Should a high School incident be relevant 35 years later?

[cale]

What does a congressional hearing have to do with the 6th Amendment?
This isn't a criminal case. You can't possibly be this dense.

Rape is a crime, it should be a criminal case. If there is insufficient evidence to determine a crime actually took place, then the mans name should not have been sullied. The only thing dense here is people like you who think that upon a favorable outcome of the hearing, that the accused will return to their original good standing. Hell I'm not even a Yank and I can figure out that a congressional hearing is not a process by which guilt or innocence is determined, but simply an information gathering process. That's what the cops are for when a crime took place!

It's relevant to the 6th Amendment because the man is being subjected to a public investigation that no one else would be. I understand that the nature of his prospective job requires a certain level of ethically purity, but that doesn't mean he's not entitled to the same protections under the law as everyone else.

[z31maniac]

What does a congressional hearing have to do with the 6th Amendment?
This isn't a criminal case. You can't possibly be this dense.

cale, can you try? Obviously I can't help.

[saucers]

What does morality have to do with the 6th Amendment?

Can you provide a source that shows a congressional hearing meets the rights guaranteed under the 6th Amendment?

What does a congressional hearing have to do with the 6th Amendment?
This isn't a criminal case. You can't possibly be this dense.

[z31maniac]

Court of public opinion is what you're looking for.
I'm saying find out what happened, then confirm/don't confirm the guy.
It pains me that someone with your morality is allowed to vote.

What does morality have to do with the 6th Amendment?

Can you provide a source that shows a congressional hearing meets the rights guaranteed under the 6th Amendment?

[z31maniac]

You guys are really good at attacking eachother instead of eachothers statements.

z31maniac likes to think hes BigBrained and talks down to everyone so, its more that then morality.

Moving on, what does morality have to do with the 6th Amendment?

[Schnitzer318is]

Outrage is a bit of strong word, but I am disgusted at the lengths to which the would go and the willingness to destroy a mans life AFTER the nomination if he were not be confirmed

Sorry, I misinterpreted the tone of your 2 posts prior to mine. Mistook the disgust for outrage. Disgust is warranted... but it's pretty warranted for both the left and the right at this point. So... yeah.

I still don't think that this is going to have any lasting affects on Kavanaugh's character or his political opportunities. If he was that worried about it (or he doesn't get confirmed), as I said, he'd sue for libel and force her to prove her statements... or pay up.

This whole affair is embarrassing for the democratic party and will probably result in mid-term losses...

Embarrassing... maybe. Resulting in mid-term losses. I'm not so sure on that one. I'm waiting for a majority of the country (voters) to get fed up and vote third party. I'll be waiting until the day I die... but that's how it goes.

[coldweatherblue]

This whole affair is embarrassing for the democratic party and will probably result in mid-term losses..

if the accuser cannot remember the place or even the year of the alleged occurrence then she seems to match to profile of a typical California psychology professor...

and yes she has a lot to gain by all of this.

[mrsleeve]

Outrage is a bit of strong word, but I am disgusted at the lengths to which the would go and the willingness to destroy a mans life AFTER the nomination if he were not be confirmed

Yes they did go after Kagan and the other one, but the stopped well short of 100% character assassination in the way Finestine and the "trump did it", Roe V. Wade is going to end frothers have engaged in. I think its painfully disgusting, and shows just how bad the politics of division have gotten but I am far from outraged by it

[Schnitzer318is]

Yes it should put it to bed

but of course hide behind unreasonable conditions to avoid perjuring ones self because; MISSION ACCOMPLISHED #metoo....

how to destroy a mans reputation with pure unsubstantiated allegations from an anonymous source, with a questionable story deployed with malice to assassinate a mans charter/reputation in 3 hours or less, no matter the real facts of the matter, the damage has been done.

I agree with everything you said. But I disagree with your outrage. The right would do this EXACT thing if it were their only option to stop a nomination. They delayed Obama's choice through other means... because they could.

I said originally I was skeptical due to the timing of the accusations and, honestly, I doubt that Kavanaugh's reputation is going to be seriously tarnished as you fear. Per your assessment, the public's memory for political scandal is about 30 seconds...

[mrsleeve]

Yes it should put it to bed

but of course hide behind unreasonable conditions to avoid perjuring ones self because; MISSION ACCOMPLISHED #metoo....

how to destroy a mans reputation with pure unsubstantiated allegations from an anonymous source, with a questionable story deployed with malice to assassinate a mans charter/reputation in 3 hours or less, no matter the real facts of the matter, the damage has been done.

[naplesE30]

So Ford is unwilling to testify under oath until after a FBI investigation is conducted (which the FBI has no interest, intention, or jurisdiction over since no federal criminal charge has been issued). When the accuser will not make an accusation under oath it ought to put this to whole fiasco to bed. Why would being under oath change anything????? Hmmm.

So you now have a 35yr old accusation, with no actual scene, without an actual date, without an actual witness, without any actual evidence, and an accuser who won’t even testify to the actual accusation. And this is all to be taken seriously? Only in Merica and only in 2018.

[mrsleeve]

The man has already been appointed to a long term posting of power, and has held a Top Secret security clearance for going on 2 decades now, hes been vetted, hes proven trustworthy and reliable.

Why is this coming out now, why was it not reported 35 years ago???

Why was this held by Finestine rather than passed on to the proper investigative agencies.

Pure politics of the extremist left, and the court of public opinion #metoo.... how to destroy a mans reputation with pure unsubstantiated allegations from an anonymous source, with a questionable story deployed with malice to assassinate a mans charter/reputation, no matter the real facts of the matter, the damage has been done. for 1000 Alex. Even if hes confirmed now his tenure on the SCOTUS is going to be forever tainted. If hes not confirmed and even if this is all found to be BS his reputation is shot his life and future is never going to be what is was a week ago confirmation or not..... The left is so hell bent on killing this nomination that they are willing to destroy a mans life with out any due process to do so. This is BEYOND low even for the CA extremist D contingent....

Lastly this happened 35 years ago, the human memory is fallible even from 30 sec ago, ever play the telephone game, or read the studies about eyewitness testimony being false or massively subjective in criminal witness in a court of law .....

This is strictly a he said she said, and I far more likely to take the word of a Long time federal judge over someone that makes accusation behind a curtain of anonymity and though lawyers. Untill there is much much solid evidence I am going with the He Said/She Said until then.

If it comes out with actual proof..... Let the punishment fit the crime, as this is not a rape, as some of you are liking to grandstand with....

[naplesE30]

Some of you guys either need to learn the definition of rape, or cut down on the hyperbole a bit. Deal in facts, especially if you think they are on your side, you don’t need to exaggerate things. It only discounts your entire point to someone with a different opinion than yours.

[cale]

I'm saying find out what happened, then confirm/don't confirm the guy.

No, that's not what you're saying.

I think the goal here is to make sure a guy who basically raped a woman isn't appointed to a lifetime position on the supreme court.

If the goal is to not allow an accused rapist to hold such a powerful position, then a criminal investigation should be held to examine the evidence, not a question answer period. If the true intent was to hold someone accountable for their actions, then the letter accusing the man would have been made available to the FBI as soon as it was given to the senator. It wasn't, it was held in confidence and was only brought forward upon supposedly being leaked to the press. This should be a red flag that justice was not the intent, but using it as leverage.

[naplesE30]

Specific names were given which trust me is a huge. Two people have been ID and yes, I suspect one will acknowledge the incident existed with a different twist if able to testify.

You convinced me. I overlooked the huge specific of names.