The Kavanaugh controversy

[Faramond]

Why would they go to the police? What can the police do with a 35 yr old accusation?

Well, what can the FBI do, if you have so little opinion of the police? I really don't understand your reasoning.

So the lawyer who gets criticized for being too showy is now being criticized for keeping a lower profile? Maybe Swetnick is the one who doesn't want this to turn into a press circus. The press isn't responsible for investigating her claims, that's the FBIs job. Why is the FBI not being allowed to do their job?

Do you really think that every crazy claim made against a Supreme Court nomineee should be investigated by the FBI? Can you not see the moral hazard here?

But as matter of fact, the only thing that up until now prevented the FBI from investigating was that they had no idea there was any kind of lurid "serial gang rape" allegation. I don't know if the FBI will end up investigating this but it's pretty bizarre to keep up a drumbeat of "let the FBI investigate" when these charges were made today.

3. Where are the witnesses? The charge is of gang rape. Leave aside the question of whether Brett Kavanaugh was involved — and forget for a moment that we’re debating whether he should be on the Supreme Court — surely there are a whole host of victims, perpetrators, and witnesses to this monstrous crime. Where are they?

Sounds like a good reason for the FBI to investigate.

This is not a rebuttal!

4. Is is not a little strange that there are only two details provided, and that they are happen to be public knowledge already? The two names given are Mark Judge’s and Brett Kavanaugh’s. The time given is “BEACH WEEK,” which is listed on the calendar that Brett Kavanaugh released this morning. Why is there nothing new?

Sounds like a good reason for the FBI to investigate.

Nor is this!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I am baffled that anyone would take these lurid Swetnick allegations seriously. If they don't set off the BS detector then the partisan filter is on way too tight.

Context:

She is asking for FBI investigation.

A little late, don't you think, assuming she's telling the truth? The time to ask for an investigation was after the first gang-rape party she went to.

In a perfect world, every allegation of sexual misconduct would be investigated as soon as they happen. But this is not a perfect world, and we know that it is more common than not for people not to report incidents of sexual abuse when they happen. Is it guaranteed that an investigation now would get to the truth? Of course not. But there are enough questions that have been raised that I think it could be helpful. Ms. Swetnick says there are others that can corroborate her allegations. Let her give those names to the FBI and have them interview them.

The bottom line is that there have been a lot of questions raised about Judge Kavanaugh that I think need to be answered. If this were just a case of the Democrats somehow making this up (and I don't even know how that would work, and how they would "recruit" women to tell these stories), why would they not have done so with Judge Gorsuch, who is equally as conservative as Judge Kavanaugh and was the person who was nominated for the seat that the Democrats felt was "stolen" from them by the refusal to give Judge Garland a hearing. Judge Gorsuch even went to the same high school, Georgetown Prep, as Judge Kavanaugh, so if this was some kind of "con game" (as Mr. Trump calls it) they could have just as easily done it with Judge Gorsuch.

[Faramond]

I am baffled that anyone would take these lurid Swetnick allegations seriously. If they don't set off the BS detector then the partisan filter is on way too tight.

To be fair, I don't think this is particularly a partisan issue. The general message around accusations of sexual assault has recently been that the person making the accusation should be given the benefit of the doubt because false accusations are rare. Many of the men who have been caught up in #metoo scandals have been liberals, but they have been condemned as harshly as anyone else.

So the person accused should just be condemned, no questions asked? That is just crazy. Or do you mean something else by "benefit of the doubt"? Because to me, that sounds like you're trying to shift the burden of proof to the defense, rather than the prosecution. The benefit of the doubt should always go to the accused. Always. Donald Trump and Roy Moore, for example, lost the benefit of doubt for me because there was lots of evidence against them.

The person making the accusation should be listened to and not dismissed out of hand because of who is being accused. However, that doesn't mean the accuser should just be believed, no questions asked. The accused should ALSO be listened to, and not just dismissed out of hand because of some political crusade. The evidence should be carefully examined, and not just cherry-picked to fit the preferred outcome.

The truth is we don't know how rare false accusations are.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/ ... tatistics/

I'm sure that most of the liberals here will try to hand-wave that link away, if they even read it, but it contains some very important truths. We simply don't know what the rate of false accusations is.

And even if it was 6%, that's no comfort to the 6% who are falsely accused. What, they don't have rights because there are too few of them? They need to go down because of all the other assholes out there? That is -- monstrous.

I don't understand how you can think this isn't the partisan issue. The confirmation of this Supreme Court Justice at this time is about as partisan as something can get. It's hyper partisan. That liberals have gone under from "me too" has no bearing on this case, does it? The question is, will the evidence be fairly evaluated, or will everything be twisted to fit the narrative that many liberals want to be true ( that Kavanaugh is a rapist). Seeing who swallows this absurd Swetnick story is a good way to see who will look at the evidence with good faith and who is just out to get Kavanaugh.

eta - I generally agree with elen's responses to the National Review questions.

You could have just said "Let the FBI investigate" and that would have about summed it up. Not much of a rebuttal, to be honest.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sen. Collins, who along with Sens. Flake and Murkowski are likely to decide whether Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed, seems to be taking these latest allegations particularly seriously, for similar reasons to those that elengil has cited.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics ... index.html

[elengil]

Why would they go to the police? What can the police do with a 35 yr old accusation?

Well, what can the FBI do, if you have so little opinion of the police? I really don't understand your reasoning.

That's their job! This isn't a criminal case, it's vetting a nominee for the Supreme Court! What can the police do!? This isn't a trial, this is a background investigation into allegations. Even if those allegations are found to be entirely credible, there is unlikely to be any prosecution after 35 years - this isn't a trial.

Do you really think that every crazy claim made against a Supreme Court nomineee should be investigated by the FBI? Can you not see the moral hazard here?

Who decides what claims are crazy? Do you really think that someone with multiple security clearances just makes 'crazy' claims regularly? Does she not deserve the respect of having their allegations investigated? Does not the presence of three accusers demand the FBI investigate now?

But as matter of fact, the only thing that up until now prevented the FBI from investigating was that they had no idea there was any kind of lurid "serial gang rape" allegation.

Yes, and now that the allegation is out, the FBI should be investigating! What is difficult about asking for an investigation once an accusation has been made? No one is asking why the FBI wasn't investigating before the accusation was made.

Sounds like a good reason for the FBI to investigate.

This is not a rebuttal!

It isn't meant to 'rebut' or answer the question, it's meant to point out the whole point of this is that people are asking the FBI to investigate! That is their job, to uncover facts and either corroborate or find no evidence of the accusations.

The FBI regularly reopens background checks based on information that comes up during confirmations. Why is this case different? Hmm? Republicans in a hurry, are they?

[River]

So I know some people who were students in the early 80's, before AIDS spoiled all the fun. Massive amounts of random, unprotected sex seems to have been very much a thing if you were in the right social circles. So, while the rape line sounds horrible it is not, to me, unbelievable given the times.

That said, I never even heard of that sort of thing happening when I was in HS or college, but I'm ~20 years younger than these people and things changed a lot.

[elengil]

And even if it was 6%, that's no comfort to the 6% who are falsely accused. What, they don't have rights because there are too few of them? They need to go down because of all the other assholes out there? That is -- monstrous.

But you're happy to sacrifice the 94% of women on the altar of 6% of men?

[Faramond]

A little late, don't you think, assuming she's telling the truth? The time to ask for an investigation was after the first gang-rape party she went to.

In a perfect world, every allegation of sexual misconduct would be investigated as soon as they happen. But this is not a perfect world, and we know that it is more common than not for people not to report incidents of sexual abuse when they happen.

Yes, and I don't hold this as evidence that Ford is lying. I understand that sexual assault is often not reported. But witnessing gang rape and then going back to witness it some more and some more is a little bit different, don't you think? There's really no comparison.

The reason there are statute of limitations on certain crimes is that it's very hard to prove what happened so many years later, isn't it? The problem here is that to a lot of people Ford gets the benefit of the doubt, while Kavanaugh is expected to prove his innocence. ( which is an appalling way to do things, by the way ) Well, after so long, what can he do? There are precious few specifics to even rebut. No firm location. A vague time frame. No witnesses to back up her account. It's really impossible for him to prove his innocence, so a lot of people will just say "believe the women" and conclude he's guilty. You *really* don't have a problem with this way of doing things? What if someone pointed the finger of accusation at you and everyone just believed it without regard for evidence?

I just hope things become clearer one way or the other after the testimony.

Is it guaranteed that an investigation now would get to the truth? Of course not. But there are enough questions that have been raised that I think it could be helpful. Ms. Swetnick says there are others that can corroborate her allegations. Let her give those names to the FBI and have them interview them.

I think this is the last thing she wants! But if she's telling the truth then there should be a ton of witnesses.

The bottom line is that there have been a lot of questions raised about Judge Kavanaugh that I think need to be answered.

Only by Ford, in my opinion, and that one is really hard to answer because of the vagueness of her charge and the amount of time that has passed.

If this were just a case of the Democrats somehow making this up (and I don't even know how that would work, and how they would "recruit" women to tell these stories),

I don't think Democrats are "making this up". I think a lot of Democrats are forgoing good faith examination of the evidence and twisting everything to fit the narrative that Kavanaugh is a rapist.

why would they not have done so with Judge Gorsuch, who is equally as conservative as Judge Kavanaugh and was the person who was nominated for the seat that the Democrats felt was "stolen" from them by the refusal to give Judge Garland a hearing.

I think that if there had been similar accusations against Gorsuch then similar evidence twisting would have gone on. And of course the stakes are much higher now. I mean, your thread title "Disaster" shows that. A lot of liberals are convinced that Kavanaugh will be indirectly responsible for murdering thousands of women soon. I could probably find people who think this on this very board! If dedicing on who is telling the truth is about cost-benefit analysis, as some people have tried to make it out to be, then this should be taken into account, no? All you need is one person who feels strongly enough that Kavanaugh must be stopped to upset the usual restraints on taking risks.

All that said, I don't think there is a vast "left wing" conspiracy. Just a lot of bad faith examination of the evidence.

[Faramond]

And even if it was 6%, that's no comfort to the 6% who are falsely accused. What, they don't have rights because there are too few of them? They need to go down because of all the other assholes out there? That is -- monstrous.

But you're happy to sacrifice the 94% of women on the altar of 6% of men?

So to you, giving rights to the accused means sacrificing all the accusers?

No, it doesn't. It means having a fair process. I never said that we should just disbelieve all accusations of sexual assault. I said we should not presume guilt of the accused and we should look at the evidence fairly.

I want the guilty punished and I want the innocent exonerated. It's hard to balance this. But we've made a decision to give the accused certain rights, to try to let the guilty go unpunished rather than let the innocent be condemned. At the very least one of these rights is that we don't just declare them guilty based only on an accusation.

Now, I do not think the standard here with a Supreme Court nominee ( or political candidate ) should be as high as for a criminal trial. So even if Trump wasn't quite proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ( though really, he kind of has bee ) then I still think he's unfit for office. Same with Roy Moore. But it has to be at least preponderance of the evidence. It has to involve some sort of weighing of the evidence. It has to be something more than just "someone made an accusation and that's all we need to declare guilt".

[elengil]

And even if it was 6%, that's no comfort to the 6% who are falsely accused. What, they don't have rights because there are too few of them? They need to go down because of all the other assholes out there? That is -- monstrous.

But you're happy to sacrifice the 94% of women on the altar of 6% of men?

So to you, giving rights to the accused means sacrificing all the accusers?

No, it means not calling them 'crazy' and actually investigating the claims.

You keep accusing us of essentially lynching the candidate when all we want is for the confirmation to be put on hold until there can be a proper and thorough investigation! No one is asking for his head. We ARE asking for the evidence to be looked at fairly, for ALL relevant witnesses to be subpoenaed to testify, for time for the FBI to conduct an investigation into the claims (like normal), not to be ignored and rushed to get a confirmation in before November.

You keep saying we're looking at this with a partisan lens - because it is being rushed through with a partisan force! If the candidate cannot hold up to the vetting process, the solution is not throw out the vetting process and confirm anyway, it's find a better suited candidate!

This is not the same as trying and convicting a man on no evidence, this is saying that he is not entitled to a very, very prestigious and near exclusive position, and if we can't even look at most of his documents, and he has accusations of abuse against him, maybe he really isn't fit for the position! Fine, get a new candidate. No one is lining up with pitchforks and torches to burn his house down.

[Faramond]

You know, if by some miracle Swetnick claims are true, it's just a shame that one of the dozens and dozens of other witnesses that must exist didn't come forward first with a lawyer who isn't as sleazy as Avenetti with more specifics including the names of other witnesses. This is just the worst way to roll out serious charges like this.

[yovargas]

Faramond - you seem to be arguing with people who are not in this thread. To my knowledge, nobody is here is saying that Kavanaugh is definitely guilty and should be treated as such. Everyone here is just saying that the allegations should be investigated by the proper authorities, which to my understanding is the FBI. You say that both the accuser and the accused should be treated fairly. Allowing the FBI the time needed to do at least a basic investigation of the facts would be treating both sides fairly. You seem to agree with this so, again, I'm not sure who it is that you are arguing against.

[Faramond]

No, it means not calling them 'crazy' and actually investigating the claims.

The accusation is crazy. The signed statement is bonkers! Can't you see that? All those gang rapes, all this bizarre behavior, and not one person came forward until this woman hired -- Avenetti? What the hey? You don't find this whole chain of events a little crazy?

I'm not directly calling Swetnick crazy, if that's what you think.

for ALL relevant witnesses to be subpoenaed to testify,

It would be nice if there were any witnesses to actually subpoena! Who do you suggest, besides Judge? ( and we know what he will say ) Who else is there? That's part of the problem here. There are basically no named witnesses. Ford's friend doesn't remember anything, does she? Who do you want them to call? Swetnick sure hasn't named anyone. Maybe she will, I guess?

for time for the FBI to conduct an investigation into the claims (like normal), not to be ignored and rushed to get a confirmation in before November.

Well, who would the FBI talk to? Ford and Kavanaugh and who else? Judge, I guess? I doubt Avenetti will actually let the FBI anywhere near his client if he can help it, but who knows? The thing is, we're going to hear from Kavanaugh and Ford tomorrow. ( It is tomorrow, right? ) There's really no one else to talk to.

You keep saying we're looking at this with a partisan lens - because it is being rushed through with a partisan force!

This is a poor excuse for bad behavior. Really? We have to because the other side? But I'm not sure I agree it's being rushed. The vote would have already happened if it was being rushed, no? They've already postponed it once, right? But of course, they may not have had the votes. I guess to you it's being rushed because you want every crazy claim investigated. Well, okay. I sure hope if the FBI talk to Swetnick she's more forthcoming about these witnesses than she was in her vague statement.

If the candidate cannot hold up to the vetting process, the solution is not throw out the vetting process and confirm anyway,

We, don't know if Kavanaugh can hold up to vetting or not, do we? He only fails the vetting when something is proved against him. That's the question that tomorrow's testimony is ideally supposed to answer.

it's find a better suited candidate!

Heh. You probably wouldn't like this so called "better suited" candidate.

This is not the same as trying and convicting a man on no evidence, this is saying that he is not entitled to a very, very prestigious and near exclusive position, and if we can't even look at most of his documents, and he has accusations of abuse against him, maybe he really isn't fit for the position! Fine, get a new candidate. No one is lining up with pitchforks and torches to burn his house down.

But accusation of abuse aren't proof of abuse. An accusation by itself is not proof. Look, I am not saying Kavanaugh is innocent of Ford's charge. I don't know. I hope tomorrow makes it clearer. But it's really bad to say the mere existence of an accusation means someone isn't fit.

[Faramond]

Faramond - you seem to be arguing with people who are not in this thread. To my knowledge, nobody is here is saying that Kavanaugh is definitely guilty and should be treated as such.

I see a lot of statements ( including from you) that seem to put the burden of proof on him, that we should simply believe an accuser over the accused because "me too" and percentages of false claims. Else, why bring up the canard about percent of false claims? This comes awfully close to essentially saying that Kavanaugh is definitely guilty, doesn't it? In effect, since he's been accused?

Everyone here is just saying that the allegations should be investigated by the proper authorities, which to my understanding is the FBI. You say that both the accuser and the accused should be treated fairly. Allowing the FBI the time needed to do at least a basic investigation of the facts would be treating both sides fairly. You seem to agree with this so, again, I'm not sure who it is that you are arguing against.

Who is the FBI supposed to talk to? I mean, really? It's been 35 years. There's no physical evidence. There's just memory. Which is notoriously unreliable. But okay, that's what we have. So, who do you talk to? Ford and Kavanaugh are already going to testify. Swetnick's statement is out there, and it contained vague ( in time and space ) accusations with no new witnesses named. I guess they could talk to Judge. And Ford's friend, I guess? The second accusers account is in the New Yorker. I guess they can talk to her. Will she say anything different? The NY Times couldn't find anyone to back up her account. Maybe the FBI could do better? I doubt it. I'm sure the times looked hard. Can Ford give them any new names?

I truly do not know what you expect the FBI to do that tomorrow's testimony won't accomplish.

Honestly, I would LOVE it if the FBI could investigate and come to come conclusions. But I just don't see who they talk to.

[Impenitent]

I would like to turn this around and ask, why NOT instigate an FBI investigation? It would bring clarity one way or the other.

If Kavanaugh is appointed to the bench without an investigation, these allegations will always be hanging over his head. Wouldn't it be better to clear his name? If it goes no further than a Senate decision to set aside these allegations, there would be no doubt of the partisan nature of rhe decision, and his elevation will always be under a dirty cloud that will follow him in the same way as Clarence Thomas' name remains tainted.

If there's nothing to these allegations, why reject an FBI investigation when it would clear his name once and for all?

(I know the answer to that question: partisan politics and its need for haste in the appointment.)


Sent from a tiny phone keyboard via Tapatalk - typos inevitable.

[elengil]

No, it means not calling them 'crazy' and actually investigating the claims.

The accusation is crazy. The signed statement is bonkers! Can't you see that? All those gang rapes, all this bizarre behavior, and not one person came forward until this woman hired -- Avenetti? What the hey? You don't find this whole chain of events a little crazy?

I'm not directly calling Swetnick crazy, if that's what you think.

You might as well be, you're saying essentially it should be dismissed because you find it unbelievable on the surface. I say it should be investigated because the person who made it has the credentials to at least have her claims be investigated - however outlandish they appear. Outlandish from a random, incredible source can be more easily dismissed than outlandish from a hugely credible source - credible due to multiple background investigations to provide her with multiple government security clearances.

As for coming forward - Ford has already had to move and received death threats. Gee, why don't witnesses just come out of the woodwork with that kind of perk?! It takes incredible bravery to come forward, make claims that many may well see as outlandish and incredible, especially if you feel your word isn't enough.

This woman came forward, and says others can corroborate her claims. She is in a position where her credibility should be taken seriously. She isn't obligated to spill other people's names to the press and involve them in this against their will, but I hope she does provide a list to congress and congress investigates.

As for finding the whole thing bizarre, of course I do. I would think if people were making up stories they'd be much more reasonable sounding. The whole "seem fairer while feeling fouler" stick. This definitely has such a bizarre look to it that I can't imagine anyone making it up and thinking it sounded credible.

Hidden text.

(HA I managed to fit LotR in! I should win some sort of prize for that in this thread!)

[yovargas]

If you are saying that a lot of cases about rape and sexual assault are very difficult, if not impossible, to prove, again, I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. But that does not mean the accusations should not be taken seriously and looked into. It sounds like you agree on that so, again, I'm not sure who you are arguing against.

The whole angle about false rape accusations being rare is brought up so often because historically, women making these accusations are very often not believed, and have their cases dismissed and ignored by the authorities (which many women explicitly say is why they don't come forward until much, much later). All anyone asks now is that they not be dismissed and ignored, that they be taken seriously and looked into, not that anything anyone says be automatically believed.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There are a lot of people that the FBI could speak to. One is Mark Judge's ex-girlfriend, who now says that she is willing to speak.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... wyer-says/

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Faramond]

Why not just call her as a witness?

[Primula Baggins]

Because they don't want witnesses?