CDZ How much evidence is needed to presume guilt?

[task0778]

If it was not a lifetime commitment to the highest court, would be a he said she said sad case. making sure we don't put someone on that court who's behavior has come into question in many areas not just sexual. is worth some extra days of fact checking. to big of a deal to allow it to be party over country, that's both sides.

But to accuse a person after the confirmation hearings are over and prior to the committee vote is political bullshit and should not be acceptable. If you have a grievance against the nominee for whatever reason then you need to put it out there before the committee starts the hearings so that the nominee has the chance to rebut whatever is said and the committee has the chance to investigate the matter. And the President has the opportunity to pull the nomination and go with somebody else. IMHO if you wait until after the hearings start then whatever you've got to say can be considered by the full Senate but not in the Judiciary Committee. And that oughta be in the rules.

 

[miketx]

Without proof there is no merit.

`
Huh? Merits, in law, are the inherent rights and wrongs of a legal case, absent of any emotional or technical bias. The evidence is applied solely to cases decided on the merits, and any procedural matters are discounted.

If it was not a lifetime commitment to the highest court, would be a he said she said sad case. making sure we don't put someone on that court who's behavior has come into question in many areas not just sexual. is worth some extra days of fact checking. to big of a deal to allow it to be party over country, that's both sides.

Lol! Fascsits all! Guilty with not proof whatsoever! Liars all.

 

[Freiheit]

As if you didn't know, I am referring to the accusation of sexual misconduct levied by Christine Blasey Ford against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Obviously, as things stand now there is no criminal case, it's nothing more than he said she said. After 36 years. She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place, supposedly isn't even sure of the year. Doesn't remember where the event took place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody about it at the time, not her parents or closest friends. And the only witnesses say it never happened, except for herself. And to this day we have not yet seen the letter that was sent to Diane Feinstein and the Washington Post.

So, I'm not seeing any evidence here to support her story. Maybe it happened as she said, and maybe it didn't as he said, but are we really going to presume guilt based on nothing more than an unverifiable accusation from 36 years ago? Is that all it takes these days to disqualify somebody from a job? Ok, so the seat on the SCOTUS is not just any job cuz it's for life, although I believe it is possible to impeach a SCOTUS judge. But I am not sure that an unverifiable accusation with no supporting evidence should be enough to vote down the confirmation.

We know there are cases in the past where a woman has accused someone of sexual misconduct, and subsequent investigation has determined the charge to be a lie. Everyone should understand that such cases do some damage to the issue; when such cases reach national attention and are found out to be false then it makes it harder for most people to believe the stories that are true. In addition to that, when we see the Democrats pillorying Kavanaugh for the same thing that Bill Clinton was accused of 20 years ago and excused by the media and the Democratic Party, it has to undermine the credibility of both institutions.

Have we reached the point where a person's reputation and career can be ruined by unfounded accusations, purely for political purposes? Mrs Ford is an Anti-Trump, a true blue lib/dem. And some of them can be pretty extreme and even radical, like the guy who showed up at a GOP baseball practice and started shooting at Repubs, seriously wounding Steve Scalese. We know that both Ford and Kavanaugh and their families have received death threats and other threats of violence, the rhetoric from the Democrats may well stir up some wingnut to do something extreme. Based on nothing more than one woman's accusation of an event that may have taken place 36 years ago. This isn't the way it used to be, and it sure as hell isn't the way this country ought to be governed.

This makes no sense – you state this isn’t a criminal issue but make references to ‘evidence’ and ‘establishing guilt.’

The notion of evidence with regard to establishing guilt concerns solely criminal law, which isn’t the case with Kavanaugh.

The evidence is Ford’s statement; and the Senate is hearing that evidence not to determine ‘guilt,’ but to determine whether it renders Kavanaugh unfit to sit on the Supreme Court.

This thread’s premise is yet another example of conservatives’ ignorance of the law and the political process – which is both pathetic and disturbing.

Unless there is corroboration statements alone are hearsay. Evidence that something occured is needed.

 

[2aguy]

If it was not a lifetime commitment to the highest court, would be a he said she said sad case. making sure we don't put someone on that court who's behavior has come into question in many areas not just sexual. is worth some extra days of fact checking. to big of a deal to allow it to be party over country, that's both sides.

It might be except for the fact that neither accuser has any witnesses who they say were at the scene back them up. Ford named 4 people at the party beside herself...all 4 have submitted testimony to the Judicial committee under oath saying it did not happen......Ramirez? The New Yorker and the other paper interviewed dozens of alleged witnesses and none of them supported Ramirez.

Ford says she doesn't know where or when it happened, and put different numbers of people in the room at different times.

Ramirez states she did not actually see Kavanaugh do what she say he did.

At what point is the lack of evidence and lack of witness support enough to say that these two women are either completely wrong or making it up......? At what point does this man get to have his life back after these allegations that are not supported by evidence or witnesses.....witnesses listed by the accusers....

So please.... the fact checking done so far doesn't support any of the allegations against this man.....how long does this joke go on?

 

[2aguy]

As if you didn't know, I am referring to the accusation of sexual misconduct levied by Christine Blasey Ford against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Obviously, as things stand now there is no criminal case, it's nothing more than he said she said. After 36 years. She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place, supposedly isn't even sure of the year. Doesn't remember where the event took place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody about it at the time, not her parents or closest friends. And the only witnesses say it never happened, except for herself. And to this day we have not yet seen the letter that was sent to Diane Feinstein and the Washington Post.

So, I'm not seeing any evidence here to support her story. Maybe it happened as she said, and maybe it didn't as he said, but are we really going to presume guilt based on nothing more than an unverifiable accusation from 36 years ago? Is that all it takes these days to disqualify somebody from a job? Ok, so the seat on the SCOTUS is not just any job cuz it's for life, although I believe it is possible to impeach a SCOTUS judge. But I am not sure that an unverifiable accusation with no supporting evidence should be enough to vote down the confirmation.

We know there are cases in the past where a woman has accused someone of sexual misconduct, and subsequent investigation has determined the charge to be a lie. Everyone should understand that such cases do some damage to the issue; when such cases reach national attention and are found out to be false then it makes it harder for most people to believe the stories that are true. In addition to that, when we see the Democrats pillorying Kavanaugh for the same thing that Bill Clinton was accused of 20 years ago and excused by the media and the Democratic Party, it has to undermine the credibility of both institutions.

Have we reached the point where a person's reputation and career can be ruined by unfounded accusations, purely for political purposes? Mrs Ford is an Anti-Trump, a true blue lib/dem. And some of them can be pretty extreme and even radical, like the guy who showed up at a GOP baseball practice and started shooting at Repubs, seriously wounding Steve Scalese. We know that both Ford and Kavanaugh and their families have received death threats and other threats of violence, the rhetoric from the Democrats may well stir up some wingnut to do something extreme. Based on nothing more than one woman's accusation of an event that may have taken place 36 years ago. This isn't the way it used to be, and it sure as hell isn't the way this country ought to be governed.

This makes no sense – you state this isn’t a criminal issue but make references to ‘evidence’ and ‘establishing guilt.’

The notion of evidence with regard to establishing guilt concerns solely criminal law, which isn’t the case with Kavanaugh.

The evidence is Ford’s statement; and the Senate is hearing that evidence not to determine ‘guilt,’ but to determine whether it renders Kavanaugh unfit to sit on the Supreme Court.

This thread’s premise is yet another example of conservatives’ ignorance of the law and the political process – which is both pathetic and disturbing.

Ford's statement is not backed up by any of the 4 people she named and stated were at the party...all 4 have submitted testimony, under oath, and under penalty of jail time, that this did not happen. She is the only one who has not submitted any testimony under oath.

Ramirez? She stated she did not actually see Kavanaugh do what she said he did..... the New Yorker talked to dozens of alleged friends and witnesses and none of them back up her story.

If Ford and Ramirez's statements are evidence....then they have submitted fake evidence....and should be prosecuted or sued for slander and libel.....

Allegations From New Kavanaugh Accuser Were So Dicey That Multiple News Orgs — Including The NY Times — Passed On The Story

he Washington Post said "nuh uh." NBC News took a look and said, "Thanks but no thanks." The New York Times even worked the story for a week before giving up.

Long before The New Yorker published the story on Sunday in which a former Yale student, Deborah Ramirez, claimed classmate Brett Kavanaugh sexually accosted her at a drunken party 35 years ago, news organizations had heard of — and looked into — the rumors.

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself."

So the Times passed, as did the others, according to reports.

NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post passed on Ronan Farrow's Kavanaugh accuser story because reporters felt uneasy about the facts.

Think about that: NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post all passed on a story that could've made Trump/Kavanugh look bad.

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) September 24, 2018
Journalist Yashar Ali also said on Twitter:

"The Ramirez accusation has been floating around several news outlets in the past week, including NBC, NYer, New York Times, & the Washington Post per five sources. Some reporters felt uneasy with it, but it apparently passed the rigorous fact-checking standards of the NYer."

 

[JimBowie1958]

The existence of evidence precludes the concept of presumption, does it not?

We presume innocence until there is evidence of guilt.

 

[Asclepias]

The existence of evidence precludes the concept of presumption, does it not?

We presume innocence until there is evidence of guilt.

No. You only presume innocence when some on is charged with a crime. When you are interviewing someone for a job then you are free to presume they are guilty.

 

[JoeMoma]

The existence of evidence precludes the concept of presumption, does it not?

We presume innocence until there is evidence of guilt.

No. You only presume innocence when some on is charged with a crime. When you are interviewing someone for a job then you are free to presume they are guilty.

So now each time there is a nomination to the supreme court, the opposing party will find someone to make allegations against that person. Whether the allegations are true are not does not matter. People will "believe" what ever is convenient for "their side".

 

[Asclepias]

The existence of evidence precludes the concept of presumption, does it not?

We presume innocence until there is evidence of guilt.

No. You only presume innocence when some on is charged with a crime. When you are interviewing someone for a job then you are free to presume they are guilty.

So now each time there is a nomination to the supreme court, the opposing party will find someone to make allegations against that person. Whether the allegations are true are not does not matter. People will "believe" what ever is convenient for "their side".

Then you should make sure you vote for people that are non partisan if you have a problem with this. Personally I would prefer a more extensive BG as its evident that Kavs BG obviously missed a lot of things.

 

[kwc57]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Your feelings and emotions are not evidence and that is what you are basing your merit claim on.

 

[Asclepias]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Your feelings and emotions are not evidence and that is what you are basing your merit claim on.

Who told you your feelings and emotions were evidence? I dont need evidence to tell you if someones claim has merit or not.

 

[kwc57]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Your feelings and emotions are not evidence and that is what you are basing your merit claim on.

Who told you your feelings and emotions were evidence? I dont need evidence to tell you if someones claim has merit or not.

Someone's claims can be a total fabrication. The fact that your feelings and emotions lead you to believe them to have merit does not make them true. That can only be determined by evidence. Logic is your friend, but you seldom embrace it.

 

[Asclepias]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Your feelings and emotions are not evidence and that is what you are basing your merit claim on.

Who told you your feelings and emotions were evidence? I dont need evidence to tell you if someones claim has merit or not.

Someone's claims can be a total fabrication. The fact that your feelings and emotions lead you to believe them to have merit does not make them true. That can only be determined by evidence. Logic is your friend, but you seldom embrace it.

It could be a fabrication but that doesnt change if it has merit or not. For example someone could claim that their sprinkler system sprayed water on their car. It may be a total fabrication but the claim definitely has merit. Please show me where you need evidence to have merit. You only need evidence to prove something has no merit.

 

[JoeMoma]

The existence of evidence precludes the concept of presumption, does it not?

We presume innocence until there is evidence of guilt.

No. You only presume innocence when some on is charged with a crime. When you are interviewing someone for a job then you are free to presume they are guilty.

So now each time there is a nomination to the supreme court, the opposing party will find someone to make allegations against that person. Whether the allegations are true are not does not matter. People will "believe" what ever is convenient for "their side".

Then you should make sure you vote for people that are non partisan if you have a problem with this. Personally I would prefer a more extensive BG as its evident that Kavs BG obviously missed a lot of things.

If I vote for a democrat or a republican, then by definition I am voting for someone who is partisan. Thus you are FOS.

 

[Asclepias]

The existence of evidence precludes the concept of presumption, does it not?

We presume innocence until there is evidence of guilt.

No. You only presume innocence when some on is charged with a crime. When you are interviewing someone for a job then you are free to presume they are guilty.

So now each time there is a nomination to the supreme court, the opposing party will find someone to make allegations against that person. Whether the allegations are true are not does not matter. People will "believe" what ever is convenient for "their side".

Then you should make sure you vote for people that are non partisan if you have a problem with this. Personally I would prefer a more extensive BG as its evident that Kavs BG obviously missed a lot of things.

If I vote for a democrat or a republican, then by definition I am voting for someone who is partisan. Thus you are FOS.

You didnt know there were other parties you could vote for?

 

[JoeMoma]

The existence of evidence precludes the concept of presumption, does it not?

We presume innocence until there is evidence of guilt.

No. You only presume innocence when some on is charged with a crime. When you are interviewing someone for a job then you are free to presume they are guilty.

So now each time there is a nomination to the supreme court, the opposing party will find someone to make allegations against that person. Whether the allegations are true are not does not matter. People will "believe" what ever is convenient for "their side".

Then you should make sure you vote for people that are non partisan if you have a problem with this. Personally I would prefer a more extensive BG as its evident that Kavs BG obviously missed a lot of things.

If I vote for a democrat or a republican, then by definition I am voting for someone who is partisan. Thus you are FOS.

You didnt know there were other parties you could vote for?

Yes I know. However, since those candidates have a near zero probability of being elected to the senate, your implied solution that I vote for a "nonpartisan" candidate will not work. Thus you are FOS.

 

[Asclepias]

No. You only presume innocence when some on is charged with a crime. When you are interviewing someone for a job then you are free to presume they are guilty.

So now each time there is a nomination to the supreme court, the opposing party will find someone to make allegations against that person. Whether the allegations are true are not does not matter. People will "believe" what ever is convenient for "their side".

Then you should make sure you vote for people that are non partisan if you have a problem with this. Personally I would prefer a more extensive BG as its evident that Kavs BG obviously missed a lot of things.

If I vote for a democrat or a republican, then by definition I am voting for someone who is partisan. Thus you are FOS.

You didnt know there were other parties you could vote for?

Yes I know. However, since those candidates have a near zero probability of being elected to the senate, your implied solution that I vote for a "nonpartisan" candidate will not work. Thus you are FOS.

You seem to have a lot of excuses. If you lack the commitment to vote for people that are non partisan then you have no choice but deal with accusations at every nomination. Thus you are FOS.

 

[JoeMoma]

So now each time there is a nomination to the supreme court, the opposing party will find someone to make allegations against that person. Whether the allegations are true are not does not matter. People will "believe" what ever is convenient for "their side".

Then you should make sure you vote for people that are non partisan if you have a problem with this. Personally I would prefer a more extensive BG as its evident that Kavs BG obviously missed a lot of things.

If I vote for a democrat or a republican, then by definition I am voting for someone who is partisan. Thus you are FOS.

You didnt know there were other parties you could vote for?

Yes I know. However, since those candidates have a near zero probability of being elected to the senate, your implied solution that I vote for a "nonpartisan" candidate will not work. Thus you are FOS.

You seem to have a lot of excuses. If you lack the commitment to vote for people that are non partisan then you have no choice but deal with accusations at every nomination. Thus you are FOS.

What you say I should do will have zero effect if I do it, thus you are FOS.

 

[Asclepias]

Then you should make sure you vote for people that are non partisan if you have a problem with this. Personally I would prefer a more extensive BG as its evident that Kavs BG obviously missed a lot of things.

If I vote for a democrat or a republican, then by definition I am voting for someone who is partisan. Thus you are FOS.

You didnt know there were other parties you could vote for?

Yes I know. However, since those candidates have a near zero probability of being elected to the senate, your implied solution that I vote for a "nonpartisan" candidate will not work. Thus you are FOS.

You seem to have a lot of excuses. If you lack the commitment to vote for people that are non partisan then you have no choice but deal with accusations at every nomination. Thus you are FOS.

What you say I should do will have zero effect if I do it, thus you are FOS.

Youre still making excuses. Stop crying and execute. Thus you are FOS.

 

[kwc57]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Your feelings and emotions are not evidence and that is what you are basing your merit claim on.

Who told you your feelings and emotions were evidence? I dont need evidence to tell you if someones claim has merit or not.

Someone's claims can be a total fabrication. The fact that your feelings and emotions lead you to believe them to have merit does not make them true. That can only be determined by evidence. Logic is your friend, but you seldom embrace it.

It could be a fabrication but that doesnt change if it has merit or not. For example someone could claim that their sprinkler system sprayed water on their car. It may be a total fabrication but the claim definitely has merit. Please show me where you need evidence to have merit. You only need evidence to prove something has no merit.

Merit would mean it has value. If it is a lie, there is no value. I'd like to say you're smarter than this, but I know that isn't true.