Questions for the board RE: Kav vs Ford

[blbronco]

So, I can care less for either side of the aisle, as I think they are both a bunch of worthless dirtbags. I am not a particular fan of Kavanaugh, but really need to do more homework regarding his rulings to formulate a solid opinion (yes, JD, I am admitting that I am leaning to one side, but my opinion can be moved....).

That said, I think I am far from a rah rah guy for any side (hell, I am even pissed at the Libertarians at the moment), and this issue is included, so I have a few questions for each side. And they are solidly "what if" questions.

For the left-leaners:
What if it is proven (beyond all reasonable doubt, a high standard) that Ford is either lying completely, or mis-identifying Kavanaugh?
What should happen to Ford and Feinstein?
Assuming an FBI investigation (full, fair, etc) proved Kavanaugh innocent or proved the event entirely unlikely/implausible and Kavanaugh's appointment was declined due to a) Dems taking control and blocking his appointment b) pressure on Trump or others to change appointment prior to completion of said investigation?
All this happens, do you feel that your side took a sleazy path and how do you feel about the precedent that your side started?

For the right-leaners:
What if, after he is confirmed, an investigation or other information comes out confirming that Kavanaugh did, in fact, attempt to rape Dr. Ford (let's say for argument's sake, an on video confession or him caught on video doing it)?
What if other complaints turn out to be true?
What should happen to Kavanaugh, Trump, and others if it is found that he attempted to rape Dr. Ford +/- others? (sorry, a teenage rapist is still a rapist)
If Kavanaugh is denied confirmation, should Trump be able to begin another appointment process until after November?
All of this happens, do you feel that your side played a larger role in victim-bashing and hurting efforts to prevent sexual harassment, assault, etc?


I really an curious how bunkered in each side is. I get this is hypothetical and unrealistic, but I am legitimately curious as to most of your take if you can give an honest take.

 

[purkey]

if the betting window is still open, I'm betting the house on cavanaugh. Only because he's been through 6 fbi background investigations, committee investigations, a federal judge for 12 years, a 30 year track record, and pretty much a known cub scout. Now, ford comes out with this allegation, we know nothing of her...except that she is an anti trumper, a bit of a weird left wing college professor, has a poor memory, and has never had to answer to much of anything and no one can validate her story but her...even her best friend from that time frame denies it. She has also removed all of any online info that could be used to determine who or what she represents. She's hiding. Seems pretty easy to me.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

If he attempted to rape somebody he should not be on the SCOTUS.

Trump should then nominate the next candidate and move forward.

 

[OKSTATE1]

So, I can care less for either side of the aisle, as I think they are both a bunch of worthless dirtbags. I am not a particular fan of Kavanaugh, but really need to do more homework regarding his rulings to formulate a solid opinion (yes, JD, I am admitting that I am leaning to one side, but my opinion can be moved....).

That said, I think I am far from a rah rah guy for any side (hell, I am even pissed at the Libertarians at the moment), and this issue is included, so I have a few questions for each side. And they are solidly "what if" questions.

For the left-leaners:
What if it is proven (beyond all reasonable doubt, a high standard) that Ford is either lying completely, or mis-identifying Kavanaugh?
What should happen to Ford and Feinstein?
Assuming an FBI investigation (full, fair, etc) proved Kavanaugh innocent or proved the event entirely unlikely/implausible and Kavanaugh's appointment was declined due to a) Dems taking control and blocking his appointment b) pressure on Trump or others to change appointment prior to completion of said investigation?
All this happens, do you feel that your side took a sleazy path and how do you feel about the precedent that your side started?

For the right-leaners:
What if, after he is confirmed, an investigation or other information comes out confirming that Kavanaugh did, in fact, attempt to rape Dr. Ford (let's say for argument's sake, an on video confession or him caught on video doing it)?
What if other complaints turn out to be true?
What should happen to Kavanaugh, Trump, and others if it is found that he attempted to rape Dr. Ford +/- others? (sorry, a teenage rapist is still a rapist)
If Kavanaugh is denied confirmation, should Trump be able to begin another appointment process until after November?
All of this happens, do you feel that your side played a larger role in victim-bashing and hurting efforts to prevent sexual harassment, assault, etc?


I really an curious how bunkered in each side is. I get this is hypothetical and unrealistic, but I am legitimately curious as to most of your take if you can give an honest take.

FBI will not offer an opinion of guilt or innocence. Their job is only to investigate and not to try, and then play jury.

Comey did this with Hillary, he decided guilt or innocence before a fair and impartial investigation.

Seems hard for Dems to understand, the FBI stands for Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION.
Not Federal Bureau of Clemency and Convictions.

 

[blbronco]

I don't care about predictions. I am dubious about her claim, but I am equally dubious of his choir boy persona when in high school. I am legitimately curious as to how you respond if your prediction is wrong.

 

[blbronco]

FBI will not offer an opinion of guilt or innocence. Their job is only to investigate and not to try, and then play jury.

Comey did this with Hillary, he decided guilt or innocence before a fair and impartial investigation.

Seems hard for Dems to understand, the FBI stands for Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION.
Not Federal Bureau of Clemency and Convictions.

Again, if they find enough evidence of either direction, it is their responsibility to make a recommendation.

 

[OKSTATE1]

I don't care about predictions. I am dubious about her claim, but I am equally dubious of his choir boy persona when in high school. I am legitimately curious as to how you respond if your prediction is wrong.

If they convict him of a crime it is out of our hands as it should be and our laws should be followed. This is so simple. But anyone thinking 35 years you are getting the evidence for a conviction? Someone needs a time machine.

 

[JimmyBob]

Someone needs a time machine.

The only thing that could identify the year, place, participants, etc. regarding her 100% certainty it was him.

 

[blbronco]

If they convict him of a crime it is out of our hands as it should be and our laws should be followed. This is so simple. But anyone thinking 35 years you are getting the evidence for a conviction? Someone needs a time machine.

So in short, heals are dug in.

 

[OKSTATE1]

If he attempted to rape somebody he should not be on the SCOTUS.

Trump should then nominate the next candidate and move forward.

If this happened and can be proven he will be in jail, anyone really think they can get a conviction? Innocent until proven guilty, unless you are BK.

 

[OKSTATE1]

So in short, heals are dug in.

No. There is no statute of limitations, if he did it prove it in court and convict him.

This is the rub, some want to convict him on a standard short of being found guilty by a jury of your peers, in a real legal setting.

In theory, if the evidence is that convincing charges should immediately be filed.

If the evidence is not there to file charges, this MEANS NO EVIDENCE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

This is how it is suppose to work in this country, not assumed guilt and prove innocence.

 

[poke2001]

If it can be proven that he attempted to rape someone, anyone, even that long ago, he should not be on SCOTUS.

If it is proven that Dems lied in any way about these, each and every one of them involved should be thrown out of Congress and criminal charges files against them.

 

[blbronco]

No. There is no statute of limitations, if he did it prove it in court and convict him.

This is the rub, some want to convict him on a standard short of being found guilty by a jury of your peers, in a real legal setting.

In theory, if the evidence is that convincing charges should immediately be filed.

If the evidence is not there to file charges, this MEANS NO EVIDENCE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

This is how it is suppose to work in this country, not assumed guilt and prove innocence.

And this completely misses what I am trying to find out. And I am legitimately curious on this.

Here is what I expect to happen. An FBI investigation is done, results are relatively ambiguous and each side still snipes and plays dirty. I fully expect that to be the outcome. Nobody is going to be happy. Of course, I admittedly do not believe that either side (on this board or in general), can give consider any of this with an open mind.

In an ideal world (which we all know does not exist, but let's step back for a minute), what happens with either result (clearly he is completely innocent, or clearly he is completely guilty). Any other guessing is dodging and avoiding the worst case scenario for your side. Discussing this "what if" is not, in any way casting a final judgement on Kavanaugh or Ford.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Of course, I admittedly do not believe that either side (on this board or in general), can give consider any of this with an open mind..

My mind was closed by the facts (or lack therof). As stated above though, if he tried to rape a woman he should not be on the SCOTUS.

 

[blbronco]

My mind was closed by the facts (or lack therof). As stated above though, if he tried to rape a woman he should not be on the SCOTUS.

I read that, and believe you think that way. I am curious as to how you feel about the rest of the questions. I know that there is going to be no resolution that satisfies curiousity (real or politically motivated), but I am sincerely curious as to how the worst case scenario would be addressed by either side.

 

[imprimis]

If it can be proven that he attempted to rape someone, anyone, even that long ago, he should not be on SCOTUS.

If it is proven that Dems lied in any way about these, each and every one of them involved should be thrown out of Congress and criminal charges files against them.

Nothing will happen to the dems regardless of what we've seen of their behavior or what is learned in the future. They all have a huge "get out of jail free" card for they say as a Senator in an official capacity.

 

[Been Jammin]

For the left-leaners:
What if it is proven (beyond all reasonable doubt, a high standard) that Ford is either lying completely, or mis-identifying Kavanaugh?
What should happen to Ford and Feinstein?
Assuming an FBI investigation (full, fair, etc) proved Kavanaugh innocent or proved the event entirely unlikely/implausible and Kavanaugh's appointment was declined due to a) Dems taking control and blocking his appointment b) pressure on Trump or others to change appointment prior to completion of said investigation?
All this happens, do you feel that your side took a sleazy path and how do you feel about the precedent that your side started?

I will play. Only responding to the left portion, as you did not ask my opinion on the other side.

If Ford is lying and is an operative of the left, she should go to jail for perjury, fraud, and/or anything else that applies. If she made a mistake and it was not Kav who did this to her, I don't know what the answer is. Mistakes happen. The situation is unfortunate for both parties.

If Kav ends up not getting appointed because of the above, then my response is "shit happens". The GOP stonewalled on Garland for over 5 months. They should have expected partisan backlash for their actions.

Did they take a sleazy path (assuming Ford lied)? Sure. Unfortunately, that is the state of politics today, and I don't think they did anything the GOP would not have done if the tables were turned. In this scenario, I'm completely fine with the Dem Senators, who are responsible, being charged and removed from their position.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

No. There is no statute of limitations, if he did it prove it in court and convict him.

This is the rub, some want to convict him on a standard short of being found guilty by a jury of your peers, in a real legal setting.

In theory, if the evidence is that convincing charges should immediately be filed.

If the evidence is not there to file charges, this MEANS NO EVIDENCE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

This is how it is suppose to work in this country, not assumed guilt and prove innocence.

Actually, the statute of limitations for the alleged crime described, in 1982 Maryland, was 1 year.

 

[windriverrange]

If it can be proven that he attempted to rape someone, anyone, even that long ago, he should not be on SCOTUS.

If it is proven that Dems lied in any way about these, each and every one of them involved should be thrown out of Congress and criminal charges files against them.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
agree 100% BTW poke2001

I'm not sure how anyone could not have an opinion about this by now, especially if they are following the circus to any degree.

Blbronco, I pretty much loath both parties because in the Political Bible the first commandment is "thou shall always do whatever it takes to get re-elected," followed closely by 2nd "thou shall never let the other party appear to get the upper hand in any situation."

I've said before think something happened to Dr. Ford, but don't think it was Kavanaugh. The actions of Feinstein, the media and others seems IMHO to validate that it wasn't him as if they were truly worried about this women they would have immediately told her to go to the authorities, instead of sitting on the letter/evidence until almost the last minute.

If I'm wrong and Kavanaugh did assault/rape her there is no way he should be on the Supreme court. If he is blocked, then Trump should be able to immediately name someone else and they should be confirmed before the mid-terms (the comparisons to Garland is nonsense as there has been a precedence set in a presidential election year vs none in mid-terms). I can also assure you that if Garland had been confirmed, Kavanaugh would still be getting the same treatment as a nominee once RBG croaks/steps down. This is about keeping a constitutionalist off the SCOTUS nothing more nothing less.

Your last sentence is assuming Kavanaugh is guilty.....and by the R's wanting a threshold of proof that would convict him, in their eyes, it means they might inhibit others from coming forward, actually I think anyone in a high profile situation coming forward gives other a sense of empowerment to do the same. I've never met anyone who thought it was okay to assault, rape, stalk or whatever to anyone so not sure how by wanting to hear/understand the truth that would have an adverse effect on people coming out and making the appropriate accusations. Is there even enough evidence to convict the guy in court? The FBI has investigated the guy numerous times and nothing came of that.

Anyone who had a hand in this chicanery (including Kavanaugh for lying & or assault) needs to see jail time afterwards, if it turns out their actions either hindered nailing Kavanaugh or their actions were an attempt to unjustly frame this guy and ruin his life.

The question I have is why, if there was fear that "he might someday be nominated to the supreme court" didn't they come forward and bust his chops either during his nomination to the DC appeals/or while he was a sitting judge?

 

[blbronco]

I will play. Only responding to the left portion, as you did not ask my opinion on the other side.

If Ford is lying and is an operative of the left, she should go to jail for perjury, fraud, and/or anything else that applies. If she made a mistake and it was not Kav who did this to her, I don't know what the answer is. Mistakes happen. The situation is unfortunate for both parties.

If Kav ends up not getting appointed because of the above, then my response is "shit happens". The GOP stonewalled on Garland for over 5 months. They should have expected partisan backlash for their actions.

Did they take a sleazy path (assuming Ford lied)? Sure. Unfortunately, that is the state of politics today, and I don't think they did anything the GOP would not have done if the tables were turned. In this scenario, I'm completely fine with the Dem Senators, who are responsible, being charged and removed from their position.

Thank you for actually answering what I asked. I actually see the Garland example as pertinent here. Is it equal? No, but it doesn't have to be. To me, the biggest difference isn't that it was near the end of Obama's presidency either. He was not, in any capacity, character assassinated. What they did was still underhanded, and continues to poison the well. I will disagree with your last point, only in that, the Republican party is not smart enough to coordinate anything like this. At all. Trump is president for f***'s sake. That says everything about how insane and uncoordinated they are, as much as it says that Hillary was so terrible. However, the DNP did a great job getting a horrid human as their presidential nominee, and that is impressive coordination.

 

[blbronco]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
agree 100% BTW poke2001

I'm not sure how anyone could not have an opinion about this by now, especially if they are following the circus to any degree.

Blbronco, I pretty much loath both parties because in the Political Bible the first commandment is "thou shall always do whatever it takes to get re-elected," followed closely by 2nd "thou shall never let the other party appear to get the upper hand in any situation."

I've said before think something happened to Dr. Ford, but don't think it was Kavanaugh. The actions of Feinstein, the media and others seems IMHO to validate that it wasn't him as if they were truly worried about this women they would have immediately told her to go to the authorities, instead of sitting on the letter/evidence until almost the last minute.

If I'm wrong and Kavanaugh did assault/rape her there is no way he should be on the Supreme court. If he is blocked, then Trump should be able to immediately name someone else and they should be confirmed before the mid-terms (the comparisons to Garland is nonsense as there has been a precedence set in a presidential election year vs none in mid-terms). I can also assure you that if Garland had been confirmed, Kavanaugh would still be getting the same treatment as a nominee once RBG croaks/steps down. This is about keeping a constitutionalist off the SCOTUS nothing more nothing less.

Your last sentence is assuming Kavanaugh is guilty.....and by the R's wanting a threshold of proof that would convict him, in their eyes, it means they might inhibit others from coming forward, actually I think anyone in a high profile situation coming forward gives other a sense of empowerment to do the same. I've never met anyone who thought it was okay to assault, rape, stalk or whatever to anyone so not sure how by wanting to hear/understand the truth that would have an adverse effect on people coming out and making the appropriate accusations. Is there even enough evidence to convict the guy in court? The FBI has investigated the guy numerous times and nothing came of that.

Anyone who had a hand in this chicanery (including Kavanaugh for lying & or assault) needs to see jail time afterwards, if it turns out their actions either hindered nailing Kavanaugh or their actions were an attempt to unjustly frame this guy and ruin his life.

The question I have is why, if there was fear that "he might someday be nominated to the supreme court" didn't they come forward and bust his chops either during his nomination to the DC appeals/or while he was a sitting judge?

I can get on board with most of this. I am not fully convinced that Kavanaugh gets the same treatment he is currently receiving had Garland been appointed. This has every ounce of a revenge feel to me. My point about other victims, though, is that there is a true psychology behind how victims recover and move forward. They can also see what other victims go through when bringing out how they were victimized (not just sexual assault). Dr. Ford has been marginalized to a large extent. IF (and I am still in the area of what if) she was attacked by Kavanaugh, it is a bad look. IF she made this all up, it is equally harmful to real victims as well.

My point in asking what I am asking is to see just how entrenched people are with just party lines, regardless of what really happened. I said that I am extremely dubious of her claims, as well as dubious of his choir boy claims, but only one of those makes him a horrid person and unfit (regardless of his qualifications) to sit on any court bench, much less the supreme court bench. In my opinion, an FBI investigation with limitations (ie, not an open ended, investigation that has real potential to last years) but legitimate intentions is the best case scenario for this to move forward. I do not care if he is confirmed or not, presuming he did not do what he is accused of here.


I am also curious as to how the Democrats handle a reverse of roles, because we all know something similar will happen when the script is flipped. Morbid curiosity, I suppose.