Monday, 5 November 2018

Kavanaugh accuser admits to making up rape accusation as ‘tactic’

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.
[SFW] [crime & punishment] [+4 Sad]
[by foobar@12:01amGMT]


hellboy said[1] @ 12:41pm GMT on 5th Nov [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?
foobar said @ 1:22am GMT on 6th Nov [Score:-1 Repost]
filtered comment under your threshold
milkman666 said @ 1:23pm GMT on 6th Nov
What's the remedy? Because it just seems you're advocating for some sort of judicial punishment for violating a presumed gag order on rape unless there's a conviction.

hellboy said[1] @ 4:38am GMT on 7th Nov
He's a sexist fuckwit and rape apologist who's full of shit and has no rational answer to your question.
foobar said[1] @ 4:52pm GMT on 9th Nov [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
foobar said @ 4:52pm GMT on 9th Nov
Why not? There's often a gag order on the identity of the accuser.
milkman666 said @ 7:48pm GMT on 9th Nov [Score:2 Underrated]
That's during a trial. This was a job interview.
foobar said @ 8:35am GMT on 11th Nov
A trial is the only place where we decide if criminal accusations have merit.
milkman666 said @ 3:35pm GMT on 11th Nov
You can conflate a job interview with a criminal trial all you want, but at no point does failing an interview with the burger king lead to a week in the stocks.
foobar said @ 5:43am GMT on 12th Nov
You're the one talking about job interviews. That's not the place to resolve criminal accusations.
Abdul Alhazred said @ 1:39am GMT on 5th Nov [Score:2 Underrated]
If this is true, it's pretty fucking egregious. No matter what, you don't make false accusations like that. I hope she's prosecuted, hard.
lilmookieesquire said @ 2:01am GMT on 5th Nov
What kind of left wing activist
1) Files false claims against a scotus nominee
2) undercuts the legitimacy of rape claims in a highly publicized case
like, could you uh, not be an activist please?
hellboy said @ 12:46pm GMT on 5th Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
A) a nutcase who is being described as a "left-wing activist" in an attempt to discredit all left-wing activists and all accusers of sexually abusive men.
5th Earth said @ 12:26pm GMT on 5th Nov [Score:2 Underrated]
On the other hand, it's evidence that false accusations rarely get anywhere before they are discovered.

Also worth noting: this does not, in itself, invalidate the original Jane Doe claim. It just means Jane Doe definitely isn't this person.
hellboy said @ 1:03pm GMT on 5th Nov
This would be a real cause for concern had she been taken at face value with no investigation and her testimony used to convict Kavanaugh of rape because "left-wing activists" insisted that there should be no cross-examination. None of which actually happened.
foobar said @ 1:23am GMT on 6th Nov
No it isn't. It shows us absolutely nothing about the false accusations that are not discovered.

All it shows is that false accusations are commonplace.
milkman666 said @ 1:28pm GMT on 6th Nov
What's common place?

Like percentage wise. I want to make sure I haven't been using the word incorrectly.
foobar said @ 4:49pm GMT on 9th Nov
If 10% of parking tickets where fraudulent, would you not call that a common problem?
milkman666 said @ 7:54pm GMT on 9th Nov
foobar said @ 8:21am GMT on 11th Nov
Given that our system of justice is predicated on the idea that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent, that's a reckless and irresponsible position.
milkman666 said @ 3:46pm GMT on 11th Nov
You misunderstand, i meant no to your bullshit time wasting. Its disingenuous when you cherry pick the upper extreme of a statistic favorable to you in an article that goes on to qualify how that number is low to begin with.

You don't argue in good faith. You just want to revel in what you already "know". You have nothing of value in terms of insight or information to offer in rebuttal. In a post this old there is no audience who would benefit from any sort of pushback on what you're selling.

So whats the point.
foobar said @ 5:43am GMT on 12th Nov
That isn't the upper extreme. The 2-10% number (and further studies have placed it far closer to 10% than 2%) is those who have lied so brazenly that most would know they would be discovered. What percentage of accusations which aren't provable one way or the other isn't knowable, but it isn't plausible to suggest that it's less than a multiple.

You're a hypocrite; you're the one responding to me on an old post, and refusing to put numbers on your argument.
0000 said @ 1:44am GMT on 6th Nov [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
captainstubing said @ 7:15am GMT on 6th Nov [Score:-1]
filtered comment under your threshold
0000 said[1] @ 12:27pm GMT on 6th Nov [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
0000 said[2] @ 2:17pm GMT on 5th Nov [Score:-3]
filtered comment under your threshold
5th Earth said @ 4:10pm GMT on 5th Nov [Score:1 Funny]
I'm contractually obligated not to get into arguments with you. But nice try.
hellboy said @ 12:44pm GMT on 5th Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
Oh, and this:

Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee revealed the fraud in a letter to the FBI and Justice Department Friday, asking them to prosecute Judy Munro-Leighton for lying to and obstructing Congress.

Brett Kavanaugh also lied to and obstructed Congress. When is he going to be prosecuted?
lilmookieesquire said @ 12:14am GMT on 5th Nov
“Mr. Grassley said Ms. Munro-Leighton is a left-wing activist who hijacked another “Jane Doe” anonymous report about a backseat rape.”

What does that even mean? Was it a Jane Doe acusal regarding him or just a random report?

News journalism is so lazy.

Also false rape allegations is not a “tactic” and this woman is a shit person.
arrowhen said @ 12:48am GMT on 5th Nov [Score:1 laz0r]
Do you even news, bro? Why are you reading the filler? You're supposed to just scan headlines until you find one that confirms your biases and then post it to your Facebook for all your friends to not read either.

All those other words are just there to jazz up the whitespace between the ads.
lilmookieesquire said @ 1:57am GMT on 5th Nov
Sorry I used the words “news” and “journalism” together in a non-ironic sense.
captainstubing said @ 9:20am GMT on 5th Nov
Agreed. So there is still a Jane Doe report that Kavanuagh raped someone? Or is the Jane Doe about a rape involving an unnamed other? Or what? Am I to take it that Munro-Leighton did not in fact file a complaint at all but claimed to be the person who filed a complaint actually made by another? The whole, "...she confessed that she was not the original Jane Doe" seems to point to that.

So was the original report about BK, or not?

All that said, if I were Grassley I might ease off on sooling the Feds on to all and sundry. They could well find something.
Anonynonymous said @ 1:20am GMT on 5th Nov
In before "false flag".
bobolink said @ 3:04am GMT on 5th Nov
This only qualifies as nutjob. In the name of keeping down Kavanaugh it is offensive to Dr. Ford, offensive to the system, criminal, amoral, opportunistic. Whoever owns this individual, let her be damned. But it sounds like Marsha Blackburn to me.
foobar said @ 3:16am GMT on 5th Nov
Any justice system has to account for nutjobs.
bobolink said @ 3:38am GMT on 5th Nov
That's a great relief.
the circus said @ 4:31am GMT on 5th Nov
I wasn't aware there was another accusation. That being said, an excellent way of discrediting a real accusation might be to have another accuser come forward, then reveal it to be an example of what you're claiming the real accusation to be.
sitswithacookie said @ 12:25pm GMT on 5th Nov

The letter was sent anonymously to Kamala Harris's office. Judy Munro-Leighton claimed to be the author, but recently admitted that she lied.

There is still nothing to show if the letter was real or fabricated, but Munro-Leighton's actions will definitely convince people that Kavanaugh was entirely innocent, and the accusations were all a conspiracy.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings