See above. Apologies if it wasn’t clear I don’t know how to clarify it
The need to actually physically face your accuser is less necessary if:
–You are allowed to fully understand who is accusing you and of what.
–You and your advocates are able to fully cross examine the accuser in the interests of your defense.
The larger problem we are facing is the trend towards penalizing people for allegations against them in ways other than criminally. In order to circumvent the protections afforded defendants in criminal court, some are seeking other ways to punish the accused professionally, socially, etc.
The Brett Kavanaugh accusations are another manifestation of that.
5 Likes
You mean… Let the market fix it?
I get what you’re saying, but is the end goal that nobody can judge anybody for anything unless it’s in front of a judge. Cuz that sounds an awful lot like the liberal shit I tend to hate
Anybody can judge anyone for anything. However, a general standard of proof should be upheld to the extent possible.
My complaint is not that someone might get fired for being a scumbag even if what they did didn’t rise to the level of a crime. The problem is that someone can get fired/expelled/banned/ostracized for an accusation without any evidence that would stand up in court. Moreover, I see a move towards attempting to use these alternate forms of “justice” specifically when an accusation is unsupported by evidence. Basically social vigilantism.
5 Likes
This is a “You got to be shitting me moment.”
"An email her lawyers sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee said Ford “would be prepared to testify next week” if the senators offer her “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.” ??!!!
She’s ready to testify but not on Monday, gee that doesn’t sound like a tactic to delay the election.
I’ve been to court and it’s always been pretty much, ‘You will appear on this date at this time, failure to do so will result in a bench warrant.’
This gamesmanship with being willing to testify to not being willing to testify to testify, once she determines the procedure is ‘fair and safe’? She wants to rewrite the laws for the Senate committees now? Get the fuck out of here.
They need to tell her, ‘You are to testify at 9 AM before the Senate committee where a failure to arrive will equate to a withdrawal of all complaints.’
This is getting extremely transparently bullshitty… I don’t think most people are as dumb as
these democrats and lawyers would have us believe.
Hit the gavel and move on. All they are trying to do is delay and nothing more. If they had something real, they would have used it.
It’s not a criminal or civil trial.
You need a better lawyer.
Parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims are harassed and sent death threats by people that believe it’s a conspiracy. People think a school shooting was faked. And they’re threatening lives over it.
You think a looney toon fucking with a SCOTUS nomination won’t do the same thing?
Duh
Dingdingding! I live with a lawyer and she constantly complains about opposing counsel filing for extensions, or BS discovery delays, etc. It’s SOP.
TV has made people think that the court system moves quickly, when really, it’s slow when both sides are working in good faith, and glacial when they’re not.
Also, this isn’t court. It’s the Senate. And I do think she will testify. But only a complete moron doesn’t follow the advice of their lawyer and fully prepare for what is sure to be an eviscerating question and answer session in front of the Senate.
I’d put currency on you being wrong on this point.
I wouldn’t haha. But I’m more than 50% on it. It just seems stupid to waste her opportunity to take the man down, or to make accusations which necessitate a long investigation.
And how do you propose she be protected from nut jobs in the sweaty masses? Witness protection? Ok, let’s give her that. I’d be willing to give her witness protection.
There appears to be very little ballast on her side - an accusation which has changed in content and a lie detector test.
Compared to missing details such as year and location, reticence to disclosing own identity or giving a deposition, absolute rejection of accusation by 3 males, a retraction from a female, no pattern of like behavior found in record or 6 FBI checks, and a letter by 65 females from hs attesting to upright behavior.
In other news, I had several wild threesome weekends with Pelosi and Feinstein some time back.
Not bragging or complaining - just kinda throwing it out there, because how can you disprove it?
If you’re going to go public, bringing that kind of attention, why not testify on Monday? How does not testifying make it better? Why go public? Since you did go public, and have let the cat out of the bag it seems like testifying is the best protection. Show you have something actionable at least? Something to make even the doubters pause? Something to work with?
And, both parties are getting death threats over this.
I’m not saying that’s reasonable or even warranted. I’m just saying given the history of some nasty people it’s not a question that makes me throw my hands up in the air. I’d sure as shit ask it. But I would have been way too spicy for Kav.
Because it’s a stall tactic to hurt the GOP in the midterms.
I think it’s pretty obvious that @pat was talking about a case involving a criminal charge. I believe @pfury was responding to him under the same assumption.
1 Like
I don’t think it’s obvious at all. We are talking about pat.
I was the plaintiff in a civil matter, they told me when and where to show up. I didn’t have a lawyer but I did win the case. I sued a gym.
I believe Dr. Ford’s credibility has been diminished with the gamesmanship displayed so far, whether it’s from a political party’s insistence, her lawyer, or her “fragile mindset”.
Diminished even beyond media reporting of her incomplete memories.
Yeah, but that case was a slam dunk. All you had to do was show up in court and remove your shirt to show your lack of gainzz, and the jury had no choice to but to reward you your membership money back.
4 Likes