The Hero with a Thousand Faces -
Why do we keep telling the same stories over and over?
|
Monday, 5 November 2018
quote [ One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Grassley’s investigators tried to reach her for a month but were unsuccessful until this week, when they spoke to her by phone and she confessed that she was not the original Jane Doe, and “did that as a way to grab attention.” She admitted to the false allegation, and said she has actually never met Justice Kavanaugh. “I was angry, and I sent it out,” she told investigators. ] The presumption of innocence is the only thing holding back the weaponization of the justice system. If it is weakened, this will always be the result.
|
hellboy said @ 12:41pm GMT on 5th November
1. The woman who did this is an idiot and an asshole who just made things harder for legitimate victims.
2. She's only one accuser; she's not the original Jane Doe, and there are other credible accusations (including in particular Dr. Blasey). High-profile cases like this are very likely to attract nutjobs, but that doesn't invalidate the other accusations.
3. The whole point of an investigation is to determine the legitimacy of the accusations, and if Kavanaugh knew that he was innocent he would have insisted on a thorough investigation to clear his name. Instead he repeatedly refused to call for an investigation, on camera and under oath, despite being asked if he would do so.
4. Even if it somehow turned out that ALL of the multiple accusations were false or the result of mistaken identity or some other mistake, Kavanaugh's belligerent behavior during the hearing disqualified him not only from the Supreme Court but from being a judge at all. He shouldn't even be judging pumpkins at the county fair.
5. You really don't seem to get this: Kavanaugh was NOT ON TRIAL. It was not a criminal prosecution, it was a job interview. There was no criminal procedure in effect, there was no standard of reasonable doubt, and there was no "presumption of innocence". The worst thing that would have happened to Kavanaugh was that he would have not been confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. That terrible fate is happening right now to you, me, and (I can almost guarantee) every single person reading this post. What happened to Kavanaugh had nothing to do with "weaponization of the justice system" because Kavanaugh was never fucking charged with a crime.
Here’s an actual lawyer explaining the law for you:
I’m seeing a bunch of pseudo-lawyer speak on my Facebook feed. I just want to clarify a few things.
1. The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.
2. Kavanaugh is not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. No one has to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3. Kavanaugh is not entitled to any “due process” during these confirmation hearings. The term “due process” refers to the general principle that the United States government can’t take away your rights or property without a legal proceeding—i.e. notice and a hearing. Here, the United States is not attempting to take away Kavanaugh’s rights or property. They’re not trying to take away anything at all. Rather they are determining whether to BESTOW upon Kavanaugh the highest legal position in the country. Kavanaugh has no implicit right to this position. He is not entitled to fair hearing. He is not entitled to any hearing at all.
4. Kavanaugh’s life won’t be “destroyed” by this confirmation process. At worst, he’ll remain a Federal Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ford’s testimony may trigger a subsequent criminal or impeachment process, but those are both different sets of proceedings, with higher standards of proof and more legal protections for Kavanaugh.
5. The Rules of Evidence do not apply. Senators can ask whatever they want. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford is entitled to any of the protections typically given to fact witnesses.
6. Some Senators, like Lindsey Graham, are using the standards of the criminal/civil justice system as a talking point. The argument is that, there isn’t enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh; there isn’t enough evidence to obtain a warrant; there isn’t enough evidence to justify a civil charge; therefore, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.
Now, let’s say I was going to hire a guy to cut my lawn. But then, I got a call from three separate women claiming that this guy had sexually assaulted them all. I’d be deeply concerned. Maybe there's a chance that these three women had engaged in a coordinated and nefarious effort to wrongly discredit the guy. And sure, maybe the guy had never been convicted of any form of sexual assault.
But I STILL probably wouldn’t hire the guy. There’s plenty of other people who are perfectly qualified to cut my lawn.
Issues of due process, and considering whether declining to hire the guy would “destroy” his life wouldn't be a part of my decision at all.
6. You're more concerned about the fact that one of the multiple accusations was false than you are about the fact that at least one and likely more than one of the accusations was true. WTF does that say about you?
hellboy said @ 12:45pm GMT on 5th November
1. The woman who did this is an idiot and an asshole who just made things harder for legitimate victims.
2. She's only one accuser; she's not the original Jane Doe, and there are other credible accusations (including in particular Dr. Blasey). High-profile cases like this are very likely to attract nutjobs, but that doesn't invalidate the other accusations.
3. The whole point of an investigation is to determine the legitimacy of the accusations, and if Kavanaugh knew that he was innocent he would have insisted on a thorough investigation to clear his name. Instead he repeatedly refused to call for an investigation, on camera and under oath, despite being asked if he would do so.
4. Even if it somehow turned out that ALL of the multiple accusations were false or the result of mistaken identity or some other mistake, Kavanaugh's belligerent behavior during the hearing disqualified him not only from the Supreme Court but from being a judge at all. He shouldn't even be judging pumpkins at the county fair.
5. You really don't seem to get this: Kavanaugh was NOT ON TRIAL. It was not a criminal prosecution, it was a job interview. There was no criminal procedure in effect, there was no standard of reasonable doubt, and there was no "presumption of innocence". The worst thing that would have happened to Kavanaugh was that he would have not been confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. That terrible fate is happening right now to you, me, and (I can almost guarantee) every single person reading this post. What happened to Kavanaugh had nothing to do with "weaponization of the justice system" because Kavanaugh was never fucking charged with a crime.
Here’s an actual lawyer explaining the law for you:
I’m seeing a bunch of pseudo-lawyer speak on my Facebook feed. I just want to clarify a few things.
1. The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.
2. Kavanaugh is not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. No one has to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3. Kavanaugh is not entitled to any “due process” during these confirmation hearings. The term “due process” refers to the general principle that the United States government can’t take away your rights or property without a legal proceeding—i.e. notice and a hearing. Here, the United States is not attempting to take away Kavanaugh’s rights or property. They’re not trying to take away anything at all. Rather they are determining whether to BESTOW upon Kavanaugh the highest legal position in the country. Kavanaugh has no implicit right to this position. He is not entitled to fair hearing. He is not entitled to any hearing at all.
4. Kavanaugh’s life won’t be “destroyed” by this confirmation process. At worst, he’ll remain a Federal Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ford’s testimony may trigger a subsequent criminal or impeachment process, but those are both different sets of proceedings, with higher standards of proof and more legal protections for Kavanaugh.
5. The Rules of Evidence do not apply. Senators can ask whatever they want. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford is entitled to any of the protections typically given to fact witnesses.
6. Some Senators, like Lindsey Graham, are using the standards of the criminal/civil justice system as a talking point. The argument is that, there isn’t enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh; there isn’t enough evidence to obtain a warrant; there isn’t enough evidence to justify a civil charge; therefore, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.
Now, let’s say I was going to hire a guy to cut my lawn. But then, I got a call from three separate women claiming that this guy had sexually assaulted them all. I’d be deeply concerned. Maybe there's a chance that these three women had engaged in a coordinated and nefarious effort to wrongly discredit the guy. And sure, maybe the guy had never been convicted of any form of sexual assault.
But I STILL probably wouldn’t hire the guy. There’s plenty of other people who are perfectly qualified to cut my lawn.
Issues of due process, and considering whether declining to hire the guy would “destroy” his life wouldn't be a part of my decision at all.
6. You're more concerned about the fact that one of the multiple accusations was false than you are about the very real possibility that at least one and likely more than one of the accusations was true. WTF does that say about you?
<-- Entry / Current Comment
hellboy said @ 12:41pm GMT on 5th November [Score:5 Good]
1. The woman who did this is an idiot and an asshole who just made things harder for legitimate victims.
2. She's only one accuser; she's not the original Jane Doe, and there are other credible accusations (including in particular Dr. Blasey). High-profile cases like this are very likely to attract nutjobs, but that doesn't invalidate the other accusations.
3. The whole point of an investigation is to determine the legitimacy of the accusations, and if Kavanaugh knew that he was innocent he would have insisted on a thorough investigation to clear his name. Instead he repeatedly refused to call for an investigation, on camera and under oath, despite being asked if he would do so.
4. Even if it somehow turned out that ALL of the multiple accusations were false or the result of mistaken identity or some other mistake, Kavanaugh's belligerent behavior during the hearing disqualified him not only from the Supreme Court but from being a judge at all. He shouldn't even be judging pumpkins at the county fair.
5. You really don't seem to get this: Kavanaugh was NOT ON TRIAL. It was not a criminal prosecution, it was a job interview. There was no criminal procedure in effect, there was no standard of reasonable doubt, and there was no "presumption of innocence". The worst thing that would have happened to Kavanaugh was that he would have not been confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. That terrible fate is happening right now to you, me, and (I can almost guarantee) every single person reading this post. What happened to Kavanaugh had nothing to do with "weaponization of the justice system" because Kavanaugh was never fucking charged with a crime.
Here’s an actual lawyer explaining the law for you:
I’m seeing a bunch of pseudo-lawyer speak on my Facebook feed. I just want to clarify a few things.
1. The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.
2. Kavanaugh is not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. No one has to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3. Kavanaugh is not entitled to any “due process” during these confirmation hearings. The term “due process” refers to the general principle that the United States government can’t take away your rights or property without a legal proceeding—i.e. notice and a hearing. Here, the United States is not attempting to take away Kavanaugh’s rights or property. They’re not trying to take away anything at all. Rather they are determining whether to BESTOW upon Kavanaugh the highest legal position in the country. Kavanaugh has no implicit right to this position. He is not entitled to fair hearing. He is not entitled to any hearing at all.
4. Kavanaugh’s life won’t be “destroyed” by this confirmation process. At worst, he’ll remain a Federal Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ford’s testimony may trigger a subsequent criminal or impeachment process, but those are both different sets of proceedings, with higher standards of proof and more legal protections for Kavanaugh.
5. The Rules of Evidence do not apply. Senators can ask whatever they want. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford is entitled to any of the protections typically given to fact witnesses.
6. Some Senators, like Lindsey Graham, are using the standards of the criminal/civil justice system as a talking point. The argument is that, there isn’t enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh; there isn’t enough evidence to obtain a warrant; there isn’t enough evidence to justify a civil charge; therefore, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.
Now, let’s say I was going to hire a guy to cut my lawn. But then, I got a call from three separate women claiming that this guy had sexually assaulted them all. I’d be deeply concerned. Maybe there's a chance that these three women had engaged in a coordinated and nefarious effort to wrongly discredit the guy. And sure, maybe the guy had never been convicted of any form of sexual assault.
But I STILL probably wouldn’t hire the guy. There’s plenty of other people who are perfectly qualified to cut my lawn.
Issues of due process, and considering whether declining to hire the guy would “destroy” his life wouldn't be a part of my decision at all.
6. You're more concerned about the fact that one of the multiple accusations was false than you are about the very real possibility that at least one and likely more than one of the accusations was true. WTF does that say about you?
