Should aspiring doctors be held to the Kavanaugh Standard?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Kavanaugh is a joke. Regardless of his past - innocent or guilty - the man has no right to be a judge. His emotions are out of check, and it disgusts me that anyone would find him fit to sit in the bench even if cleared of allegations.

Proof? Just watch his reactions and mannerisms during questioning. An absolute embarrassment to those with intellect. What a repugnant individual.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We all agree to that.... he won because he’s not a superficially charismatic politician. We’ve never said otherwise. And he is the perfect man for the job. The results speak for themselves.
Still not sure what results you are talking about
- a tax cut that benefited corporations and the wealthy?
-dividing the country with his rhetoric?
-tarfiffs on our closest allies making the cost of many things more expensive for the average person?
-SCOTUS nominees that came during his term?
-Continuing to use his publicize his family owned business( though they have take a hit
- Healthcare no cheaper and no better off

just the things off the top of my head
 
Kavanaugh is a joke. Regardless of his past - innocent or guilty - the man has no right to be a judge. His emotions are out of check, and it disgusts me that anyone would find him fit to sit in the bench even if cleared of allegations.

Proof? Just watch his reactions and mannerisms during questioning. An absolute embarrassment to those with intellect. What a repugnant individual.

Not really. Most of that was acting and the usual dog and pony show. He was criticized for being too calm during the Fox interview, so he came out swinging and mad. They wore him down with the hours and hours and hours of vetting and he lost his cool a little bit. .....unfortunately this is all a big political chess match. This isnt about evidence or sexual assault. It’s about politics as usual. Too bad Feinstein gets off the hook for sitting on that Ford letter which gave them time to scrub her past, but it was a political win for Feinstein.

Flake is parlaying his power to leverage himself in the private sector, book deal, or Harvard professor job since he has no chance of getting reelected.

Mrs Ford is an opportunist and she will make millions off of this as well as the fame that she never had but always wanted, and of course sticks to her anti-Trump agenda with a big win over him. Her future is bright in the liberal California intellectual circles.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So 1 or 2 allegations of sexual assault as a teenager in high school should define a person for life? If one of your kids gets accused of something like this by another kid, remember this. They are labeled as a sexual predator for LIFE.

This judgmental condemnation attitude does not look good on democrats or anyone else.

I don't care to wade through three pages, so this is a good a starting pint as any.

Here's the mindset of Adcoms when dealing with problematic candidates:
1) Is this someone we want as a student?
2) With all the other candidates we have who don't have this red flag, why take a risk on this one?
3) Can we see this person wearing the white coat?
4) Is this someone you want to do a prostate exam on your dad, a vaginal exam on your sister, or touching your child?

The OP makes for a good hypothetical, but keep in mind that what we actually see in an app are not not accusations, but actual convictions, whether criminal, or sanctions by their UG school.

Me personally? Let's subtract politics, that has no place in admissions. Neither do accusations. Never once in my near 20 years of interviewing has our wily old Admissions dean come to the to Adcom and said something like "I've received communications that this candidate sexually assaulted someone in the past."

What would concern me was the temperment issue, if I saw it in the interview room, or it was raised by an LOR writer.

Honestly, I have no idea what we'd do if an LOR writer said something like "Bret was accused by X # of students of sexual assault. None of these accusations were brought to the attention of the University." It probably lead to a LOT of discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Still not sure what results you are talking about
- a tax cut that benefited corporations and the wealthy?
-dividing the country with his rhetoric?
-tarfiffs on our closest allies making the cost of many things more expensive for the average person?
-SCOTUS nominees that came during his term?
-Continuing to use his publicize his family owned business( though they have take a hit
- Healthcare no cheaper and no better off

just the things off the top of my head
Tax cuts are good and as the wealthy pay far more they should get a larger absolute decrease
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Kavanaugh is a joke. Regardless of his past - innocent or guilty - the man has no right to be a judge. His emotions are out of check, and it disgusts me that anyone would find him fit to sit in the bench even if cleared of allegations.

Proof? Just watch his reactions and mannerisms during questioning. An absolute embarrassment to those with intellect. What a repugnant individual.

He is most definitely fit for the bench. Let me guess, you think he is guilty. I can tell you that if I were being falsely accused of being a gang rapist in the media and then was forced to participate in a political kangaroo court ran by people, half of which had publicly claimed me was "evil", I would have acted with far less civility than he did. The man has daughters. He has been a girl's coach for years. Regardless of whether he is confirmed or not he will be viewed as a sexual predator by a good chunk of the country, and his daughters will have to live with this forever. He will never be able to coach again. Think about this, he has lived such a squeaky clean adult life that the MSM, who was actively looking, could not find a single thing to throw at him from the last 3 decades. The only allegations are from 40 years ago, and only 1 of which is even mildly credible.

No. You don't get to attempt to ruin someone's character and life based on completely uncorroborated allegations from 40 years ago and then get upset when that person gets pissed. Screw that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Collins gave an amazing speech. She’s a uniter. For once I saw no politics.

She did her due diligence mentioning 19 of her assistant attorneys going through all his recent rulings, cited numerous Kavanaugh rulings, three hours of personal conversation with him which Democrat Senators can’t say they had, the rabid press using false arguments to infuriate the population, and Democratic senators who joined in the fray.

Truly a historic moment....she put everything into perspective. The ultimate message was the cornerstone of our democracy is “innocent until proven guilty”. Even though that was a job interview, the Senate operates on principles that are the same.

The only thing I disagree with her about was her defense of Feinstein. She said she believes she didn’t leak the identity of Mrs. Ford, and believes she has a lot of integrity. I haven’t seen that with Feinsteins speeches is on TV.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Collins gave an amazing speech. She’s a uniter. For once I saw no politics.

She did her due diligence mentioning 19 of her assistant attorneys going through all his recent rulings, cited numerous Kavanaugh rulings, three hours of personal conversation with him which Democrat Senators can’t say they had, the rabid press using false arguments to infuriate the population, and Democratic senators who joined in the fray.

Truly a historic moment....she put everything into perspective. The ultimate message was the cornerstone of our democracy is “innocent until proven guilty”. Even though that was a job interview, the Senate operates on principles that are the same.

The only thing I disagree with her about was her defense of Feinstein. She said she believes she didn’t leak the identity of Mrs. Ford, and believes she has a lot of integrity. I haven’t seen that with Feinsteins speeches is on TV.

Collins nalied it. Feinstein has drifted further and further to the left during my lifetime...She's used to be a reasonably Center-Left politician...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Me personally? Let's subtract politics, that has no place in admissions. Neither do accusations. Never once in my near 20 years of interviewing has our wily old Admissions dean come to the to Adcom and said something like "I've received communications that this candidate sexually assaulted someone in the past."

true in med school admission - for residency and fellowship selection it has come up. it becomes a much smaller world as you specialize and subspecialize, people talk and behaviors are seen during rotations and on the interview trail
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
From the original post:

""This is not Justice. This is Wrong... I was immersed in the party scene in college. I drank to excess. I had black out nights. I WAS GROPED AT FRAT PARTIES. If advances were unwanted I pushed the person away and set personal boundaries. I chose to be a part of the party scene. Because of this I had fun and I have regrets. I HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED AND NOT RAPED. I could replay a scenario like Christine Ford described as very similar to things that happened when excessive drinking occurred in my own experiences. "

I could also absolutely say the same thing about my time at college.

But do please remember that Dr. Ford was not a 20-year old college student, but rather a 15-year old high school sophomore. That's an important distinction when establishing what level of personal responsibility one could reasonably hold her accountable to.

"At the age of 25 I settled down and now my idea of excitement is Netflix and yoga pants. If any of my current patients saw my behavior back then, I could understand why they wouldn’t want me to care for them. "

Also fair. And I'd even go so far as to say that Kavenaugh's drunken entitled frat boy behavior is similar in nature. For the time and place, that type of behavior -- which I'm sure he regarded as "harmless drunken horseplay" was not even clearly outside the bounds of normal. I don't think for a minute that Kavenaugh intended to rape Ford -- but mainly because (I M O) he didn't consider that what he was doing actually constituted rape. (That was something strangers did in dark alleys.)

"Character is built partially on learning from mistakes. "

Indeed it is. Had he publicly admitted to youthful stupidity and drunken horseplay and indicated that he had made mistakes and learned something, I'd have no trouble believing in his character now.

Instead he dissembled and outright lied. Under oath. He raged against half of the population accusing them/us of conspiring against him and plotting a 'witch hunt' and conspiring with the Clintons and other vile things. Raged. Yet we should trust him to judge us with compassion? uh, yeah...

"Believing unequivocally the woman is right every single time no matter what is giving women power to take out anyone in their path. "

No responsible person would ever advocate that. Non-specific "Believe women" slogans do not mean "Believe every woman every time". At the same time, examining every accusation by the same standard of proof required for criminal conviction (as is being applied here) is unfair and unrealistic.

Would Kavenaugh and Judge admit to this particular sexual assault if they did it? Almost certainly not. Would they even remember it if they did it? Very possibly not. To them, it was not far outside the social norms of the time. To them, it was a non-event. And they had been drinking heavily. Would anyone else be able to offer proof? Certainly not the people who weren't in the room... People who Ford told about the event after the fact but before the public accusation did make public statements which were then ignored. That's as close to 'proof' as you're ever going to realistically get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Collins looked great.

It's scary that half the Senate is okay with presumption of guilt though. I believe these people would be at the front of the line in a "burn the witch" march.
 
Last edited:
Kavanaugh is a joke. Regardless of his past - innocent or guilty - the man has no right to be a judge. His emotions are out of check, and it disgusts me that anyone would find him fit to sit in the bench even if cleared of allegations.

Proof? Just watch his reactions and mannerisms during questioning. An absolute embarrassment to those with intellect. What a repugnant individual.

Uh if you want to dismiss someone for being repugnant, criticize the Democrats (not Manchin since he's awesome and actually cares for his constituents). Kavanaugh got character assassinated and Democrats don't care about the accusers unless it's for political gain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
He is most definitely fit for the bench. Let me guess, you think he is guilty. I can tell you that if I were being falsely accused of being a gang rapist in the media and then was forced to participate in a political kangaroo court ran by people, half of which had publicly claimed me was "evil", I would have acted with far less civility than he did. The man has daughters. He has been a girl's coach for years. Regardless of whether he is confirmed or not he will be viewed as a sexual predator by a good chunk of the country, and his daughters will have to live with this forever. He will never be able to coach again. Think about this, he has lived such a squeaky clean adult life that the MSM, who was actively looking, could not find a single thing to throw at him from the last 3 decades. The only allegations are from 40 years ago, and only 1 of which is even mildly credible.

No. You don't get to attempt to ruin someone's character and life based on completely uncorroborated allegations from 40 years ago and then get upset when that person gets pissed. Screw that.
You guess wrong, buddy. Re-read my original post. I don’t know why you think I’d give a damn about his rat-ass either way.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Boof is not farting. Devils triangle is not a drinking game. Ralph club is not because of a weak stomach. Renate alumnus is not a term of affection. These are all lies under oath. They are stupid, ridiculous, seemingly unimportant lies. They should mean nothing, but they are still lies. No reasonable person would believe bret kavanaugh in regards to the answers to these questions. Why should we trust him with a lifetime appointment?

Thank you. This!

What he did that night was (in his mind at the time) drunken adolescent horseplay -- hence the laughter Ford noted as her most vivid memory. But to a terrified 15-yo girl trying to scream then just breathe while pinned under a drunk football player trying to rip her clothes off, it didn't feel like harmless fun.

Believe it or not, I can forgive the drunken adolescent stupidity. I can believe that guy can grow up to become a decent caring person. (I went to school with many entitled drunken frat boys who tried to pull similar stunts then eventually did grow up to become good people.)

But lying about it. Under oath. Denying all culpability for any actions even remotely similar? Raging that anyone would have the gall to accuse him and going full-partisan?
-------------------------------------------------------
"As individuals, we've all got our faults and issues. When my patients ask me if I've ever had problems with any of the above, the answer is yes. We're all human.

Still, you can be a functional alcoholic and be a great physician.
You can be a rule breaker and be venerated as an innovator/CEO.
You can be a fornicating womanizer and be President of the United States, from either party.

That doesn't mean you deserve it or that you're the best person for it.

I do think committing perjury over a minor point just to save face suggests a deeper moral failing that is inexcusable, specifically for the position of Justice. I do suspect the little lie here is covering up bigger lies."

-------------------------------------------------------
This. Sexual assault is bad. Rape is worse. While I think he did sexually assault, I don't believe he actually had the intent to rape. And I believe his culpability is mitigated by his youth, the circumstances and culture of the time.

The perjury and lying is recent. The raging and paranoid partisan counter-attacks are recent. Those are unmitigated.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Ford wasnt intoxicated, so she has no explanation for things that every woman who is sexually assaulted can remember"

"Ford has "no memory of key details of the night in question -- details that could help corroborate her account," Mitchell writes. Ford does not remember who invited her to the gathering, how she heard about it, how she got there, or where that house was located with any specificity. "Most importantly," Mitchell writes, "she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house. Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions."

-------------------------------------------------------
Really? I was sexually assaulted at a high school party at age 15. Or possibly 16. (Does the fact that I can't remember if it was before or after my birthday mean it didn't happen?) I don't remember who invited me to the party but it was at Mark's house. (Don't remember Mark's last name and certainly couldn't tell you how to get to his house.) How did I get there and how did I get back home? (Usually I drove, but sometimes I went with a girlfriend. I don't remember in this specific instance. Does that mean I wasn't assaulted?) Who else was there? Uh, the usual gang..? Funny how I can't forget where he tried to put his hands and where he tried to put mine. And I can't forget where the bed was relative to the door and the bathroom, and I can't forget the sound of the bedroom door 'clicking' when he locked it. And I certainly can't forget the feeling of disgust and anger. Does Mark remember? I don't know -- I did tell him at the time, but I'm sure it was far less memorable for him than for me. Do I want to destroy Vince's life? No - He's probably already done that. But do I think he belongs on the supreme court? He!! no and I'll face the trolls then if it ever comes to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
this is getting out of hand just like the Senate building, so im out
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Collins looked great.

It's scary that half the Senate is okay with presumption of guilt though. I believe these people would be at the front of the line in a "burn the witch" march.

They rattled the cage with this bs... GOP landslide in November
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thank you. This!

As it turns out Devil's Triangle is, in fact, a drinking game. The friend who created it came forward and made a legal statement saying so. Boofing could very well mean farting as I can tell you from experience high school boys tend to make up words for stuff like that, ultimately becoming an inside joke, Renate herself says there was never any sexual contact between her and BK so that angle is #fakenews, and not a single person can even place BK and Ford in the same location. Ever.

Your whole statement is from the angle that something did happen between Ford and BK. Bring me something that is actually real with BK instead of some fictional story that you want to piece together from made up facts. We have literally ZERO evidence that they were ever in the same place, let alone that sexual assault happened. Her own friend who was supposedly at this party says she doesn't even know BK is and definitely never remembers a party where they were together. Her story has gaping holes in it.

You guess wrong, buddy. Re-read my original post. I don’t know why you think I’d give a damn about his rat-ass either way.

You care enough to call him a repugnant individual based on nothing but MSM talking points. He has every right to be pissed and it in no way precludes him from the bench.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The fox news regurgitation in this thread is pretty appalling for a place that is supposedly populated with intelligent people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The fox news regurgitation in this thread is pretty appalling for a place that is supposedly populated with intelligent people.

I find it more appalling that intelligent people are willing to draw conclusions off of literally zero evidence. Hell forget about evidence all I want is 1. consistency in the story, and 2. ANY sort of corroboration. Neither of which have occurred in this situation.

Oh and I literally never read or watch Fox News so try again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As it turns out Devil's Triangle is, in fact, a drinking game. The friend who created it came forward and made a legal statement saying so. Boofing could very well mean farting as I can tell you from experience high school boys tend to make up words for stuff like that, ultimately becoming an inside joke, Renate herself says there was never any sexual contact between her and BK so that angle is #fakenews, and not a single person can even place BK and Ford in the same location. Ever.

Your whole statement is from the angle that something did happen between Ford and BK. Bring me something that is actually real with BK instead of some fictional story that you want to piece together from made up facts. We have literally ZERO evidence that they were ever in the same place, let alone that sexual assault happened. Her own friend who was supposedly at this party says she doesn't even know BK is and definitely never remembers a party where they were together. Her story has gaping holes in it.



You care enough to call him a repugnant individual based on nothing but MSM talking points. He has every right to be pissed and it in no way precludes him from the bench.
I was referring not only to his outbursts, but his bouts of weeping as well. This farce- this charade- disgusts me.

The profession he’s chosen is a federal judge; he should have steel-clad nerves akin to a fighter pilot or Navy SEAL, or a surgeon. These aren’t professions for the slight of heart - I demand more from a public servant who desires that sort of echelon of respect and responsibility.

You should damn well feel the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I was referring not only to his outbursts, but his bouts of weeping as well. This farce- this charade- disgusts me.

The profession he’s chosen is a federal judge; he should have steel-clad nerves akin to a fighter pilot or Navy SEAL, or a surgeon. These aren’t professions for the slight of heart - I demand more from a public servant who desires that sort of echelon of respect and responsibility.

You should damn well feel the same.

No. That is straight up bull**** and you know it. Once again, you don't get to publicly destroy someone's character, publicly denounce them as a gang rapist without proof, and then use their emotional response to that as ammo against them. He was accused about being too passive in his interview and then he gets his anger used against him, and then his tears. Screw that. Such tactics are vile, inhumane, and simply wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
No. That is straight up bull**** and you know it. Once again, you don't get to publicly destroy someone's character, publicly denounce them as a gang rapist without proof, and then use their emotional response to that as ammo against them. He was accused about being too passive in his interview and then he gets his anger used against him, and then his tears. Screw that. Such tactics are vile, inhumane, and simply wrong.
I assure you that I completely agree that a man is innocent until proven guilty. I agree that it’s terrible how the left is using dirty tactics against him. I’m basing my response, and opinion, on how labile his emotions have been. He should have remained iron clad, dude. I get that it’s taxing, but he needed to remain professional. That’s what reaches the intelligent and logical.

My opinion is grounded on “the now”, not a hazy past of Tomfoolery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
He should have remained iron clad, dude. I get that it’s taxing, but he needed to remain professional.

And that's ok. You are entitled to that opinion and I can't argue it if you developed it yourself by watching the hearing. My opinion is that he has every right to act the way he did with how it was handled and how he was treated. "Taxing" is the understatement of the year. I have daughters, and if someone made the claims they have made against him against me I would have acted far far more unrestrained. He had been reported as a GANG RAPIST, and was being portrayed as a complete sexual predator in numerous news outlets for 10 days without being able to defend himself or make a statement. He came out swinging a bit and with some emotion. I don't find anything wrong in that and don't think it really has anything to do with his ability to be a judge. He has been a federal judge for years and his temperament has NEVER been brought up as an issue literally until that hearing. Dems were throwing anything they could at him even before the allegations, and yet his temperament was never brought up. That is telling to me. It tells me it is simply another talking point of MSM and the left because they know the sexual assault allegations have completely lost their credibility. People can be emotional in situations like he has been placed in and still do an excellent job. You mention surgeons and Navy SEALS, well they might be great in the moment but I assure you at other times they aren't quite as steeled as they may appear. I know you know this.

Honestly it wouldn't have mattered how he had acted. If he had just sat there and not shown any emotion then that would have been used against him just as much as his emotion has been. He was put into a lose lose situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And that's ok. You are entitled to that opinion and I can't argue it if you developed it yourself by watching the hearing. My opinion is that he has every right to act the way he did with how it was handled and how he was treated. "Taxing" is the understatement of the year. I have daughters, and if someone made the claims they have made against him against me I would have acted far far more unrestrained. He had been reported as a GANG RAPIST, and was being portrayed as a complete sexual predator in numerous news outlets for 10 days without being able to defend himself or make a statement. He came ohut swinging a bit and with some emotion. I don't find anything wrong in that and don't think it really has anything to do with his ability to be a judge. He has been a federal judge for years and his temperament has NEVER been brought up as an issue literally until that hearing. Dems were throwing anything they could at him even before the allegations, and yet his temperament was never brought up. That is telling to me. It tells me it is simply another talking point of MSM and the left because they know the sexual assault allegations have completely lost their credibility. People can be emotional in situations like he has been placed in and still do an excellent job. You mention surgeons and Navy SEALS, well they might be great in the moment but I assure you at other times they aren't quite
And that's ok. You are entitled to that opinion and I can't argue it if you developed it yourself by watching the hearing. My opinion is that he has every right to act the way he did with how it was handled and how he was treated. "Taxing" is the understatement of the year. I have daughters, and if someone made the claims they have made against him against me I would have acted far far more unrestrained. He had been reported as a GANG RAPIST, and was being portrayed as a complete sexual predator in numerous news outlets for 10 days without being able to defend himself or make a statement. He came out swinging a bit and with some emotion. I don't find anything wrong in that and don't think it really has anything to do with his ability to be a judge. He has been a federal judge for years and his temperament has NEVER been brought up as an issue literally until that hearing. Dems were throwing anything they could at him even before the allegations, and yet his temperament was never brought up. That is telling to me. It tells me it is simply another talking point of MSM and the left because they know the sexual assault allegations have completely lost their credibility. People can be emotional in situations like he has been placed in and still do an excellent job. You mention surgeons and Navy SEALS, well they might be great in the moment but I assure you at other times they aren't quite as steeled as they may appear. I know you know this.

Honestly it wouldn't have mattered how he had acted. If he had just sat there and not shown any emotion then that would have been used against him just as much as his emotion has been. He was put into a lose lose situation.
Fair enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
No. That is straight up bull**** and you know it. Once again, you don't get to publicly destroy someone's character, publicly denounce them as a gang rapist without proof, and then use their emotional response to that as ammo against them. He was accused about being too passive in his interview and then he gets his anger used against him, and then his tears. Screw that. Such tactics are vile, inhumane, and simply wrong.

Often times the word of a single victim is enough to convict in a court of law. Without any other "proof". Why should the court of public opinion/a job interview/etc require more "proof" than a courtroom?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Often times the word of a single victim is enough to convict in a court of law. Without any other "proof". Why should the court of public opinion/a job interview/etc require more "proof" than a courtroom?
I'll need some evidence of that if you please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So you don’t have any examples of it happening, just a story quoting a guy who says theoretically it can?

An asst DA says it happens. But if that's not enough for you, case also linked.

There are many others you can easily find if you just Google....and those are just the ones which garner news stories.
 
Last edited:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.poconorecord.com/article/20090828/NEWS/908280347?template=ampart

And here's a rather famous case that is famous because it was overturned, not because they were convicted on nothing more than the word of a lying crackhead....

26 Years Later, Justice for Men Imprisoned for a Bogus Rape
But that’s not “just an accusation” in the same context of the Ford accusations. That was an accusation with a time, a place, and an established connection to the accused made at the time of the event.

This current sutuation is 30yrs later without an established connection, no date, no time
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
But that’s not “just an accusation” in the same context of the Ford accusations. That was an accusation with a time, a place, and an established connection to the accused made at the time of the event.

This current sutuation is 30yrs later without an established connection, no date, no time

1. In a number of states there is no statue of limitations for felonies and/or rape cases. Again, if something meets the standards of a courtroom, why should it not meet the standards of public opinion/a job interview? The fact it was 30 years later without date or time is irrelevant. This wouldn't prevent a courtroom conviction.

2. I was asked to find proof that an accused can be convicted based on the testimony, and the testimony alone, of a victim. The point remains - one can be arrested and convicted based on the word of a single victim, without corroborating evidence. In my quick google search, I came across legal Q&A forums where this exact question was posed. A near dozen attorneys all confirmed yes, someone can be convicted of rape/sexual assault without additional proof. But again, if the words of actual attorneys who try and defend these cases isn't enough for you to believe this happens, I don't know what else to say.
 
1. In a number of states there is no statue of limitations for felonies and/or rape cases. Again, if something meets the standards of a courtroom, why should it not meet the standards of public opinion/a job interview? The fact it was 30 years later without date or time is irrelevant. This wouldn't prevent a courtroom conviction.

2. I was asked to find proof that an accused can be convicted based on the testimony, and the testimony alone, of a victim. The point remains - one can be arrested and convicted based on the word of a single victim, without corroborating evidence. In my quick google search, I came across legal Q&A forums where this exact question was posed. A near dozen attorneys all confirmed yes, someone can be convicted of rape/sexual assault without additional proof. But again, if the words of actual attorneys who try and defend these cases isn't enough for you to believe this happens, I don't know what else to say.
Those examples don't actually meet the actual standards of a courtroom, sometimes the courts just mess up.

Your claim was "often" it happens, we'll just have to disagree on how often
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Those examples don't actually meet the actual standards of a courtroom, sometimes the courts just mess up.

Your claim was "often" it happens, we'll just have to disagree on how often

Yeah, I shouldn't have said often. I can't say how often this happens, just that it's more than a theoretic possibility.
 
Often times the word of a single victim is enough to convict in a court of law.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.poconorecord.com/article/20090828/NEWS/908280347?template=ampart

And here's a rather famous case that is famous because it was overturned, not because they were convicted on nothing more than the word of a lying crackhead....

26 Years Later, Justice for Men Imprisoned for a Bogus Rape

An asst DA says it happens. But if that's not enough for you, case also linked.

There are many others you can easily find if you just Google....and those are just the ones which garner news stories.

1. In a number of states there is no statue of limitations for felonies and/or rape cases. Again, if something meets the standards of a courtroom, why should it not meet the standards of public opinion/a job interview? The fact it was 30 years later without date or time is irrelevant. This wouldn't prevent a courtroom conviction.

2. I was asked to find proof that an accused can be convicted based on the testimony, and the testimony alone, of a victim. The point remains - one can be arrested and convicted based on the word of a single victim, without corroborating evidence. In my quick google search, I came across legal Q&A forums where this exact question was posed. A near dozen attorneys all confirmed yes, someone can be convicted of rape/sexual assault without additional proof. But again, if the words of actual attorneys who try and defend these cases isn't enough for you to believe this happens, I don't know what else to say.

The word of single victim is never good enough to convict in the court of law when A. the story has fluctuating details B. has no corroboration whatsoever C. The people listed to have been present all deny that it happened, especially when one of those people is a close friend of the accuser and has zero reason to defend the accused.

And can we let go of the "it was a job interview" charade? That was no job interview. It was a televised kangaroo court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
yes it was a kangaroo court set up to bolster kavanaugh in all manners. there was nothing about the way that it was set up that was appealing or favored Ford. she asked that it be delayed. initially that was refused, then okay'd by only 3 business days. she requested no outside counsel. that was shot down. she asked that Kavanaugh testify first. that was refused (which personally i agree with). she asked that Judge be questioned so that he wouldnt lie under threat of perjury. noone else was called.

she requested that this not have the appearance of a criminal case. the Republicans set it up specifically to look as much as a criminal proceeding as possible, because they knew that nothing would ever come of it from a legal standpoint. outside counsel asked all the questions to Ford and essentially no questions to Kavanaugh.

if you want to talk kangaroo court, it definitely was - to discredit Ford and bolster the chances of Kavanaugh getting nominated. and he almost screwed it up still by acting like such a partisan biased republican.

FWIW, most innocent men who know the charges are ridiculous would most likely act very nonchalantly, because they know everything is trumped up. imo his weeping and crying and false accusations ainst questioning (which were completely inappropriate and he even admitted it later) were signs that he was either playing up to Trump or there was potentially something concerning in these allegations he felt the need to overreact.
9 ways to tell if someone is lying to you

"The ---- doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet.
 
if you want to talk kangaroo court, it definitely was - to discredit Ford and bolster the chances of Kavanaugh getting nominated. and he almost screwed it up still by acting like such a partisan biased republican.

I would love to have some of what you are smoking. If you really think that hearing was all a ruse to discredit Ford then I don't even know what to tell you. It also shows a complete ignorance as to what was offered to Ford that she (or her lawyers) refused, and the role that the democrats had in everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
yes it was a kangaroo court set up to bolster kavanaugh in all manners. there was nothing about the way that it was set up that was appealing or favored Ford. she asked that it be delayed. initially that was refused, then okay'd by only 3 business days. she requested no outside counsel. that was shot down. she asked that Kavanaugh testify first. that was refused (which personally i agree with). she asked that Judge be questioned so that he wouldnt lie under threat of perjury. noone else was called.

she requested that this not have the appearance of a criminal case. the Republicans set it up specifically to look as much as a criminal proceeding as possible, because they knew that nothing would ever come of it from a legal standpoint. outside counsel asked all the questions to Ford and essentially no questions to Kavanaugh.

if you want to talk kangaroo court, it definitely was - to discredit Ford and bolster the chances of Kavanaugh getting nominated. and he almost screwed it up still by acting like such a partisan biased republican.

FWIW, most innocent men who know the charges are ridiculous would most likely act very nonchalantly, because they know everything is trumped up. imo his weeping and crying and false accusations ainst questioning (which were completely inappropriate and he even admitted it later) were signs that he was either playing up to Trump or there was potentially something concerning in these allegations he felt the need to overreact.
9 ways to tell if someone is lying to you

"The ---- doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet.
That mess didn’t help kavenaugh nor would anyone who wanted him confirmed have asked for it. They were pushed into that with accusations that had no evidence by democrats doing anything they could to stop a republican nominee

Congress never should have gotten involved
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That mess didn’t help kavenaugh nor would anyone who wanted him confirmed have asked for it. They were pushed into that with accusations that had no evidence by democrats doing anything they could to stop a republican nominee

Congress never should have gotten involved

Yeah I don't know how anyone can claim otherwise.
 
The word of single victim is never good enough to convict in the court of law when A. the story has fluctuating details B. has no corroboration whatsoever C. The people listed to have been present all deny that it happened, especially when one of those people is a close friend of the accuser and has zero reason to defend the accused.

And can we let go of the "it was a job interview" charade? That was no job interview. It was a televised kangaroo court.
The word of single victim is never good enough to convict in the court of law when A. the story has fluctuating details B. has no corroboration whatsoever C. The people listed to have been present all deny that it happened, especially when one of those people is a close friend of the accuser and has zero reason to defend the accused.

And can we let go of the "it was a job interview" charade? That was no job interview. It was a televised kangaroo court.

You just added several conditions which had no bearing, nor were present, when I made my initial statement. Simply put, the word of a single victim is enough to convict, as I showed you.

And yes, even if there is counter-evidence to that word, courts may still convict. Also easily found with a google search.
 
And yes, even if there is counter-evidence to that word, courts may still convict.

Sure, but the qualifiers I added are very important because they pertain to this specific case that we are discussing. You are going to have to cite sources to the quoted section. Also, just because something happens from time to time doesn't make it right or correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sure, but the qualifiers I added are very important because they pertain to this specific case that we are discussing. You are going to have to cite sources to the quoted section. Also, just because something happens from time to time doesn't make it right or correct.

Sure, plenty of unjust and/or immoral things happen all the time. I don't believe we were discussing the morality or justness of what was transpiring though. If we did, I believe we would also have a fundamental disagreement there as well.

No point in beating a dead horse though, agree to disagree.
 
I don't believe we were discussing the morality or justness of what was transpiring though. If we did, I believe we would also have a fundamental disagreement there as well.

So you believe what has happened to BK is moral and just?
 
So you believe what has happened to BK is moral and just?

Absolutely. I (mostly) don't believe him either.

I also don't believe people are putting their necks on the line to tell lies about him (i.e. his college roommate at Yale). Now I'm not 100% certain he committed sexual assault, but I am 100% certain he committed perjury under oath by lying about other less significant things to make himself look better. In either case, he is not fit to serve.
 
Absolutely. I (mostly) don't believe him either.

I also don't believe people are putting their necks on the line to tell lies about him (i.e. his college roommate at Yale). Now I'm not 100% certain he committed sexual assault, but I am 100% certain he committed perjury under oath by lying about other less significant things to make himself look better. In either case, he is not fit to serve.

You have a really sh***y view on what is moral and just.
 
Anyone want to comment on the nutty Georgetown professor and her racist comments? How about Georgetown letting her slide?
Outrageous.

For those who haven't seen:
“Look at [this] chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement,” she wrote. “All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.”
--Dr. Carol Christine Fair, Georgetown University

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5843881072001/?#sp=show-clips
 
Outrageous.

For those who haven't seen:
“Look at [this] chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement,” she wrote. “All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.”
--Dr. Carol Christine Fair, Georgetown University

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5843881072001/?#sp=show-clips
that's dangerously close to actually, literally inciting violence
 
You have a really sh***y view on what is moral and just.

Millions of people would disagree with that opinion. But again, there's no point in beating a dead horse. This debate is going nowhere, I'm done here.
 
that's dangerously close to actually, literally inciting violence

Well when you have a president elect who sets that precedent at his campaign rallies, the sort of atmosphere becomes more commonplace.

Yes i agree the professor is a nut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top