Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

False.

Many allegations were not capable of being validated because they happened so long ago. Investigators and attorneys could only do basic discovery such as whether there was even an opportunity for the allegations to take place.

I have represented alleged rape victims against the diocese of Joliet. It was impossible to prove that the abuse took place. What we used was circumstantial evidence such as whether the priest was at the school during the same year time frame that the allegations occurred, whether the student and priest were known to have ever crossed paths and if there was any history of therapy. Whether others made similar allegations against that same priest.

That is all I needed to take it to a jury, and the diocese would always pay out under those circumstances. They are comparable in a number of ways.

 

This is unfortunately the difficult part for GOP supporters lately. ... but but but party of religion and values!

 

your logic is women don't report rapes because people like me question their motives when they don't report rapes? That makes tons of sense. Again you should retract your disgusting statement.

Of course I can question a person's integrity when they accuse someone of something. Everyone does this for lots of accusations. Its not the province of sexual harassment. When you accuse anyone of anything you don't get to automatically be believed. Trump insinuated Cruz's father was pals with lee harvey oswald. Can i question the integrity of that accusation?

 

There have literally been dozens of priest rape cases that led to convictions....because they were credible allegations completely unlike the Ford accusation.

Funny that when you talk about those cases, the people remembered where the attack took place and the specific year it took place....that means they had significantly more to go on than what Ford is bringing to the table.

Also, you are talking about guilty people paying out, not an innocent man being attacked for political reasons. It's just not a similar thing at all. In fact, you do harm to legitimate survivors of sexual assault by trying to compare them to the baseless political attack by Ford.

 

They could, most don't. Who wants to be put on a stand and have your whole sex life broadcast while being accused of being a slut? Who wants to relive the incident? Especially when the person may walk anyway?

Either say something from day one or never say anything at all is your opinion? If it is, you are a shitty person. Everyone wants people to come forward because it helps protect future potential victims, but it hard to blame people for choosing to try and just move past it. I've known 2 rape victims (including one that resulted in pregnancy). I feel for them.

 

So the Republicans aren't allowing any corroborating witnesses or additional testimony? I thought the idea was to uncover the truth but if they expressly forbid any additional people to provide information it becomes clear that they are trying to prevent additional information from being brought forward in this case.

 

because they thought they were doing a good christian thing

You do realize this lady has already told her story to the public. Shes just refusing to do it under oath. Whatever stats and study Major is citing that show why women don't come forward is irrelevant because she has come forward. She's just not going to do it under oath.

 

kavanuagh just had to

no its not.

 

There aren't any corroborating witnesses, in fact, everyone who could corroborate the story denies it. Honestly they are going above and beyond by even allowing her to testify given the baseless nature of her allegations.

 

Nope. There are multiple people that she told about the incident years before Kavanagh was ever nominated. There are witnesses who can testify that Kavanagh's story of being a pure and innocent choir boy is BS. There is a ton of additional corroborating evidence that won't be allowed to testify because the Republicans are barring it.

If the line of crap that you're spewing was actually true, why would Republicans expressly deny the opportunity for these people to come forward and testify before Congress?

The people who have denied have submitted written statements through their lawyers and not had to answer questions. It isn't even an affidavit. Normally when people have different stories they are pulled in and asked questions, made to either get their story on sworn affidavit or actually testify. The Republicans are preventing this from happening.

 

none of those witnesses would be considered corroborating. corroborating witnesses corroborate the claim not that the accuser really stated the claim.

 

Literally none of that actually corroborates her story though because none of those people would have first hand knowledge and none of them could prove that the conversation actually took place. The closest we have to a provable situation is the therapists' notes and they show her telling a few different versions of the allegations and never mentioning Kavanaugh by name. Basically you want to turn this into more of a circus than it already is and getting upset that you aren't going to get that.

If there was anyone with first hand knowledge of the incident that could corroborate her story, they should testify.....none of those people exist.

Normally this story would have been dismissed outright due to a complete and total lack of evidence or basis in which to be believed.....so you really want to handle this "like normal"?

If there was any evidence to support her allegations, there would be a criminal investigation and then you'd get everything you are suggesting should happen.....but unfortunately you are talking about an allegation with no credibility whatsoever.

 

It corroborates that it wasn't something she came up with at the time of the nomination in order to sink Kavanagh. It isn't as if she said nothing until it became in the Democrats interest.

 

thats not what a corroborating witness is. In court, that person would be useless.

 

It really doesn't though. There's no way to prove that the conversation took place, so it doesn't validate the initial story, especially when you factor in that Kavanaugh's name never popped up in a situation where you could prove that it happened, in therapists' notes. That's why it would rightfully be seen as a waste of time and not something you bring someone to testify about.

Again, if anyone can come forward with first hand testimony corroborating her story, I'd be all for it, but....well we all know her story is baseless, it's just that some of us won't admit it for political reasons.

 

Not useless against people that claim she her claim is less credible because it is politically motivated, and that if it were real she would have told someone before Kavanaugh was nominated.

 

Again if they were actually looking for the truth, or wanted more information about what happened they wouldn't have expressly forbidden it. If there is nothing to come out from the testimony why forbid it?

 

LOL, no, there's no way of proving that story true so it would be just another potentially fabricated story to "corroborate" a potentially fabricated (or amended) story. You can't build a defense of her story on a foundation that shitty.

As to why would you forbid that kind of BS, they have things to do, I know if they were allowed to they'd call 50 "witnesses" that have no first hand knoweledge whatsoever simply to make the process as long as possible, but they've delayed things too long already over a story with absolutely nothing to back it up. Honestly they should have just dismissed the allegation from the start when it came out that there was no basis for it and no one backed up her claim.

 

All of what you say only makes sense if you've already judged. You have made your final decisions so there is no reason to allow anything to the contrary.

But for people who are supposed to have an open mind, then none of what you say is applicable at all. For people who would want to find the actual truth one way or the other, they would want to get as much insight as possible.