I'm confused - Page 6

sexobon · 10-07-2018, 05:25 PM

Griff, what's this I hear about you reading into stuff things aren't there? I hear tell you've been exaggerating situations and posting sensationalized material! Just who do you think you are, tw? Paranoia is a lonely place. You don't want to go there.

~~Shane~~ Griff, come back!

glatt · 10-08-2018, 08:28 PM

It wasn't a criminal trial. Totally different rules apply. And even in a criminal trial where there is a presumption of innocence, accusers are allowed to tell their side of the story.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. You think an accuser shouldn't be allowed to tell their side of a story?

henry quirk · 10-08-2018, 10:39 PM

C'mon, guy...my 'point' is in every goddamned post of mine in-thread.

You know this.

#

"It wasn't a criminal trial. Totally different rules"

Yeah? Next time 'you' get accused of sumthin' just eat it. Your boss sez you did X when you didn't, just shut the hell up and eat it, cuz it's not a criminal trial, just an 'employment issue', right? Or your significant other declares you're bein' dumped cuz you were unfaithful: shut up and eat it; it, after all, isn't a criminal trial, just a 'marital issue', yeah?

Innocent till proven guilty isn't 'just' a legal construct. It's a cornerstore of civilization. It applies across the board, all the time, for everyone. If you declare you've been wronged, if you would take another to task for an offense, then PROVE IT.

Griff · 10-09-2018, 06:25 AM

Unfortunately the GOP didn't allow her to try to prove it and we potentially have a rapist on the Supreme Court. Yay for your side.

This was simple hardball, Republicans chose a potential rapist over the possibility of a delay.

Griff · 10-09-2018, 06:50 AM

True enough.

Undertoad · 10-09-2018, 06:52 AM

Yeah I deleted it sorry, I don't know how to say what I would like to say.

Griff · 10-09-2018, 06:54 AM

I think I get caught up in point making and get way the fuck off track.

Undertoad · 10-09-2018, 07:24 AM

I'll just say this then. Given the facts you know, and the evidence she could not produce, do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?

(Not that it wouldn't open with statute of limitations - which is in place because of specifically these sorts of problems - i.e., cases lose all their potential evidence pro AND con - and human memory is ridiculously flawed over time.)

The anti-Kav side needed her not to go through actual trial conditions, which would have displayed more clearly to the world that there was no criminal case to be made.

The pro-Kav side needed to appear somewhat considerate and not put a potential victim through the kind of grilling a real trial would include.

All this is just part of what made it a perfect storm so that both sides could be seen as angelic from the POV of their constituencies

Both sides got roughly what they wanted although they certainly won't admit that

And so did the public actually - eating this shit up not realizing it's turd sandwiches. We love it, we want it, it's on all channels

henry quirk · 10-09-2018, 08:31 AM

"Unfortunately the GOP didn't allow her to try to prove it"

I disagree. Seems to me she had her shot and the best she could bring to the table was a claim.

#

"we potentially have a rapist on the Supreme Court."

That's a possibility.

#

"Yay for your side."

How did 'my side' (the weird-ass anarcho-individualists) score a win here?

#

"This was simple hardball"

This is politics.

#

"Republicans chose a potential rapist over the possibility of a delay."

Blame Feinstein.

henry quirk · 10-09-2018, 08:33 AM

.

tw · 10-09-2018, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

... do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?

In a criminal trial, witnesses would have been interviewed by trained interrogators. And even would have testified under oath. Criminal trials are also given sufficient time to discover facts.

None of that happened here. Even the victim did not want to testify. And would not have if not outed by an aggressive press.

In a similar situation, how long did it take for Cosby to finally be prosecuted? How many witnesses were interrogated by professionals? Nothing done in a few months is at all related to what must happen in criminal prosecutions.

Even The Don said her testimony was credible. I do not believe any of this was decided on facts. Clear both in video and in comments from close associates; Senator Susan Collins was under threat and seriously disturbed due to unknown sources - be it Sen McConnell or physical violence. Her face and so many security guards demonstrated the pressure.

Decisions clearly were not based in what would exist in a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, I do not believe many of the excuses publicly stated for their conclusions.

But it is the nature of the beast.

Griff · 10-09-2018, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'll just say this then. Given the facts you know, and the evidence she could not produce, do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?

(Not that it wouldn't open with statute of limitations - which is in place because of specifically these sorts of problems - i.e., cases lose all their potential evidence pro AND con - and human memory is ridiculously flawed over time.)

The anti-Kav side needed her not to go through actual trial conditions, which would have displayed more clearly to the world that there was no criminal case to be made.

The pro-Kav side needed to appear somewhat considerate and not put a potential victim through the kind of grilling a real trial would include.

All this is just part of what made it a perfect storm so that both sides could be seen as angelic from the POV of their constituencies

Both sides got roughly what they wanted although they certainly won't admit that

And so did the public actually - eating this shit up not realizing it's turd sandwiches. We love it, we want it, it's on all channels

I don’t think she can prove it without Kav’s friend rolling over. An extended look at him may have shown a pattern of behavior inconsistent with sitting on the SC.

I do blame Feinstein, both sides played a game which ignored the good of the country in favor of party. My perspective is that of someone who found Dr. Ford more credible.

Undertoad · 10-09-2018, 12:11 PM

Assuming Mark Judge had testified and agreed with everything you say, would the charge have been rape?

Happy Monkey · 10-09-2018, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Assuming Mark Judge had testified and agreed with everything you say, would the charge have been rape?

Probably attempted rape, definitely sexual assault. That was a misdemeanor at the time, with a statute of limitations (happily no longer the case), so he wouldn't go to jail over it.

But the question* isn't whether he should go to jail, it's whether he should be on the Supreme Court.

* in this thread, of course that's pretty much moot in the real world now

Flint · 10-09-2018, 01:24 PM

Big win for the Republicans. Hiring a criminal prosecutor for the public hearings was successful in shifting the conversation away from being a "job interview" to being a "criminal trial." The "trial" was unwinnable--because it WASN'T a trial, and the fact that he f a c e p l a n t e d the interview is being ignored.

10-08-2018, 10:39 PM	#3
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"I don't know what point you are trying to make." C'mon, guy...my 'point' is in every goddamned post of mine in-thread. You know this. # "It wasn't a criminal trial. Totally different rules" Yeah? Next time 'you' get accused of sumthin' just eat it. Your boss sez you did X when you didn't, just shut the hell up and eat it, cuz it's not a criminal trial, just an 'employment issue', right? Or your significant other declares you're bein' dumped cuz you were unfaithful: shut up and eat it; it, after all, isn't a criminal trial, just a 'marital issue', yeah? Innocent till proven guilty isn't 'just' a legal construct. It's a cornerstore of civilization. It applies across the board, all the time, for everyone. If you declare you've been wronged, if you would take another to task for an offense, then PROVE IT.

10-09-2018, 06:25 AM	#4
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Unfortunately the GOP didn't allow her to try to prove it and we potentially have a rapist on the Supreme Court. Yay for your side. This was simple hardball, Republicans chose a potential rapist over the possibility of a delay. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

10-09-2018, 06:50 AM	#5
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	True enough. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

10-09-2018, 06:54 AM	#7
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	I think I get caught up in point making and get way the fuck off track. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

10-09-2018, 08:33 AM	#10
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	that there is a pretty good assessment, toad .

10-07-2018, 05:25 PM	#1
sexobon I love it when a plan comes together. Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,793	Griff, what's this I hear about you reading into stuff things aren't there? I hear tell you've been exaggerating situations and posting sensationalized material! Just who do you think you are, tw? Paranoia is a lonely place. You don't want to go there. ~~Shane~~ Griff, come back!

10-08-2018, 08:28 PM	#2
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	It wasn't a criminal trial. Totally different rules apply. And even in a criminal trial where there is a presumption of innocence, accusers are allowed to tell their side of the story. I don't know what point you are trying to make. You think an accuser shouldn't be allowed to tell their side of a story?

10-09-2018, 06:52 AM	#6
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Yeah I deleted it sorry, I don't know how to say what I would like to say.

10-09-2018, 07:24 AM	#8
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I'll just say this then. Given the facts you know, and the evidence she could not produce, do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial? (Not that it wouldn't open with statute of limitations - which is in place because of specifically these sorts of problems - i.e., cases lose all their potential evidence pro AND con - and human memory is ridiculously flawed over time.) The anti-Kav side needed her not to go through actual trial conditions, which would have displayed more clearly to the world that there was no criminal case to be made. The pro-Kav side needed to appear somewhat considerate and not put a potential victim through the kind of grilling a real trial would include. All this is just part of what made it a perfect storm so that both sides could be seen as angelic from the POV of their constituencies Both sides got roughly what they wanted although they certainly won't admit that And so did the public actually - eating this shit up not realizing it's turd sandwiches. We love it, we want it, it's on all channels

10-09-2018, 08:31 AM	#9
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"Unfortunately the GOP didn't allow her to try to prove it" I disagree. Seems to me she had her shot and the best she could bring to the table was a claim. # "we potentially have a rapist on the Supreme Court." That's a possibility. # "Yay for your side." How did 'my side' (the weird-ass anarcho-individualists) score a win here? # "This was simple hardball" This is politics. # "Republicans chose a potential rapist over the possibility of a delay." Blame Feinstein.

10-09-2018, 12:11 PM	#13
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Assuming Mark Judge had testified and agreed with everything you say, would the charge have been rape?

10-09-2018, 01:24 PM	#15
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Big win for the Republicans. Hiring a criminal prosecutor for the public hearings was successful in shifting the conversation away from being a "job interview" to being a "criminal trial." The "trial" was unwinnable--because it WASN'T a trial, and the fact that he f a c e p l a n t e d the interview is being ignored. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio** Last edited by Flint; 10-09-2018 at 03:03 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)