Here comes the Judge

Rum, beer, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Here comes the Judge

Postby KEND on Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:34 pm

The hearings were dramatic. The entitled judge acted as if no one dared question him. A fellow student at Yale has said that he was often drunk and belligerent, Meanwhile behind the scenes arms were being twisted
KEND
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby wiesiek on Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:55 am

I`m far away, and not quite versed in the American judges grades and their evaluation,
but
this story brings some interesting aspects -
how deep and broad you have to dig in someone life history to evaluate his personality for such position ? ,for ex.
I mean - it is not right to kick off somebody, `cause he was drunk 30 y.a., during his school days, and his behavior wasn`t quite right in that time.
From the 2nd hand - If such character is present in his mature personality - quite different story.
so
how to really well evaluate the candidate?
we all know the story where lookin`crystal camin` out dirty... :'(
Joyful Fruits of the Live
wiesiek
Wuji
 
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:38 am
Location: krakow

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:40 am

The more troubling aspect is innocent until proven guilty and burden of proof is on the Accuser has been turned around.


Many have said that the judge is not entitled to presumption of innocence and that he must prove that he is not guilty.
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 10549
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:42 am

They like and ask for FBI investigations thinking that they will be in control of what it investigates.

It's all good until it starts to investigate them. While it may not find anything new on the judge it definitely should turn up some things on the accusers and those that orchestrated what's happening now.

the link may help you and others understand what is known so far

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... ysis/3221/
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 10549
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby Steve James on Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:22 am

wiesiek wrote:how deep and broad you have to dig in someone life history to evaluate his personality for such position ? ,for ex.
I mean - it is not right to kick off somebody, `cause he was drunk 30 y.a., during his school days, and his behavior wasn`t quite right in that time.

From the 2nd hand - If such character is present in his mature personality - quite different story.
so how to really well evaluate the candidate?
we all know the story where lookin`crystal camin` out dirty... :'(


Yes, two separate issues. But, the first one has two parts. How deeply a person's history should be considered depends on the position he seeks and what is learned in the vetting and research. If someone wants a job working with children, it'd be reasonable not to hire him if something negative about him and children came up in the research. Of course, people who have been convicted of crimes get hired all the time simply because no one looks for those crimes. Yeah, things that someone has done or been accused of in the past can disqualify him (or her), especially since there are other candidates.

Ah, but then your argument is about behavior that "wasn't quite right" when someone was a teenager. That's the problem. Either his behavior was right or it wasn't. But, even if it wasn't, he shouldn't be punished for it. Which means, for all intents and purposes, we think it was right --even if he did it.

Believe me, I know. My main delight as a teenage male was sexually harassing girls. In my day, that meant going exactly to the point where the girl says/does no. That means, no closer while dancing; moving my arm or hand to a suitable spot; or just stopping whatever I was doing. I was never so drunk, high or unconscious that it ever went further. But, if it had, and there's a 60 year old woman out there who'd say that I went too far, the first thing I'd do would be to apologize for having done something wrong.

If Kavanaugh would have said "I just don't remember", it would have been better because then he could say that it would have been wrong to do. Rather, he --and especially his supporters-- say that the woman is lying. I.e., he might have been drunk at the party with her in a room, but she's lying if she says he did anything; and, if he did, it wasn't as bad as she says.

Anyway, the second issue was how a past event reflects on a person's character today. How do we judge a judge? Well, the prez said that "they'd even investigate George Washington." Back in the day, school kids in the US were taught the story of Washington cutting down a cherry tree. When his father asked him, Washington replied "I cannot tell a lie." This story meant to show how trustworthy Washington was. The same test can/will be applied to a judge, or anyone. If it's found that Kavanaugh lied, he can't be trusted.

Oh, he'll be confirmed. He's not even a pussy-grabbing adulterous coveter of other men's wives, so his moral creds are ok. The threat that the Dems better watch out for their nominees is another joke. If it's found that they're pedophiles and rapists, cheats and frauds, etc., they shouldn't be there either. But, we ain't even close to wanting to clean house on the basis of morality. We're still investigating the priests and pastors.

Finally, no, I have no idea what happened between the teens. And, only the people in the room at the time do. So, I think it's stupid to say conclusively that one is lying. Sure, it's not hard to see a vast left-wing-Democratic-liberal-feminist conspiracy, or she's telling the truth.
Last edited by Steve James on Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby origami_itto on Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:55 am

If Kavanaugh would have said "I just don't remember", it would have been better because then he could say that it would have been wrong to do. Rather, he --and especially his supporters-- say that the woman is lying. I.e., he might have been drunk at the party with her in a room, but she's lying if she says he did anything; and, if he did, it wasn't as bad as she says.

And if it didn't happen then it was so long ago it doesn't matter. And even if it does matter it doesn't matter because we want him to overturn Roe v Wade
Anyway, the second issue was how a past event reflects on a person's character today. How do we judge a judge? Well, the prez said that "they'd even investigate George Washington." Back in the day, school kids in the US were taught the story of Washington cutting down a cherry tree. When his father asked him, Washington replied "I cannot tell a lie." This story meant to show how trustworthy Washington was. The same test can/will be applied to a judge, or anyone. If it's found that Kavanaugh lied, he can't be trusted.

Which story, of course, is 100% false. Like a lot of what you learn in school anymore it seems.
Last edited by origami_itto on Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
The form is the notes, the quan is the music
Atomic Taijiquan|FB|YT|IG|X|
User avatar
origami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Palm Bay, FL

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby Peacedog on Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:17 pm

I watched some of the hearing.

My main thought was: meh.

Both sides are clearly trying to score political points.

The allegations are all unprovable. Which is why the FBI initially passed. I can't imagine a state level court authorizing a trial based off of the strength of the evidence either regardless of statute of limitations issues.

Ford was certainly convincing. Good liars usually are. Kav was certainly upset. As someone accused whose career is at stake usually is.

Ford's status as a Democratic party activist isn't helpful as well.

Thirty plus years after the incident with no hard evidence, no police report from the time, and no arrests means no way to tell what happened. Memories over time are gloriously unreliable. People are very good at convincing themselves of things after the fact. And that ignores the obvious gorilla in the room that all of this could simply be made up.

Bottom line: he said, she said.
Peacedog
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 5:22 am
Location: Standing right next to your girl....

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby Steve James on Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:02 pm

Ford was certainly convincing. Good liars usually are. Kav was certainly upset. As someone accused whose career is at stake usually is.


Well, another catch-22 for her, if she were a bad liar, nobody'd believe her. If she's a good liar, then she's a good liar that shouldn't be believed. One can see why a woman (or a man) would be hesitant to report, since she won't be believed if she's believable. It's also interesting how the man breaking down is understood, but a woman not breaking down isn't.

The issue of reporting is also interesting. When the #metoo movement started, there were people here who pointed out the issue of male rape and sexual assault. Figures were even presented as evidence of an under-reported crime. I'd bet that at that senate hearing there were more than a few men who never reported being harassed or assaulted by a man or woman when they were children. The argument about something happening long ago makes no sense with children, except whether the statute of limitations still apply.

I am not sure how many rapes or attempted rapes are ever witnessed by anyone other than the victim and attacker, but I don't think the number is large. So, I think most of these cases will come down to he-say she-say, unless there are people to confirm certain things. If he said that they were never in a room alone together and someone says that they were, it strengthens her case. Again, it wouldn't be proof, but it's about who's more believable and why. Apparently, Ford took a polygraph test. So, have Kavanaugh do the same.

But, I have heard pundits slut-shame Ford for being intoxicated at a party with intoxicated men. Of course, the paradox is that 90% of the fathers I know with daughters are scared to death of teenage frat boys. Little girls who are watching now will be reluctant to report because so many people just don't believe women or girls when they do.

I.e., men know what men do; so we all know that she could very well be telling the truth.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby KEND on Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:08 pm

I agree that it sounds like a he said/ she said and if he was running for a minor position on the city council I would say let it go its a long time ago and nothing was said at the time. But this is the highest court in the land and like Caesars wife candidates must be above suspicion, any lapse in moral judgement most be considered. If he had said that he occasionally got drunk and it may have happened and my record shows nothing of that nature happened since I would be tempted to let it go., but, probably egged on by DT who takes on a macho stance when challenged he decided to tough it out making statements that have been challenged by his fellow student. This could be critical in choosing a judge, who cannot let personal bias and attitude get in way of his judgement. Incidentally if the democrats planned this ahead they must have had a psychic on the team, ford went to family counselling on this in 2012
KEND
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:01 pm

It's a not a matter of he said she said.
She does not have enough supporting evidence to support her allegations. Not even enough to meet the bare minimum standards if she ever sought to bring charges.

All the people she names under penalty of law say it didn't happen.

The judge was a judge for the second highest court in the land for number of years. Suddenly when he's a candidate for the Supreme Court he is not qualified to be one.

Her testimony, she has lied number of times they call them inconsistencies.
What some call credibility is based on emotion.
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 10549
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby Steve James on Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:26 pm

Her testimony, she has lied number of times they call them inconsistencies.


Well, lying before Congress or the FBI is a crime. So, she should be charged. Otoh, she has taken a polygraph exam. Has Kavanaugh?

WASHINGTON - An examination taken by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was released Wednesday, showing she passed a polygraph test over the sexual assault allegations she's lodged against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The August 7 examination, held in a Maryland Hilton Hotel, consisted of a one-page, handwritten statement by Ford, an interview and two questions: Is any part of your statement false? And, Did you make up any part of your statement?

She answered both with a no. The Virginia-based examiner, Jeremiah Hanafin, noted both answers were deemed "not indicative of deception," according to the report obtained by USA TODAY.


If the prez took a lie detector test and passed, would you then dispute the results?
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:20 pm

Good we're starting to get some some real honesty.
It's not about the judge and the nomination it is about Trump. Therefore Anything Goes.

I have taking polygraphs before for some jobs that I worked at. In either case they are not admissible in a court of law for a number of reasons.

I have never heard of a test given were only two questions are asked.
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 10549
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby Steve James on Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:46 pm

I have taking polygraphs before for some jobs that I worked at. In either case they are not admissible in a court of law for a number of reasons.


You've done lots of things, but that's not the point. The issue is whether Ford can/should be believed. You called her a liar. Lying under oath is perjury, a crime. To support her statement and version of the events, she took a polygraph exam. She passed. If she had failed, you'd use it as evidence that she was lying. As I said, that's the problem. She's not going to be believed no matter what she does.

Afa the number of questions on a polygraph exam, anytime I've taken one, the last question was always "have all your statements been truthful?"
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:14 pm

Steve James wrote:
I have taking polygraphs before for some jobs that I worked at. In either case they are not admissible in a court of law for a number of reasons.


You've done lots of things, but that's not the point. The issue is whether Ford can/should be believed. You called her a liar.

what I posted "Her testimony, she has lied number of times they call them inconsistencies. " I did not call her a liar,
I did say she has lied...made statements that are untrue and can be proven as such. They have chosen not to challenge them yet but acknowledge them as "inconsistent" .



Lying under oath is perjury, a crime.
yes it is, they didn't seem to concerned about it nor did they pursue it,,,
To support her statement and version of the events, she took a polygraph exam.
She passed. If she had failed, you'd use it as evidence that she was lying.
you don't know what I would use it for..

You don't seem to understand what a polygraph shows or is used for dispite having taken one.


As I said, that's the problem. She's not going to be believed no matter what she does.

not true...she would be believed if she had evidence supporting her allegations.
The problem is she has unsupported allegations, the burden of proof is on her to prove them,,,
it's not on him to disprove them
He has the presumption of innocence until its disproved.


Afa the number of questions on a polygraph exam, anytime I've taken one, the last question was always "have all your statements been truthful?"


Did they only ask 2 questions?

With only 2 questions how would they establish a base line to know whether she had a reaction to a question or not?
You say you've taken one...did they establish a base line?

She has not released the report nor has she released her medical notes from her therapist.

I do not find her to be credible, her credibility does not depend on whether she convinces me or not.
I look at the facts presented that support her allegations.

"The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington, according to the Republican senator, which means she may need to drive across the country. Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane."


"Mitchell: How did you get to Washington, D.C., today?
Ford: On an airplane.
Mitchell: When were here in August, how did you get here?
Ford: On an airplane.
Mitchell: You've been to Hawaii and Tahiti?
Ford: Yes.
Mitchell: How'd you get there?
Ford: On an airplane."
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 10549
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Here comes the Judge

Postby windwalker on Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:36 pm

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... alysis.pdf

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.

For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.




Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
·In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
·In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
·Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.

·A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
·Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.

·While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year.



Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
·She maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

o The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and ... work.” She flies to the mid- Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.

o Note too that her attorneys refused a private hearing or interview. Dr. Ford testified that she was not “clear” on whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her. It therefore is not clear that her attorneys ever communicated Chairman Grassley’s offer to send investigators to meet her in
California or wherever she wanted to meet to conduct the interview.
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 10549
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Next

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron