CNN != Fox
-
Nice try but no cigar. The article I cited on USA Today summarizes pretty much what I posted…and the article was written by a lawyer, and a woman at that, so, she must not be nearly as smart or knowledgeable as you and likely a woman hater to boot.
As far as stating that the presumption of inocence which is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system is flawed analysis which I believe is what you said since that was the only legal issue I mentioned, then you must believe the accuser is presumed to be telling the truth and accused is presumed guilty that would true only in totalitarian countries such as Cuba or North Korea or maybe the military system operates that way although I seriously doubt it does. I just don’t know how to answer that.
I am sure you are familiar with the Blackstone’s formulation which is the principle that:
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”,
…as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
Historically, the details of the ratio have varied, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.
From Wikipedia…
While compiling his highly influential set of books on English common law, William Blackstone expressed the famous ratio this way:
“All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.”
This variation was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century. It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country’s Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century.
Other commentators have echoed the principle; Benjamin Franklin stated it as, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”.
I just find it interesting that you let your bias cloud your judgement and turn it into something personal. I am not going to resort to personal attacks.
-
approxinfinity said:
Don’t want my conservative buddies blind to how theyre being seduced by their conservative media.
…and I don’t want my liberal buddies blind on how they are bring played by practically the entire MSM.
BTW, you forgot to mention that Margot Cleveland is also an adjunct law instructor at Notre Dame. Also, similar analysis by “legal experts” are all over, on all sides of the spectrum. The truth is that with each passing day and now that emotions are down, her testimony looks less and less credible. As I mentioned before, I believe that both Ford and Kavanaugh were used as pawns by politicians and they are both victims.
-
approxinfinity said:
@DoubleDD Oh I do think he did what he is accused of. And i think the investigation was artificially restricted. But thats not why I think he should be disqualified. I think the bar is even higher than “not having committed sexual assault” as to whether someone should be a justice on the highest court in the Judicial branch. Things like “not a partisan hack” and “not a belligerent d–k” and “not a liar” are the kinds of things I’m looking for.
We are so quick to judge the accused but we don’t even look at the accuser?
-
@JayHawkFanToo I was not only addressing your USA Today post. I was also referring generally to all of your posts on this subject.
As to this last vomitus vomitus, your flaw lies in assuming that criminal justice standards should apply to determining whether someone has the character, record, history, intellectual ability, reputation, integrity, and temperament to merit being on the Supreme Court. The issue always is whether the candidate meets the highest standard in each area, not whether any allegations against the candidate require enough proof to dispel any reasonable doubt with a perfunctory 5 day investigation that specifically excludes interviews with either the complainant or the candidate.
-
-
Crimsonorblue22 said:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/27/gop-senators-outside-ford-questioner-mistake-849246
It was a bad strategic move to bring in the prosecutor to question Ford, but not allow her to also question Kavanaugh. If this were a criminal proceeding, there would be a question of whether it was fair and appropriate to change who was doing the questioning since the GOP opted to use her to question Ford, but not Kavanaugh.
Since this wasn’t a criminal proceeding, there’s no violation, but it was bad optics.
-
@justanotherfan When I was a commodity judge, I swore the witnesses all together at the beginning and then conducted my own questioning topic by topic, jumping back and forth between witnesses as necessary to pin down particular points. It was extremely effective in figuring out what happened.
I was very frustrated watching the hearing, chafing at the bit as I waited for any questions designed to actual uncover facts previously not stated. The Dems totally blew their 50 minutes of available cross-examination of Kav, preferring to posture and speechify. The Repubs’ designated questioner also wasted her flow on unimportant details (who paid for the polygraph? who cares? Any confusion could easily be due to not having gotten a bill yet!) obviously preselected and designed to raise red herrings. She should have focused on what the weaker answers revealed, and shifted to impromtu questions.
But Senate hearings are not designed to bring out new information. They are used now to posture, preen, and attack.
-
-
mayjay said:
@JayHawkFanToo I was not only addressing your USA Today post. I was also referring generally to all of your posts on this subject.
As to this last vomitus vomitus, your flaw lies in assuming that criminal justice standards should apply to determining whether someone has the character, record, history, intellectual ability, reputation, integrity, and temperament to merit being on the Supreme Court. The issue always is whether the candidate meets the highest standard in each area, not whether any allegations against the candidate require enough proof to dispel any reasonable doubt with a perfunctory 5 day investigation that specifically excludes interviews with either the complainant or the candidate.
I believe that when possible I have cited sources for my posts and even a cursory Google search can verify the rest. I have not made any legal arguments other than to mention that the presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of our legals system; you don’t need to go to law school to learn that. you learn it in middle school civics class.
More directly to your ad-hominem argument, The ABA unanimously gave Kavanaugh its highest well qualified rating.
Its published criteria explain what this means for a Supreme Court nominee:
"A Supreme Court nominee should possess an especially high degree of legal scholarship, academic talent, analytical and writing abilities, and overall excellence. The ability to write clearly and persuasively, to harmonize a body of law, and to give meaningful guidance to trial courts, circuit courts and the bar for future cases are particularly important skills for a Supreme Court nominee. . . . To merit the Committee’s rating of “Well Qualified,” a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The rating of “Well Qualified” is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement."
…which exactly addresses all the points you raised and he met all the criteria. As you know, there have been a number of studies that have determined a bias by the ABA against Republican nominated candidates for the many positions in which it provides ratings, so an unanimous well qualified rating is even more impressive.
Maybe you should take up your issue withe the ABA. SMH.
By the way, if the Democrats wanted a longer investigation, Feinstein should not have waited 6 weeks to release the information just before the vote in a very transparent move to delay the process which we now know was the plan all along. I know you will say that Professor Ford wanted it kept confidential but when she contacted the Washington Post and shared information with them all bets should have been off. You can’t have it both ways, demand privacy while providing information to the press. It is right up there with Corey “I am Spartacus” Booker who made a spectacle of himself by stating that he was risking expulsion by releasing classified documents when he had been informed the night before the documents had already been made public and no longer classified. The Democrats shot themselves on the foot…repeatedly…and have no one to blame but themselves.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Good point on the ABA. Of course, they announced that they were reevaluating the rating in light of the temperament he displayed at the hearing, but they were not going to get that done before the vote. Probably another reason the Committee rushed to completion.
So, the ABA and Justice Stevenns both felt that Kavanaugh’s behavior warranted stepping back to reconsider. Both had previously approved him. And all I have ever said is that the whole mess deserved more extensive investigation and consideration. (If I was on Feinstein’s staff or a Dem member of the committee, I just don’t recall it, so I don’t know why you keep trying to pass their actions off on me.)
-
In the same letter the ABA indicated that the “original rating stands.”
There was lot of pressure on the ABA to issue the letter but in the end is just -much ado about nothing- and the rating will stand.
While many consider his demeanor/temperament not what they expected, an equal or greater number saw it as the sign of an innocent man, wrongly accused and vigorously defending his reputation and good name. Different strokes for different folks.
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
In the same letter the ABA indicated that the “original rating stands.”
There was lot of pressure on the ABA to issue the letter but in the end is just -much ado about nothing- and the rating will stand.
While many consider his demeanor/temperament not what they expected, an equal or greater number saw it as the sign of an innocent man, wrongly accused and vigorously defending his reputation and good name. Different strokes for different folks.
As I said before, I can understand where people come from with innocent man wrongly accused being upset.
However, I struggle with that because I don’t think those same people would give that level of benefit to an actual criminal defendant facing actual prison time if they were to behave that way in an actual court of law.
That defendant would have a right to a presumption of innocence, but they would not be allowed to yell at the prosecutor and judge. They might get one warning, but more likely, that type of behavior would cause them to be held in contempt of court!
Kavanaugh is a judge. He knows this. It was, at the very least, poor decorum.
If you want a comparison, compare Kavanaugh’s behavior to that of Clarence Thomas during his hearings. Thomas maintained his composure. Kavanaugh did not. Simple as that. I doubt many conservatives would argue that Thomas not screaming during his hearing means he wasn’t an innocent man. Instead, it shows that someone can maintain their composure and dignity in that setting, in spite of the allegations facing them.
-
@justanotherfan Thomas did however play the race card, saying he was on the receiving end of a “high tech lynching”. In my mind, that was in the same ballpark of impropriety as Kavanaugh saying it was a “revenge job by the Clintons” though not as bad as Kavanaugh’s threat of “what goes around comes around”, even if Thomas had a bit more composure in his presentation.
-
approxinfinity said:
@justanotherfan Thomas did however play the race card, saying he was on the receiving end of a “high tech lynching”. In my mind, that was in the same ballpark of impropriety as Kavanaugh saying it was a “revenge job by the Clintons” though not as bad as Kavanaugh’s threat of “what goes around comes around”, even if Thomas had a bit more composure in his presentation.
I don’t agree with what Thomas said during those hearings. However, he maintained his composure. I don’t agree with Clarence Thomas much, at all, but he at least acted like he understood how to behave in a Senate hearing. It’s a low bar, to be sure.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I know I’ve been on the warpath the last couple weeks. You’ve let me say my piece and tried to rationalize where the other side is coming from. I don’t agree with the rationale, but I appreciate your moderate temperament in the face of several pretty passionate liberal leaning individuals [even if we are justifiably so ;)]
-
Well, here’s where we get to see whether Fox is actually state-run media ( do whatever the President wants) or just practically state run media (driven by ratings, journalistic integrity be damned):
-
@approxinfinity I agree that CNN has done lots of damage to democrats. They simply took off their mask of objectivity, and revealed they were completely, utterly corrupted in the tank for democrats. No doubts, no semblance, or even hint, or even a whiff of anything remotely suggesting any objectivity on any level. The modern day Pravda. I wouldn’t be the least surprised if the DNC didn’t send them a daily talking points memo to direct them what to report .No doubt CNN has done alot to fire up, and solidify the republican base.
A little bit like the Federal Reserve is doing with our interest rates. For 7 years of the Obama Administration, the Fed Reserve didn’t raise interest rates 1 time. Now, in Obama’s final year, they did raise interest rates a quarter of a point. Since Trump was elected, the Fed has raised interest rates 7 times. 7 times. Here’s a blurb I found interesting from a deplorable website:
"CNBC reported in December 2015 that President Obama oversaw “seven years of the most accommodative monetary policy in U.S. history” (from the Fed). The Fed Funds rate was at zero for most of Obama’s time in office. Finally, in December 2015 after the Fed announced its first increase in the Fed Funds rate during the Obama Presidency.
The only Fed Funds Rate increases since 2015 were after President Trump was elected President. The Fed increased the Fed Funds Rate now seven times.
The Fed Funds Rate greatly impacts the economy:
Lower interest rates usually spur the economy by making corporate and consumer borrowing easier. Higher interest rates are intended to slow down the economy by making borrowing harder.
Increases in the Fed Funds Rate increase the cost of borrowing and the largest borrower in the world is the US government. With $20 trillion in debt, a 2% increase in interest payments equals $400 billion in annual interest payment increases or nearly a half a trillion dollars!
President Obama benefited from the lowest possible interest rates possible for seven of his eight years and in spite of this, nearly doubled the US Debt from $10 trillion to nearly $20 trillion. With no rate increases in interest rates, President Trump would arguably have a balanced budget to date. (Although the short term implications may not dictate this, the long term implications are clear.)
President Trump knows this and he previously stated that he is not happy with the Fed raising interest rates and killing the economy. Last week with the DOW reached all-time highs, consumer confidence hit all time highs and unemployment hit its lowest rate in 50 years.
The Fed then announced they would raise rates some more!
The Fed’s Jerome Powell said at a meeting in Boston:
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said Tuesday he sees no need to drop the central bank’s current gradual approach to raising interest rates.
Powell said the combination of steady, low inflation and very low unemployment shows the country is going through “extraordinary times.”
The markets almost immediately responded and in spite of the great news on the stock markets and jobs, the markets declined. Another Trump rally – another Fed interest rate block! Yesterday as the market shed over 800 points, President Trump said the Fed has “Gone Crazy”. He really disagrees with what the Fed is doing.
The Deep State and the Fed don’t care about the American worker or taxpayer. It’s all about power. If they can tank the economy, decrease American’s 401ks and increase interest payments on the massive Obama debt, then they win. The only thing stopping President Trump from balancing the US Budget and keeping the economy on fire is the Fed’s rising rates. Trump’s right again and again – the Fed’s actions show it favors the left. The Fed has gone crazy!"
-
@approxinfinity You own NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, every newspaper in America, every university, the entire school curriculum( along with the teachers) of every student in America, practically every movie star, every major movie studio, and you are worried over the bias of Fox News? You can’t watch a movie, a sit-com, a rock concert, a sporting event w/o seeing some form of progressive propaganda displayed…and God forbid you try to watch an awards show…and Fox News must be stopped, right? Look, I don’t watch Fox News very much, but this country damn sure needs Fox News just for the fact that it isn’t parroting this nation wide socialist dogma that is shoved down our throats 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week. I’ve been on this earth nearly 58 years, and I’ve never seen anything like it. But the problem we have with America is we have Fox News, right?..I am really sorry, but I just can’t wrap my head around that one, my friend…I try not to wade into this because I’m a reformed conservative, but I just couldn’t help it.
-
@KUSTEVE Jay Powell is a Trump appointee and a Republican. Trump bookends criticism of the Fed with statements about not having direct contact with Powell and having a hands off relationship because he wants to play both sides. He wants people to trust the autonomy of the Fed, but he wants people to feel that the success of the economy was only tempered because the Fed raised interest rates. To suggest that the Fed had a partisan agenda that “favors the left” when Powell is in fact Trump’s man seems to me to be incorrect, and a validition of why Trump is playing you with his fake criticisms of the Fed.
Regarding Fox News, they are doing a nice job of making you believe theyre a beacon of conservative truth thats fighting not to be snuffed out by the mean nasty liberals all around them. The truth is that they’ve been the number one primetime Network for 28 straight months! The world is progressive and nothing is fair? The problem as I see it is that no conservative news source with more journalistic integrity has made a play in the TV news space and they’ve allowed Fox to dominate.
Here are the ratings for July by network
Top 10 for July 2018 – Prime Time
Fox News (2,406,000)
MSNBC (1,663,000)
HGTV (1,360,000)
USA (1,344,000)
History (1,115,000)
Discovery (1,075,000)
Hallmark Channel (1,024,000)
Investigation Discovery (1,010,000)
TBS (999,000)
CNN (891,000)
-
@approxinfinity ABC News - 10 million
CBS NEWS - 10 million NBC NEWS - 10 million NY TIMES - ? Washington Post - ? Every paper in the country....???? Every local tv station in the countryFox has 3 million…you probably have 300 million in one form or another. How many likes does a Taylor Swift have on her Youtube video? a 100 million? You have Facebook cutting off around 90% of all conservative content. You have Twitter shadow banning every post that doesn’t kowtow to the progressive agenda. You have Google effectively burying all criticism against democrats, and highlighting every critique against conservatives in their search results. You have “fact check” organizations like Politi-fact that reek bias, and are used to advance dubious claims all the time. If someone happens to disagree with Global Warming on YouTube or Facebook, they run a disclaimer underneath the story to attack the veracity. This isn’t trying to eliminate “fake” news, this is fascism.
You’ve already won…conservatives are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They haven’t taken Trump out yet, so the Fed Reserve is simply going to crash the economy to take him out, which is why they’ve raised interest rates 7 times in the past 2 years. Like I said, you’ve already won. My question to progressives is…do you realize what you’ve won?
-
@KUSTEVE You do agree that Jay Powell runs the Fed, is a Trump appointee, is a Republican, and is the person who makes the final call on the interest rates, right?
-
@KUSTEVE by “deck chairs”, you mean the House, the Senate, the Judiciary and the Executive branch?
-
@approxinfinity And that’s the most insidious part of it.
-
@KUSTEVE lol seriously? What proof do you have that Jay Powell is deliberately undermining Trump?
-
You do realize that part of the reason that the Fed did not raise rates during the Obama presidency was that the economy was in recession when Obama took office, and then was in recovery through 2015. Raising interest rates during the recession or recovery period would have spurred another recession, likely tanking the economy again.
In other words, the conspiracy theory you point out was actually just sound economic policy to aid the recovery. This is not deep state conspiratorial action to hurt the Trump presidency. President Obama took office at the beginning of a recession and oversaw a careful economic policy to end the recession and begin the recovery.
However, economic policy also states that you cannot keep the rates low forever. At some point they must increase. President Trump has touted the recovery. Now he has to deal with the economic policy that comes with it - rising interest rates.
President Trump cut taxes last year to jolt the economy. However, he now has to follow that up with sound economy policy to encourage gradual growth. Cutting taxes or cutting interest rates isn’t a forever solution to economic growth because there is a limit to how much you can cut those things.
Additionally, President Trump may have other motivations for complaining about interest rates. His businesses have hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to various banks. As the interest rate rises, Trump businesses also see their debt servicing rise (the cost they pay on their interest to keep their loans current). Because some of Trump’s debt stems from bankruptcy settlements, he cannot default further without potentially losing his companies and assets to his creditors.
There are competing interests here. The Fed has to start raising rates because they were as low as they could go during the recession and recovery, and are still lower than they probably should be. Businessman Trump has companies that will see their debt service costs skyrocket as interest rates rise - a quarter point increase on hundreds of millions of dollars in loans gets very expensive very quickly.
The Fed has to run economic policy for the nation, not for Trump businesses.
-
There still is no reason to raise the rate numerous times in such a short span of time.
-
We all have our opinions and as I have always indicated they cannot be right or wrong because they are just that, opinions. Now, when we have actual facts it is different because they tend to speak for themselves and even then, different people see them differently.
-
approxinfinity said:
@KUSTEVE You do agree that Jay Powell runs the Fed, is a Trump appointee, is a Republican, and is the person who makes the final call on the interest rates, right?
You have to admit that lot of appointments don’t turnout the way it was expected.
Looking at SCOTUS appointees:
William Brennan, appointed by Eisenhower as a conservative and left as a veritable liberal icon.
Harry Blackmun, appointed by Richard Nixon was supposed to be a conservative appointee to reign the Warren Court and became quite the liberal including taking the lead in the Row-V- Wade case.
Byron White, appointed by Kennedy as a liberal justice ended up being a fairly conservative justice.
John Paul Stevens, appointed by Ford ended up being quite the liberal justice, same as David Souter appointed by Bush.
Lewis Powell, appointed by Nixon who had written extensively in favor of business had quite the turnaround.
Earl Warren, appointed by Eisenhower became the patron saint of the liberal jurisprudential revolution.
The same is true for lots of others appointed to high positions based on their record only to act quite the opposite. Do you think Trump does not regret appointing Sessions as head of the Department of Justice?
Just because Trump appointed Powell does not mean he agrees with what he is doing or that he anticipated he would do what he is doing. Trump has stated he does not agree with the actions of the Fed/Powell but as an independent agency there is not much he can do at this time.
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
approxinfinity said:
@KUSTEVE You do agree that Jay Powell runs the Fed, is a Trump appointee, is a Republican, and is the person who makes the final call on the interest rates, right?
You have to admit that lot of appointments don’t turnout the way it was expected.
You make an interesting point on SCOTUS appointees not being “what they were expected to be.” The SCOTUS is supposed to evaluate the case before them and rule on that.
Conservatives often focus on outcomes when they look at a nominee - they want someone to overturn Roe v. Wade or rule against gay marriage, for example.
Oftentimes, however, cases turn on application of the facts to the law. Roe was decided not because abortion is a fundamental right, but because privacy is a fundamental right. There’s a fundamental right that an individual should be able to make decisions for themselves regarding their body/health, etc. Its right there in the Roe opinion.
Same applies for gay marriage - the state cannot deny it because of equal protection under the law.
So when the SCOTUS ruled on those things, they were ruling that you, as a person that is against abortion, cannot be forced to have an abortion by the government just as much as someone that may want an abortion cannot be prevented from getting one by the government because the government cannot invade your privacy. The ruling wasn’t a one way street. It runs both ways. The government cannot force you to do one or the other because you have a right to privacy to choose for yourself.
The government cannot decide that homosexual couples are not allowed to marry just the same as the government cannot prevent mixed race couples from marrying because that is outside the government’s view. As long as you are of age to enter into a contract, you can legally marry whomever you want, and the government cannot prevent it. Again, its not a one way street.
If the only outcome you seek is the application of law in a fair and unbiased way, you land on those results every time. If, however, you want a specific outcome (abortion ban, gay marriage ban, etc.) then justice cannot be blind. That’s also a two way street.
-
I did not comment on the merits of lack thereof for any specific case since I did not want to make it a political or any other type of issue, that was your take.
I simply indicated that oftentimes appointed/nominated individuals turn out to be quite different than expected, with the head of the Fed being one…tha’s all.
-
@justanotherfan pointed out the tax cuts. With those adding 1.5 to 2 trillion to a hyper economy, the Fed could well have had a good reason for a series of rate increases.
-
Fair point.
I guess my point is that justices shouldn’t be liberal or conservative - they should evaluate the facts of what’s in front of them and rule accordingly, not rule based on a preferred outcome.
-
@approxinfinity for rationality on the Right, it’s simple - there was not one iota of proof that Kavanaugh was ever even at a party with Prof Ford.
It’s therefore completely rational to completely dismiss the charges as totally baseless and false. It’s so clear, even a liberal like Susan Collins could figure it out.
-
@approxinfinity and how is any of that relevant - I don’t buy the charge that he lied about any of it?
Move the goal posts much? From rape attempt to serial rapist to "lied about drinking in HS? Is that rational?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 how would you respond to a charge that you were a serial, canaibal mass murderer? Those Dem Senators deserve to be shamed. They were shameful.
-
I agree. Justices, just like any other judge, should follow the Constitution which is the ultimate law of the land. If the people feel the Constitution needs to be updated/changed there is a process that must be followed and cannot be arbitrarily changed by activist judges that choose to interpret it in a manner that fits a political agenda and contrary to that intended explicitly or implicitly.
-
@approxinfinity you believe, but on what basis, man?
The only basis for anyone’s belief in his guilt that I’ve seen is an additional belief that he lied in his denials. Or an additional charge that he wasn’t suffienciently deferential to his crazy Senatorial accusers.
What facts an evidence do you have that support Ford’s accusation?
-
@JayHawkFanToo nice recap.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 I don’t think he lied. I think that is the belief of those already disposed against him.
As a matter of fact, there are now documents of folks there, that his definition of terms were true to that group and time.
Where is the evidence that shows that’s not true.
But more importantly, this is in effect an argument over how one pronounced “Poh - Tate - Oh” or “Poh - Tot - Oh” back in his HS days. Which is effect to say, it is completely stupid, irrelevant argument given we have a good 20 years of very public service and public evidence of his relationships with people.
-
@mayjay and so is it your professional opinion that an unbutressed 35 year old accusation outweighs the volumes of 20 years very public evidence of upstanding behavior?
-
@justanotherfan but then again, the Judge wouldn’t be hurling outrageously false allegations at the defendant.
-
If a defendant behaved that way in court towards anyone - a witness, the prosecutor, the alleged victim, their own attorney, the judge, someone in the gallery, etc. - they would be held in contempt.
Attempting to justify Kavanaugh’s behavior that way simply isn’t true. No matter what the accusation is, you are expected to conduct yourself with a certain level of professionalism and decorum.
If you have followed the news on exonerated defendants (i.e., people that went to prison for crimes they did not commit), you will notice that even during the appeals process, they conduct themselves with decorum - and these are people that are PROVEN to have been falsely accused. Yet at no point can they behave the way Judge Kavanaugh did without putting their entire appeal in jeopardy.
There is an expectation and Judge Kavanaugh fell well short of that in his hearing, and it simply does not matter whether the allegations were true or false. His level of conduct should have remained at a certain level, and it did not.
-
You have a very one side view of events and your comparison is a straw man argument. Many on your side have argued that it was not a court of law and it cannot be compared to one.
In any case, in a real court of law the defense attorneys would be objecting to most of what he was asked as it was hearsay and a real judge would caution the prosecutor to move one or risk being held in contempt.
Kavanaugh behavior was not any different to that of many defendants in court that get in shouting matches with prosecutors.
I believe you compared Kavanaughs demeanor with that of Thomas before but they both have different personalities with Thomas being a very reserved individual that would not get excited but his words were every bit as biting as those of Kavanaugh.
Maybe Kavanaugh should have taken a page of the Hillary playbook and proclaimed…What difference at this point does it make? Of curse there was plenty of recent and corroborated evidence that she lied…and people actually died, compared to 36 year old unsubstantiated allegations against Kavanaugh…Hillary got away with it, right?
-
@JayHawkFanToo Hearsay? I think your class on evidence was woefully inadequate. Where do you see hearsay issues in the questioning of Kav?
-
Can you define hearsay under the rules of evidence without looking it up?
-
@justanotherfan If he can I would be shocked! I know I could define hearsay, but the rules of admissibility (the exceptions and exclusions) always required careful review even back when I was practicing.
In a couple commodity fraud cases, this one jerk attorney kep objecting to my questions of the plaintiff regarding what promises he said the defendant broker had made. “You are asking for hearsay, Your Honor!” Probably about 6 objections until I finally threatened to kick him out of the case and default his client as a sanction.
People think hearsay is any quote people testify about. Drives me nuts to watch virtually any legal show.
-
Unverified or uncorraborated information?
-
@JayHawkFanToo Not at all close. It has nothing to do with verifiabilty of an allegation (although the history of the hearsay rule’s exceptions and exclusions are largely based on assumptions about likelihood of accuracy).
Hearsay is an out of court statement (by a Declarant) offered (in testimony by a Witness in court) to prove the assertion contained in the statement. E.g., Witness testifies that Declarant stated that the car was going fast. Hearsay? Yes, if offered to prove that the car was going fast, and if it is, normally it would be inadmissible if it doesn’t fall into an exception (here, it might be that Declarant said it as he jumped out of the way, and it might be admissible as an “excited utterance”. If the Declarant was talking 2 weeks later, maybe not admissible because statements made after reflection are not “excited” utterances.)
If Declarant is the opposing party to the side offering the witness, Declarant’s statement would be offered as an admission, and then it comes in as an exclusion to the rule. Exceptions are hearsay that is allowed; exclusions are things that look like hearsay but are not hearsay because of their purpose in the proceeding, i.e., who said it and why is it offered. (I still get exclusions confused because the list of exceptions is so long.)
In this example, if it is offered only to prove the Declarant could speak (not the speed of the car), then it is not hearsay, just ordinary testimony, and it comes in.
In my cases I mentioned before, the customer was testifying that certain promises were made to him about no-risk profits to be made if he opened the account. The customer was not saying that the statements by the broker were true (just the opposite!), only that the fraudulent statements were made. Thus, no hearsay. (Incidentally, hearsay was totally admissible in my proceedings anyway due to the type of forum).
There are lots of exceptions for certain documents, business records, self-certified official records, dying declarations, statements against interest, prior testimony, etc, all depending on the circumstances. Some depend on unavailability of the Declarant as well.
Kav’s testimony in response to the questions would have been fully admissible with regard to anything he said or did previously. Had he been on trial, the other complaining women besides Ford (since she directly testified, everything she said was admissible) would have had to testify to get their written statements in unless the defense stipulated to the admission of written testimony (and no atty would stipulate to that because of no cross-examination). Kav’s own letter to his fellow beach bums and his calendar were admissible because he prepared them.
Now you have a glimmer, just a glimmer, of how much more complicated the hearsay rule is than common usage makes it sound. “He said, she said” cases have to do with who is more believable, and nothing to do with hearsay, if both “he” and “she” testify.
-
Would it be better to say citing facts not in evidence? Most of Dr. Ford’s testimony was uncorroborated since she did not even remember when or where it happened, how she got where she thinks it happened or how she got home afterwards and her testimony of the events was disputed by ALL the witnesses she named including her best friend. Other portions were also shown to be plain false…lots of information on the subject readily available via a quick Internet search so you don’t have to take my word for it.
I am sure you remember what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said that he could not use words to describe pornography but “I know it when I see it.” Likewise, many of us non-lawyers perhaps cannot or should not use legalese to describe a smear campaign or its components but like Justice Stewart…we know it when we see it.
Of course you will disagree but that is OK, I am aware what your idea of double standard is. Amazing how you concentrate on little insignificant details and yet ignore the elephant in the room, no pun intended.
-
@JayHawkFanToo You are arguing with someone else, apparently. I have trashed the Dem senators and discussed at length factors both against and for the credibility of Ford. You called Ford’s accusation hearsay, and, just like your misapplication of the presumption of innocence, it was just flat wrong. When you try to sound like a lawyer and are flat out wrong, you will get called on it. Then admit it, and move on. You really should have plenty of practice by now.
Wrong also is your assertion about Ford’s allegations being not in evidence. Yes, they were. Her written submissions and her sworn testimony are evidence. You might not believe them, and you might legitimately contend there is little independent proof. However, that does not make them not evidence. And I still have not seen any independent evidence that supports the contention that her story was fabricated. As have thousands of others, I found Kav’s testimony evocative of a high school kid who, caught breaking into a car, immediately lashes out trying to bully his questioners into submission, ranting about being picked on, inventing imaginary conspiracies, and lying about ridiculous things all the while.
We agree that Pelosi’s office and others mishandled it. But while you think that means Ford’s allegations and the others should be dismissed, I have always simply advocated a deeper investigation, which you and your ilk have resisted because of the need to fill the seat expeditiously, ironic since your heroes blatantly disregarded their constitutional duty by obstructing the very same process in 2016.
And you have the gall to accuse me of having a double standard?
