You're not looking above the surface.
People who don't care what other people think don't care what other people think.
Dr. Ford's Lie-Detector Test a Fraud
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
People who don't care what other people think don't care what other people think.
I understand that too. But reality is that the fake news media has been able to slow down Trump's agenda with all the Russia crap and other crap, and an impeachment will take him away from work he could otherwise be doing. It will sap needed energy.
As usual, you're exactly as clever as I thought you were.
Even the nominee said he believed that something traumatic had happened to her. The president said she was a credible witness. You don't have to be an idiot to believe either of them.
I supported Kavanaugh's confirmation until the hearing. He changed my mind, though it wasn't because of the issue. That said, if you follow the axiom false in one thing false in many then I'd say there's more reason to doubt him than there is to believe her.
I believe in a fair and impartial hearing without presumption. Only the irrational make up their minds on a thing before they evidence is presented on the poing. That said, many of those opposing him had done so for other reasons prior to using Ford as a tool in an attempt to thwart republican ambitions.
Assuming either position in that hearing would be irresponsible.
Right Divider
Body part
It didn't have much effect on the last guys impeached.
Odd. It's integral to our academics here.
Essentially. Except some of the better periods of our recent prosperity arrived when parties were forced to work with one another.
When you say something like that I feel like Henry Drummond staring across at Matthew Brady and wondering where it all went wrong.
Not true, we had one individual accusing another individual of a criminal act, under oath, where there is no criminal statute of limitations given in the state where it allegedly occurred. It was far more than just competing narratives, and the implications are criminal. Yes, Kavanaugh was not compelled to answer them but, blind assertion did not win the day because why? Yes, that pesky due process which was extended to the accused to qualify the accusers statements, or in this case for the FBI to qualify her statements which were found to be bogus. Does it trouble you that Diane Feinstien is trying to keep the investigation results from being public? What's to hide? One has to wonder. I do understand your argument but, do not agree with it when it concerns a criminal matter, nor did the committee chairman, it seems. It was quite obvious this was a half rate political hit job which went all bad for them, and like Clarence Thomas he also survived the onslaught of despicable lies being put out for political ends... Shameful really.
Not acquainted with your elf quip which left me shrugging, however the rest of what I wrote does have to do with presumption, and due process in general which is under attack even at hallowed Law institutions like Yale which really is a scary thought. the idea that law professors or students would like to attack civil liberty (which due process is) from the institutions that are charged with teaching the law is really reprehensible. If you don't believe it is happening you really should read some of the news articles discussing the conundrum Yale is dealing with from staff, students, and alumni. Civil liberties don't have a political party and if they are eroded for this time & political season we all lose.
Well said. Whenever Town Heretic says, "The truth is..." you can bet that whatever follows is not the truth.
lifeisgood
New member
Well, I guess she should know as she is the one going to that school. I asked her if she knew who George Washington was and she said no. She knows now.
I vote for Democrat robots and Republican robots, maybe then we would be able to get something constructive done. :chuckle:
You're welcome. :chuckle:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So you actually think that assuming the principle of "presumption of innocence" in the hearing would have been irresponsible?
Why should that principle, which is a bedrock of civilized nations, be abandoned? You didn't actually fall for the Democrat Senators' fairy tale that it was only a job interview so Kavanaugh was responsible for proving that he was innocent, did you?
What a dope.
I not only think that way, I told anyone listening why it's so.
One last time then. It's not abandoned, because it was never meant to function in the type of hearing Kavanaugh was having. The presumption of innocence exists in criminal prosecutions. Why? Because the state is the accuser, the moving party, and that state carries authority in its charges and has at its disposal a massive amount of resources. The only way to give the accused a chance given the disparity of position is to empower them with that presumption and a standard for overcoming it that demands a great deal.
Or, we aren't so much tilting the field in favor of the defendant as we are trying to level it against the disparity in power and inference where the state has taken a side against the individual. That makes complete sense.
In the type of hearing where judge Kavanaugh was a participant the state was not the accuser or the defendant, but a third party with interest, that interest being a fair and full hearing of the competing narratives.
The two sides of the aisle did an abysmal job of pretending to do that, they both failed Ford and Kavanaugh by essentially acting, along party lines, as de facto prosecutors and defense attorneys. They should have simply heard the testimony, called whatever witnesses there were to support either narrative, then made their best deliberative estimation of the truth of the matter. Beyond that, they could and I think should have deliberated on the fitness of the candidate given the testimony, but beyond the issue of the narrative differences. And all of that should have been behind closed doors.
What we got, instead, was a sham. Democrats used Ford like a doorstop, without sufficient regard for her welfare. Republicans ignored her to play partisan politics and lash out at the dems. It was an embarrassment to anyone who values process.
I didn't suggest anything about her experience, only noted that its contrary to my county and state experience/standard. What state is her school in?
We talk about Washington by 1st grade here.
That was for rm, but :cheers:
Really. So.... ....if you . go into a job interview for your dream job, and during the interview some jerk who you never met stands up and said you attacked her during the VE Day celebration, and then the owner looks at you and says, "Sorry bub, I gotta believe her. Take a hike".... ....you're going to stand here, right here right now, and tell us all that you woulds be cool with that. Is that right? Your dream job of a lifetime shot to hell on the word of somebody you never met and you'd accept that because presumption of innocence would have no place in your interview.
You're going top tell us all right now that you would accept that and walk away. Is that right?
Is that right? Your dream job of a lifetime shot to hell on the word of somebody you never met and you'd accept that because presumption of innocence would have no place in your interview.
You're going top tell us all right now that you would accept that and walk away. Is that right?[/QUOTE]
What I've said is that the state, or in your scenario a private sector employer, should hear the competing narratives, examine whatever supportive evidence there is to be had, and come to their best decision, without assuming anything at the outset.
If someone lied about me and it cost me that opportunity I'd sue them civilly for the loss of income.
Well if there's a fire put it out, we tend to disagree what's a fire though.
Are you referring to the two characters in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherit_the_Wind_(play)
Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Drummond_(evangelist)
And
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathew_Brady
I'm assuming the first because although Hernrey Drummond wrote https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Thing-World-Henry-Drummond/dp/1599865742
I'm not sure how a contemporaneous Daguerreotypeist is related.
Just noting that two of the most prosperous times in our recent history happened with a division of power and didn't happen without it.
I am. Henry's character was sympathetic to Brady, having measured and found the man admirable in many ways and for some time. He was, however, and during their difference, forced to recognize that Brady had become trapped inside an ideology that would not permit him to acknowledge some fairly if not self-evident truths then truth to which a mind of his caliber should have found its way. In that recognition, Henry lamented.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
People who don't think don't realize that other people do
lifeisgood
New member
So, you wouldn't simply take it that a man/woman alleges that you assaulted him/her who knows how long ago, who knows where, uncorroborated by his/her witnesses, etc., etc. Good for you.
I was wondering, what if you did NOT lose that opportunity? Would you still civilly sue him/her even though you got the job?
It sounds like you're changing your tune now. So, do you think Kavanaugh should sue Ford?
No idea why you'd think that. I supported the nomination before the hearing. During the hearing I noted that her testimony was consistent with what I'd expect from someone telling the truth and that I found his testimony on the point as good as could be proffered. In short, isolated that way I didn't see how a call could be made, and that would have worked in Kavanaugh's favor. Because if you can't tell what the truth is then you have to go with the truth you know and we're back to qualification.
But the judge went beyond that response and those remarks. It was in doing that where he lost my belief in and support for his nomination. Though I've also said that in making statements I found less than frank and credible outside of the question that sponsored the hearing it would be reasonable to apply a Latin maxim from school that was noted during the hearing, translated roughly as, to be false in one thing is to bring reasonable question as to the rest. If you apply it you might reduce the balance between the parties testimony and find for Dr. Ford, but I didn't alter my support on that principle.
No, because of the standard for public figures. He'd have to prove the testimony of Ford was willfully malicious. And he'd have his own testimony working against him, where he essentially fails to evidence any belief that that is the case, instead placing the blame elsewhere and inferring a serious mistake driven by trauma when it comes to Ford.
That would be hard for him to change now without looking like a calculating political operative, which might then throw the larger question into play.
Among the questions Dr. Ford's lawyer would ask (or more likely file in a successful motion to dismiss):
L: Justice Kavanaugh, and please limit your response to a yes or no, you're aware the standard for your suit would require either a knowing falsity on the part of Dr. Ford or a reckless disregard for the truth?
L: And referring back to the hearing where you offered testimony under oath, and again limiting your testimony to a yes or no, did you at any time level that accusation at Dr. Ford?
L: Again, limiting your response to a yes or no, didn't you, in fact, proffer something closer to that charge at others, at a larger conspiracy outside of Dr. Ford's person and control?
L: And again, limiting your answer to a yes or no, did you, in point of fact, testify and characterize Dr. Ford's testimony as mistaken and stemming from a trauma you found credible if misplaced?
L: And, limiting your answer to yes or no, is it your testimony now that you believe something differently about Dr. Ford's testimony?
L: And which time should we find you credible?
L: Now, Justice Kavanaugh, let's talk about your credibility, which is at the heart of your altered position before us today. Let's begin with your drinking...
Just not in his best interest to do it. Beyond the above Dr. Ford's team would be able to have witnesses subpoenaed and testimony and cross as a part of the public record. No, the Justice will leave this one alone and he should. There's little chance of gaining anything and a great deal to lose. He's going to look to rehabilitate his reputation from the bench, where he has control, and not from some court docket where he's again in a subordinate position, an environment he doesn't appear to exactly thrive in.