom.  If my understanding is wrong, then please correct it.

She said there was a party with herself and four others. Only two others were in the bedroom. Testimony by the two not in the bedroom that the party itself never occurred obviously counters Ford's claim.

Otherwise, that seems that you have only one witness that it didn't happen, and that is Kavanaugh, as originally stated.  It appears to be your claim that the two others were in the bedroom with Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, and Judge.  It's getting pretty crowded in there.

You're pretty snarky for someone who doesn't know the facts.

Can you link me to the statements of these other people because I haven't seen it.  (I haven't read the news this morning, and there was nothing about this in any of the accounts I've read previously.)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/...index.html

That's Judge. I linked to the other earlier.

Your article says that Smyth has no knowledge of either the party or the assault.  That doesn't help any. (The article you cite doesn't claim that Smyth denies the assault took place.  If you have an actual instance of him denying the assault, please provide it.  If he simply has no knowledge of the events, I don't see how that introduces serious doubt that the event did occur.  It additionally puts an inconsistency in Smyth's claims, that he both does and does not have knowledge of the events in question.)

If the article and Smyth's statement are any indication, you seem to be seeing what you want to believe rather than what's actually there.

You seem to be a moron, or more likely purposely obfuscating. Testimony that the party at which the assault allegedly took place didn't occur, is testimony that the assault itself didn't occur.

What bovine nonsense.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; most sexual assaults, by the way, do not occur in full view of complete strangers.  Let Kavanaugh take a lie detector test; let's see if he passes!  By the way, if he admits his guilt, will you continue to support him as a SCOTUS nominee?