Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Sparko]

I don't listen to "chants" all that much. I do know that the studies and data show that, with respect to sexual assault, women as usually disbelieved/discounted (mostly by men), are usually telling the truth, and are very reluctant to come forward as a result. Each time a woman does what these women in the article do, they reaffirm this disbelief and do a terrible disservice to other women.



Not just as likely. That is not what the data shows.

you asked me,
Who on earth said "girls don't lie about sexual assault?"

Well there you go, you just answered your own question.

[rogue06]

When the job interview is for a high profile, public position, it happens.

No. No it doesn't. This was a first and definitely a new low.

[Sparko]

No. No it doesn't. This was a first and definitely a new low.

not to mention it was the government doing the questioning so they more than anyone should be held to the standard of evidence and jurisprudence that our country demands against the accused. There is nothing that says innocent until proven guilty is just for the court of law. That just happens to be what we use in court because it is the standard our law and constitution demand for anyone accused, in court or not.

[carpedm9587]

No. No it doesn't. This was a first and definitely a new low.

A first?

Why don't you check out this site: https://www.vox.com/a/sexual-harassm...rett-kavanaugh. And this is just since mid 2017. Going back in time the list is even more impressive.

Rogue - I think you're being a tad selective...

[carpedm9587]

The "job interviews" (MANY of them) happened in Senators' offices - as I said before, the hearing was a "job interview" like Custer's last stand was a "meet & greet".

It is downright idiotic to call what happened a "job interview".

You're entitled to your opinion, obviously - but a Senate confirmation is the equivalent of a job interview - not a trial. How do I know this? The goal of the Senate is to confirm "yes - you may have this position/job" not "yes, we will send you to jail or fine you." Calling it "idiotic" doesn't actually make it idiotic.

If you cannot see that...

[carpedm9587]

you asked me,
Who on earth said "girls don't lie about sexual assault?"

Well there you go, you just answered your own question.

I have not been able to find a single place where anyone has made the argument, "no girl ever lies about sexual assault." If you know of one, I'd like to look at it. Citation...?

[oxmixmudd]

The best preventative for injustice is to not believe anyone unless they have evidence. investigate, sure. but if no evidence turns up, you can't just decide, oh well the statistics overwhelmingly say she must be telling the truth so we will arrest him anyway.

Again, due process and presumption of innocence. Does that mean that there will be some cases where a guilty person goes free? Yes, of course. Not only in sexual assaults but in any crime, theft, burglary, regular assault, murder, etc. But our country and most other free countries believe it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person be convicted. Even though sometimes the latter still happens too.

Uh - I don't think you are comprehending what I'm saying at all Sparko. It's weird. I spend time trying to make sure I word my posts to make a specific point, and your answer just indicates you had no conception whatsoever of the point being made. It's bizarre.

So rather than follow you off into the weeds, I'm just going to point out all the things your response pretends my post said or implied that it simply didn't say or imply. And what will be left is that you effectively only pretended to reply to my post, but instead were replying to some imaginary post I never made.

1) I did not say or imply that we should convict a man without evidence.

2) I did not say or imply we should just arbitrarily believe a woman and arrest a man.

3) I did not say or imply we should circumvent due process

4) I did not say or imply that anything I was discussing would prevent a guilty person from going free or that it would allow an assaulted woman without evidence to find justice.

To top it off, this post is to Mossy. There is a perfectly good post just before it replying to you that gives a much more specific discussion of the actual points I am trying to make. Why would you ignore the more detailed post and then go off into the weeds quoting my less specific reply when it is clear these issues are not consequences of my thinking per the other more detailed post directed to you?

Jim

[Cow Poke]

You're entitled to your opinion, obviously - but a Senate confirmation is the equivalent of a job interview - not a trial.

It SHOULD be - but this wasn't - it was an ambush. DiFi had the information in her possession during the times she "interviewed" Kavanaugh personally - then only brought it forward in ambush fashion.

Tthat's why I think it's idiotic to call this a job interview. The Democrats had ZERO intention of "hiring" Kavanaugh - and EVERY intention of stopping his confirmation.

[rogue06]

It SHOULD be - but this wasn't - it was an ambush. DiFi had the information in her possession during the times she "interviewed" Kavanaugh personally - then only brought it forward in ambush fashion.

Tthat's why I think it's idiotic to call this a job interview. The Democrats had ZERO intention of "hiring" Kavanaugh - and EVERY intention of stopping his confirmation.

IIRC, their Senate leader (Schumer) even declared his intention to vote "no" before Trump announced his nominee.

[Cow Poke]

IIRC, their Senate leader (Schumer) even declared his intention to vote "no" before Trump announced his nominee.

Yeah, it's like -- "go get the rope, we'll do the hanging at noon, then get together for the trial...."

[carpedm9587]

It SHOULD be - but this wasn't - it was an ambush.

It was a woman who believes (as best I can tell) she was sexually assaulted working up the nerve to come forward. I have no reason to think otherwise. It is what she told us, and I have no reason to call her a liar.

DiFi had the information in her possession during the times she "interviewed" Kavanaugh personally - then only brought it forward in ambush fashion.

I have no idea what actually happened on this front. It's possible it was an ambush. It's also possible it was the Dems honoring this woman's desire NOT to be in the spotlight, and trying to convince her to take on that role. It is also possible that they eventually "leaked" it to pressure her into that position. If they did, I would consider that despicable. But I don't know that either and, unlike most here, I'm not going to turn a speculation about a possibility into a "fact."

Tthat's why I think it's idiotic to call this a job interview. The Democrats had ZERO intention of "hiring" Kavanaugh - and EVERY intention of stopping his confirmation.

Of course they did. And the Republicans had every intention of pushing his confirmation through. This is a surprise to you?

[Cow Poke]

It was a woman who believes (as best I can tell) she was sexually assaulted working up the nerve to come forward. I have no reason to think otherwise. It is what she told us, and I have no reason to call her a liar.

I'm not going to rehash this whole thing - the Dems has ZERO interest in "interviewing" Kavanaugh. It was about preventing him from being confirmed, not "interviewing" him for a job.

[JimL]

It SHOULD be - but this wasn't - it was an ambush. DiFi had the information in her possession during the times she "interviewed" Kavanaugh personally - then only brought it forward in ambush fashion.

Tthat's why I think it's idiotic to call this a job interview. The Democrats had ZERO intention of "hiring" Kavanaugh - and EVERY intention of stopping his confirmation.

Republicans had no intention of not hiring Kavanaugh and every intention of confirmation. Gorsuch was confirmed without any of these questions, so your argument is moot.

[lilpixieofterror]

Republicans had no intention of not hiring Kavanaugh and every intention of confirmation. Gorsuch was confirmed without any of these questions, so your argument is moot.

My dear Jimmy, still falling for character assassination without any sort of supporting evidence?

[Cow Poke]

And the Republicans had every intention of pushing his confirmation through. This is a surprise to you?

The Republicans were putting forth his qualifications for the actual job - like a real job interview. The Democrats, on the other hand, were trying to smear him with unsubstantiated allegations that happened when he was in high school, with zero corroboration.

And the Dems COULD have handled this properly by bringing this matter to the committee for consideration privately, giving Kavanaugh an opportunity to withdraw his name or stick to his guns. They were cowardly and deceitful in the way they handled it.