The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2018, 07:24 AM   #1
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
I'll just say this then. Given the facts you know, and the evidence she could not produce, do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?

(Not that it wouldn't open with statute of limitations - which is in place because of specifically these sorts of problems - i.e., cases lose all their potential evidence pro AND con - and human memory is ridiculously flawed over time.)

The anti-Kav side needed her not to go through actual trial conditions, which would have displayed more clearly to the world that there was no criminal case to be made.

The pro-Kav side needed to appear somewhat considerate and not put a potential victim through the kind of grilling a real trial would include.

All this is just part of what made it a perfect storm so that both sides could be seen as angelic from the POV of their constituencies

Both sides got roughly what they wanted although they certainly won't admit that

And so did the public actually - eating this shit up not realizing it's turd sandwiches. We love it, we want it, it's on all channels
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 08:31 AM   #2
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
"Unfortunately the GOP didn't allow her to try to prove it"

I disagree. Seems to me she had her shot and the best she could bring to the table was a claim.

#

"we potentially have a rapist on the Supreme Court."

That's a possibility.

#

"Yay for your side."

How did 'my side' (the weird-ass anarcho-individualists) score a win here?

#

"This was simple hardball"

This is politics.

#

"Republicans chose a potential rapist over the possibility of a delay."

Blame Feinstein.
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 08:33 AM   #3
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
that there is a pretty good assessment, toad

.
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 09:39 AM   #4
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
... do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?
In a criminal trial, witnesses would have been interviewed by trained interrogators. And even would have testified under oath. Criminal trials are also given sufficient time to discover facts.

None of that happened here. Even the victim did not want to testify. And would not have if not outed by an aggressive press.

In a similar situation, how long did it take for Cosby to finally be prosecuted? How many witnesses were interrogated by professionals? Nothing done in a few months is at all related to what must happen in criminal prosecutions.

Even The Don said her testimony was credible. I do not believe any of this was decided on facts. Clear both in video and in comments from close associates; Senator Susan Collins was under threat and seriously disturbed due to unknown sources - be it Sen McConnell or physical violence. Her face and so many security guards demonstrated the pressure.

Decisions clearly were not based in what would exist in a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, I do not believe many of the excuses publicly stated for their conclusions.

But it is the nature of the beast.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 11:02 AM   #5
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
I'll just say this then. Given the facts you know, and the evidence she could not produce, do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?

(Not that it wouldn't open with statute of limitations - which is in place because of specifically these sorts of problems - i.e., cases lose all their potential evidence pro AND con - and human memory is ridiculously flawed over time.)

The anti-Kav side needed her not to go through actual trial conditions, which would have displayed more clearly to the world that there was no criminal case to be made.

The pro-Kav side needed to appear somewhat considerate and not put a potential victim through the kind of grilling a real trial would include.

All this is just part of what made it a perfect storm so that both sides could be seen as angelic from the POV of their constituencies

Both sides got roughly what they wanted although they certainly won't admit that

And so did the public actually - eating this shit up not realizing it's turd sandwiches. We love it, we want it, it's on all channels
I don’t think she can prove it without Kav’s friend rolling over. An extended look at him may have shown a pattern of behavior inconsistent with sitting on the SC.

I do blame Feinstein, both sides played a game which ignored the good of the country in favor of party. My perspective is that of someone who found Dr. Ford more credible.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.