Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[Stavros]

this message is a reply to stravos' comment

I am not hiding behind the allegation, on which I have not taken a position one way or the other. In fact the allegations of sexual assault have deflected attention away from the core issues I have referred to which is Kavanaugh's positions on matters of law. If you compare the Senate hearings of Kavanaugh with those of Neil Gorsuch, you find that the issues were legal not personal, and the extreme positions that Gorsuch took on matters such as Birth Control and LGBT rights, as per the Vox list produced at the time (in the link below) which do not reflect public opinion.

Re cd-sasha's comment: Had the Democrats from the start decided to sabotage every Supreme Court nomination, why did they not pay an ex-or current hooker to claim Gorsuch as a client or any other lurid tale you can make up which is what the President's supporters claim Dr Ford has been recruited (and paid) to do?

It is hypocrisy because the roll-call of morals that the Republicans claim to be part of the fabric of American life in reality are applied to some people not others, and guess who gets the free pass? At least Mrs Pence has the decency of her convinctions to refuse any interaction with the President, apparently she won't even shake his hand.

It seems to me that the Supreme Court appointments are part of a deliberate attempt by the Republican Party to deny to the majority of Americans what it is that they want: they want women to receive the benefits of Planned Parenthood because it works -unwanted pregnancies are down, cervical cancer screenings are up and saving women's lives, and contraception, contrary to what some of the President's supporters claim, does work.

Americans want to vote, they don't want registration to cost them time and money and deter them from registering at all, and States -all States- should ensure every citizen is registered and that a polling station on election day is open within a mile of where they live -you can't tell me this is not possible in the USA in the 21st century. Ultimately, it is about rights, which has been the foundation of your Constitutional Republic, and whether or not any of the three branches of government should be taking rights away, or extending them. No surpise that Republicans tend to take rights away, rather than extend them.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction....s-neil-gorsuch

[CD_Sasha]

I can’t reply fully because I’m on my phone but collinswriter why don’t you type into google “is testimony evidence?”. You begin with the meaningless sentence that it’s not evidence in this case.

Testimony is evidence in every case. In cases where the defense to a charge of rape is that there was consensual sex rather than force it is often the only dispositive evidence. In such cases the outcome hinges not on physical evidence but witness testimony. One can reach the burden of proof in a criminal case on testimony alone and withstand appeal. I’ve read dozens of such appeals.

You also need an entire course on procedural due process, including what safeguards apply and where. I’ll give you a hint: the greater the deprivation being faced the more robust the procedures must be to prevent an unjust deprivation. It is not a criminal trial. Kavanaugh is not facing prison and so constitutionally he is not being treated inappropriately. What you call skepticism I call poorly done sophistry. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to subject someone to criminal sanction, not to rule on whether they are an unfit appointment to Supreme Court.

As for cd Sasha’s why would perjury be worth impeachment but not preclude someone from serving as a judge?

All I'm saying is there's a difference between allegations and conviction. I believe in due process - innocent until proven guilty. If Kavanaugh is proclaimed guilty after evidence is found to backup the allegations (there's none, it's all she said he said), then he should disqualify becoming scotus - I agree. But if you believe word of mouth is evidence, especially when Dr. Ford's close friend refuted knowing the defendant, then this country is in deep trouble.

[buttslinger]

+
Even if the FBI found 17 credible accusations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh the Republicans could confirm him, if Democrats are up in arms it's because Kavanaugh isn't going to be just one seat on the Supreme Court, he will be the swing vote that will make the Supreme Court a rubber stamp on the Republican agenda. If you think the Republicans are drunk on power now, wait until they start sending case after case to their very own Kangaroo Court.

[CD_Sasha]

+
Even if the FBI found 17 credible accusations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh the Republicans could confirm him, if Democrats are up in arms it's because Kavanaugh isn't going to be just one seat on the Supreme Court, he will be the swing vote that will make the Supreme Court a rubber stamp on the Republican agenda. If you think the Republicans are drunk on power now, wait until they start sending case after case to their very own Kangaroo Court.

Your responses are very emotional and very bias. Nothing I've responded to is being bias and simply stating there's always 2 sides to everything. If evidence is found to hold allegations true, then Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated as SCOTUS. If allegations don't hold true, then Dr. Ford should be locked up for defamation. The American people (like me) see this as a political hit based on the timing and Democrats promise to "resist" anything Trump does. But this one goes too far and I'm willing to bet Democrats with common sense can see this too. We'll see what happens after this is over.

[broncofan]

Your responses are very emotional and very bias. Nothing I've responded to is being bias and simply stating there's always 2 sides to everything. If evidence is found to hold allegations true, then Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated as SCOTUS. If allegations don't hold true, then Dr. Ford should be locked up for defamation. The American people (like me) see this as a political hit based on the timing and Democrats promise to "resist" anything Trump does. But this one goes too far and I'm willing to bet Democrats with common sense can see this too. We'll see what happens after this is over.

First, nobody can get locked up for defamation because it's not a crime, it's a civil action. Second of all, just because something is not proven true doesn't mean it's established to be false. Think about it. Third, there's nothing suspicious about the timing. He was being appointed to the Supreme Court so she felt she had a responsibility to come forward. Often people who have been sexually assaulted are not able to come forward at all. Failing to report is not rare nor is it suspicious.

In your previous post to me you use the phrase "word of mouth". Word of mouth means a rumor. Often people also use the word hearsay as well to mean something it doesn't mean. Dr. Ford testified under oath about what she personally experienced. That's not word of mouth or hearsay, but in person testimony given under penalty of perjury.

As I said before, this is often the only evidence that is offered in rape trials. How else do you think rape is proven if a man claims he and the accuser had sex but it was consensual? The presence of semen might show there was intercourse but doesn't speak to the issue of consent. Sometimes there is genital trauma, which again the accused can claim is the result of a consensual encounter where the putative victim "liked it rough". The testimony is decisive in many cases, is sometimes the only evidence that exists, and is often enough by itself to sustain a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not even what is required here.

Beyond that, even if it were a criminal trial juries are considered experts in evaluating the credibility of witnesses and what weight to give to testimony. That's what people who evaluate evidence do. They listen to witnesses and if someone provides and internally consistent account, they might decide to give it more weight than someone who told several lies under oath, tried to evade questions by attacking his interlocutors, and seemed unable to control himself. Kavanaugh is lucky he will never be tried in a criminal court for this.

I said I find it very unlikely Dr. Ford fabricated an accusation given that she spoke to a psychiatrist in 2012. I'm not sure what you think happened, but I watched the testimony and it didn't sound like someone who had an axe to grind but rather someone whose life has been altered by trauma. That was my take based on listening.

[CD_Sasha]

Take a step back and tell me you don't see a similar pattern before any nomination. Happened to Trump, Roy Moore and now this judge. Why does it always happen RIGHT before any major nomination? You can't be that gullable and oblivious. And listening to what? Liberal news media who always paint Republicans and conservatives as "evil"? What happened to the previous accusers regarding Trump and Roy Moore? Why did the news stopped following their case? Because the plan failed (to stop Trump becoming President) or worked (Roy Moore stepped down)? I'm surprised no one ever questions that except independent thinkers who aren't swayed by a narrative.

[broncofan]

Take a step back and tell me you don't see a similar pattern before any nomination. Happened to Trump, Roy Moore and now this judge. Why does it always happen RIGHT before any major nomination? You can't be that gullable and oblivious. And listening to what? Liberal news media who always paint Republicans and conservatives as "evil"? What happened to the previous accusers regarding Trump and Roy Moore? Why did the news stopped following their case? Because the plan failed (to stop Trump becoming President) or worked (Roy Moore stepped down)? I'm surprised no one ever questions that except independent thinkers who aren't swayed by a narrative.

I don't doubt there are some people motivated by politics rather than the underlying issues, but that doesn't mean the issue raised doesn't have merit. I thought the Republicans who attacked Bill Clinton did not care about sexual assault and we've seen they don't care about perjury, but that doesn't mean he didn't do what he was accused of in many of those cases. Roy Moore was kicked out of a mall for preying on children. He came onto and fondled a minor. This was fairly well established and while he refused to step down and the Republican party continued to support him, Al Franken stepped down for several transgressions that were not nearly as severe. He was a Democrat. He did not have widespread support in the Democratic party when women starting coming forward saying he groped them. Yet Republicans who face dozens of accusations of sexual assault are somehow assumed to be the victims of a "smear campaign". Similar fringe figures believe that the sandy hook shooting was a government hoax and that Hillary Clinton had children in the dungeon of a pizza shop.

Why does the media stop following the cases? Because as time passes and the Republican party continues to support men with dozens of credible accusations against them, they realize there's nothing left to report.

What you are describing is not independent thought. All sorts of nutjobs and conspiracy theorists consider themselves independent thinkers. What they're missing is the ability to use common sense. If someone did not report an assault because they were afraid of going to the police then they feel especially motivated to come forward as soon as their assailant runs for office. Why? Because they're reminded of the trauma and believe they can speak to the person's unfitness for office. Does that mean every accusation should be assumed to be true per se? No, but you can actually listen to the people who come forward and not engage in conspiratorial thinking.

[broncofan]

And just as a final point. Al Franken is a Democrat who faced an initial complaint that he was sexually aggressive with a woman. Within a week or two, many women came forward to report similar experiences. Does that mean it was fabricated? Why did they all come forward at the same time? Probably because they were encouraged by other women coming forward to share their experiences. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy.

[CD_Sasha]

What you are describing is not independent thought. All sorts of nutjobs and conspiracy theorists consider themselves independent thinkers. What they're missing is the ability to use common sense

Not a conspiracy when you question as to why there's no evidence for conviction (yes, there's a difference between conviction and allegations). Common sense is thinking evidence = true facts. Ahh forget it, I guess we must believe all accusers because they're women but not believe in due process.. got it. I'll follow the rest of the flock on this illogical way of thinking.

[buttslinger]

Your responses are very emotional and very bias. Passionate I haven't called you a dimwit yet
Nothing I've responded to is being bias and simply stating there's always 2 sides to everything. Not attempted rape
If evidence is found to hold allegations true, then Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated as SCOTUS. No shit
If allegations don't hold true, then Dr. Ford should be locked up for defamation. Bust up that lie detector while you're at it
The American people (like me) see this as a political hit based on the timing and Democrats promise to "resist" anything Trump does. About 48 percent of voters do not want Kavanaugh to be confirmed, compared with 42 percent who do.
But this one goes too far and I'm willing to bet Democrats with common sense can see this too. Turn off Fox News and find a shrink who deprograms cult members
We'll see what happens after this is over. You mean the Mueller Investigation??