Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Because I've seen your posts, I know you're not an "Not All Men" guy, but the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women have a report that states: " 2-8 percent of reported rapes are false, but the number that are false accusations is smaller" so while it is absolutely possible for false accusations, it is extremely unlikely.

Whether it is unlikely or not is not the point. And FWIW I have seen that number be disproven before and I have also seen people falsely accused. If one person is falsely accused that is still wrong and all it does is become the poster boy for the opposition. I am very militant in my support of going after anyone accused but right now we are destroying people before they have their day in court and that will bite you in the *** sooner or later.

What I am talking about is everything else in the movement. I got in this argument last night actually with my girlfriend. For the culture to change we need to acknowledge that there is degrees to this stuff and that there is definite grey area. What is and is not appropriate changes with the person and the circumstance. She gave an example:

She has a friend she works with, and older guy. He likes to put his hand on her shoulder...not in a sleazy way but she is not very touchy feely so it makes her kind of uncomfortable. (she would never actually would report him because she knows him and it doesnt really offend her)

We both agree that if she is uncomfortable she should either tell him (if she feels she can) or talk to HR or his superior. I asked her though "what if he gets fired or severely reprimanded?" which is something that is starting to happen because in various careers they have to be proactive or risk backlash. She thinks that is ok whereas I dont. And the reason isnt that I dont think what he did was a big deal, because that is in the eye of the beholder, but because no one told him prior to that that what he was doing was inappropriate and he has never really had a chance to adjust his behavior now that he knows she is uncomfortable. Going from 0-60 is not the way to go but right now that is what we are doing every time someone gets accused.

The danger we have, and I include me because I am about as big of a believer in the #MeToo Movement and all of its offshoots as you can get, is we are getting to the point where we tar and feather and ask questions later and that is dangerous. What will end up killing momentum is collateral damage. You start destroying everyone who is accused of anything and the backlash will be reminiscent of how White Voters backlashed to having a Black President. If we want true culture change you need to change the behavior not try and even the playing fields. They wont be even, no matter how many people you take down.

 

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

The other point is this. We're not looking at a criminal prosecution here. There is no chance any prosecutor in the world would ever take this on, so we don't need a law enforcement investigation.

She doesn't need to present evidence, or have the FBI do it for her, to sustain a conviction. She'll never reach that standard. What's the FBI going to do? They're going to do the same thing the Senate Committee should do. This is about listening to her story, asking relevant questions to see if the factual allegations add up, listening to his response, and making a credibility decision. If, as a Senator, you tend to believe her story (even if you wouldn't vote as a juror to criminally convict him), you vote against his confirmation. It isn't that complicated.

I feel like the whole FBI thing is a bit of political game playing, and I'm not sure it's the victim that's pushing that issue, even in spite of her recent request. It feels like the Democrats are pushing for this to a) further delay any vote, and b) hoping for a report from the FBI that basically reads, "she said this, and we have no reason to disbelieve her, and he denies the allegation." Then they can parade that report around and say the FBI found her credible, perhaps deflecting from their own responsibility to make that decision.

Knowing that there is a good chance the GOP committee members will go after her like they did Anita Hill, I can see why she would prefer a more disciplined, neutral, just-the-facts-m'am approach such as a law enforcement agency could provide. But you're right that it does not seem to fall within the FBI's jurisdiction or job description. I don't know what role they or other alphabet agencies have in the overall background investigation of SC nominees, though.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

The other point is this. We're not looking at a criminal prosecution here. There is no chance any prosecutor in the world would ever take this on, so we don't need a law enforcement investigation.

She doesn't need to present evidence, or have the FBI do it for her, to sustain a conviction. She'll never reach that standard. What's the FBI going to do? They're going to do the same thing the Senate Committee should do. This is about listening to her story, asking relevant questions to see if the factual allegations add up, listening to his response, and making a credibility decision. If, as a Senator, you tend to believe her story (even if you wouldn't vote as a juror to criminally convict him), you vote against his confirmation. It isn't that complicated.

I feel like the whole FBI thing is a bit of political game playing, and I'm not sure it's the victim that's pushing that issue, even in spite of her recent request. It feels like the Democrats are pushing for this to a) further delay any vote, and b) hoping for a report from the FBI that basically reads, "she said this, and we have no reason to disbelieve her, and he denies the allegation." Then they can parade that report around and say the FBI found her credible, perhaps deflecting from their own responsibility to make that decision.

I dont think they want a prosecution...I think they want the FBI to do what it did in the Thomas/Hill situation and take their statements and look into the claims. There isnt much you can actually do on the criminal side but they have the resources to look into it deeper than Congress did. All Congress can really do is take testimony at this point.

I just dont see them doing it in this climate though. And unless they find someone else who says they had a similar situation it is going to be a lot of people saying either I dont know or I never heard anything.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Knowing that there is a good chance the GOP committee members will go after her like they did Anita Hill, I can see why she would prefer a more disciplined, neutral, just-the-facts-m'am approach such as a law enforcement agency could provide. But you're right that it does not seem to fall within the FBI's jurisdiction or job description. I don't know what role they or other alphabet agencies have in the overall background investigation of SC nominees, though.

The FBI did it in the Thomas hearing at the behest of President Bush.

 

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

The FBI did it in the Thomas hearing at the behest of President Bush.

There you go: precedent.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Feinstein on Kavanaugh Accuser: "I Can't Say Everything Is Truthful"

Please retire. I said please.

 

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Maybe this is for the travel thread, but have any of you visited the Court during oral arguments?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

The FBI did it in the Thomas hearing at the behest of President Bush.

And it ended up hurting Hill's credibility and paved the way for Thomas to be confirmed. Hill gave at least one if not two statements to the FBI, under oath. Then, when she testified before the Senate she was also under oath. The problem is, the testimony never comes out exactly the same, or can be made to appear that way, which then causes the accuser to look like a liar or lack credibility.

The best thing that Ford could do is just go in and tell her story to the Committee. All they have is her letter. They have no other way of trying to get behind her story, no prior sworn testimony with which to impeach her, so she'll look credible.

What's going to happen now is that the Committee is just going to say, "we gave her a chance to be heard, but she declined" and that will be the end of that.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

That may be, I am just saying they have done it. At this point if I was Ford I am not sure I would want to go in from of Congress until an impartial group looked into it first. They are going to try and burn her at the stake. Hell Graham is already insinuating she is on the take (or worse) because she somehow afforded a lawyer.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

And it ended up hurting Hill's credibility and paved the way for Thomas to be confirmed. Hill gave at least one if not two statements to the FBI, under oath. Then, when she testified before the Senate she was also under oath. The problem is, the testimony never comes out exactly the same, or can be made to appear that way, which then causes the accuser to look like a liar or lack credibility.

The best thing that Ford could do is just go in and tell her story to the Committee. All they have is her letter. They have no other way of trying to get behind her story, no prior sworn testimony with which to impeach her, so she'll look credible.

What's going to happen now is that the Committee is just going to say, "we gave her a chance to be heard, but she declined" and that will be the end of that.

Since she made her therapy notes available from six years ago, they might be able to have her therapist give testimony as corroboration. The patient-doctor confidentiality veil may be lifted Ford's divulgence of those notes.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

FWIW: https://twitter.com/jaybookmanajc/status/1042386834284789760

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

That may be, I am just saying they have done it. At this point if I was Ford I am not sure I would want to go in from of Congress until an impartial group looked into it first. They are going to try and burn her at the stake. Hell Graham is already insinuating she is on the take (or worse) because she somehow afforded a lawyer.

They are going to try to burn her at the stake whether the FBI (or anyone else) looks at it or not.

There is a reason lawyers typically don't want to have their clients give statements under oath when they know the client is going to be under oath at some later point in time. Pretty easy to trip up on what seems like minute details such as time, people's clothing, number of drinks, etc...

 

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

FWIW: https://twitter.com/jaybookmanajc/status/1042386834284789760

If she is willing to come forward and discuss it then the FBI has a bit more to go on and it makes more sense to look into it.

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Here's the thing. If she's lying, if she's making it all up, why would she also say that the guy's best friend was also there in the room?

A best friend who, if it never happened, if she's making it all up, she knows will say that it never happened. If she was making it all up, she would say it was just the two of them alone in the room, no corroborating witnesses. He said, she said.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Not to defend your cousin but I worry about it too. I want the jerks to get destroyed but no one else. Plus every time someone is falsely accused it damages the movement.

Culture change is needed badly, but we need to make sure to do it the right way.

Of course there are degrees and I don’t think innocent people should have their lives ruined.
This is the cousin that you know. Rather than being concerned about terrible behavior towards women he’s only concerned about how it affects men. That’s the part that I don’t like. He doesn’t sympathize with the women who are victims, just what it does to men’s lives.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Here's the thing. If she's lying, if she's making it all up, why would she also say that the guy's best friend was also there in the room?

A best friend who, if it never happened, if she's making it all up, she knows will say that it never happened. If she was making it all up, she would say it was just the two of them alone in the room, no corroborating witnesses. He said, she said.

That's certainly a legitimate question to ask. Personally I think it's a mistake to try to decipher whether someone is telling the truth based upon how much or how little, or what type of detail they tell you. There are probably a hundred experts out there that will tell you that a person who is lying may give you lots of detail, or certain types of detail, in order to convince you they are telling the truth. Other experts might tell you the opposite.

If it were me, I'd be looking for corroboration that the basic facts are true. I'd ask the judge, then any other available witnesses, did the party take place? Was the judge there? Was the friend there? Was Ford there? Do these parties know each other? Were they seen together at the party? Etc...

If we get to the point that it's established they were all at this party and drinking, and even seen talking to one another, that tends to support her story, imho.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I mean I guess it's possible that she made it all up to her therapist 6 years ago just in case Kavanaugh became a SC justice...

 

[French Rage]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I mean I guess it's possible that she made it all up to her therapist 6 years ago just in case Kavanaugh became a SC justice...

Clearly the Deep State recruited women who went to high school with every high-ranking conservative judge and sent them to therapists in case they had SC nominations years down the road. But they chose not to use it on Gorsuch for some reason.

 

[Handyman]

Of course there are degrees and I don’t think innocent people should have their lives ruined.
This is the cousin that you know. Rather than being concerned about terrible behavior towards women he’s only concerned about how it affects men. That’s the part that I don’t like. He doesn’t sympathize with the women who are victims, just what it does to men’s lives.

Oh I knew who you were talking about .

I was just making a point he might have accidentally been right in a way

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Here's the thing. If she's lying, if she's making it all up, why would she also say that the guy's best friend was also there in the room?

A best friend who, if it never happened, if she's making it all up, she knows will say that it never happened. If she was making it all up, she would say it was just the two of them alone in the room, no corroborating witnesses. He said, she said.

Yeah, except for the partying that Mark Judge wrote about - he's the perfect character to plant in the scene, since he's a known, admitted partier. He can't deny that this is the type of thing that he *might* have been involved in. If he says he can't remember this specific incident, so much the better, since that just establishes that this was such a pattern that he can't even remember this one.

(I believe her, BTW - just playing devil's advocate)