LogFAQs > #909377459

thedeerzord posted...

darkknight109 posted...

...aaaaand a second woman has now come forward and claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were both first years in university.

Proof?

Proof that someone's come forward? That's easy!

https://www.google.com/search?q=Kavanaugh+Second+Accuser

Or do you mean proof that Kavanaugh did it? I don't personally have any, and it's not my job to find any. Fortunately, we have a bunch of people whose job it is to do just that. Somebody really should get them involved at this point.

See, here's the thing - I don't necessarily believe these women. I don't disbelieve them either, but I'm the sort of guy who would like to see the full set of facts before making the call one way or another. But I have figured out something over the years, which is that in a "he-said-she-said" dispute, the party that's pushing harder for more information and a more comprehensive investigation is more likely to be telling the truth; if a party is fighting against those things, that's a big red flag in my eye. After all, sound judgement is founded on good information and right now Kavanaugh and the Republicans are lining up foursquare against gathering more information to render judgement. That's not proof of anything, but it does immediately make me think that they're the party that's trying to hide something.

Revelation34 posted...

You mean that investigative party that will find absolutely nothing because it is something they would never be able to "prove" other than making up "evidence"?

You say that, but I've already posted numerous times in this thread exactly what the FBI could and should be looking into that would either bolster (if not outright confirm) or contradict the claims made against Kavanaugh.

Here's the problem - you, among other posters in this thread, are looking at this entire situation almost perfectly backwards. This isn't a criminal case and Kavanaugh isn't on trial. He has no constitutional right to a Supreme Court nomination, whereas a defendant in a criminal trial has the right to his freedom unless convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal offence.

What this is is a job application. Kavanaugh is, in essence, applying for a new job with lifetime tenure and an extreme level of power and responsibility. He is entitled to an assumption of innocence, but only to a point; if credible allegations arise against him, the burden is on him to disprove those allegations to the satisfaction of his interviewers and the people he represents (and as I write this, The Guardian has indicated that they have heard from a third woman who is planning on coming forward with allegations against Kavanaugh - the judge's job to clear the cloud of doubt hanging over him is getting more difficult seemingly by the hour). Certainly, if I was applying for a job and someone said "Hey, we checked your references and your past employer said you had a habit of stealing office supplies", I would not be saying "I was never charged with or convicted of anything" - I'd be telling them exactly why the allegations were spurious (maybe I had a terrible boss and we parted on bad terms or something) and trying to find proof to bolster my claims (like other employees who went through the same thing).

I will say this - if I was in Kavanaugh's shoes and women were coming forward to accuse me of acts I did not commit, there would be no one screaming louder for an FBI investigation than me. Because even if their claims were flimsy, I would want all doubt erased as to my good character. The fact that Kavanaugh is not stridently requesting a thorough, in-depth investigation speaks volumes.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!