Griff, what's this I hear about you reading into stuff things aren't there? I hear tell you've been exaggerating situations and posting sensationalized material! Just who do you think you are, tw? Paranoia is a lonely place. You don't want to go there. :headshake

Shane Griff, come back!

I'm totally cool with you owning whatever is the fruit of this. Right totalitarianism is a thing.

In the Desert
 

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.

I said, "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter -- bitter,"he answered;

"But I like it
"Because it is bitter,
"And because it is my heart."

-Stephen Crane

btw: I hope you didn't think I was calling you a rapist, that was not my intention.

wasn't me you called rapist, it was someone else, and it's an unevidenced allegation
 

I'm bettin' if 'you' were accused you'd want the presumption of innocence.

I would and I'd fuckin' demand it.

Hell, even that piece of garbage, tw, deserves the presumption of innocence..

But, if he's a repub con (a category of human only slightly less odious to me than dem progs); he's guilty, don't you know.

And when you can't get him on misusin' his cock, crap about perjury and being unfit gets foisted up.

Interesting how when the guy or gal is aligned with you, well -- holy shit! -- they're fit! And whatever slippery games such a person plays with facts, well, not only is a blind eye turned, both eyes are dug sloppily out of the sockets with a rusty spoon and fed to the dogs.

The depth of hypocrisy among some of you is incredible. Only in the 'Freethought Forum' do I find even more pernicious hypocrites.

It wasn't a criminal trial. Totally different rules apply. And even in a criminal trial where there is a presumption of innocence, accusers are allowed to tell their side of the story.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. You think an accuser shouldn't be allowed to tell their side of a story?

"I don't know what point you are trying to make."
 

C'mon, guy...my 'point' is in every goddamned post of mine in-thread.

You know this.

#

"It wasn't a criminal trial. Totally different rules"

Yeah? Next time 'you' get accused of sumthin' just eat it. Your boss sez you did X when you didn't, just shut the hell up and eat it, cuz it's not a criminal trial, just an 'employment issue', right? Or your significant other declares you're bein' dumped cuz you were unfaithful: shut up and eat it; it, after all, isn't a criminal trial, just a 'marital issue', yeah?

Innocent till proven guilty isn't 'just' a legal construct. It's a cornerstore of civilization. It applies across the board, all the time, for everyone. If you declare you've been wronged, if you would take another to task for an offense, then PROVE IT.

Unfortunately the GOP didn't allow her to try to prove it and we potentially have a rapist on the Supreme Court. Yay for your side.

This was simple hardball, Republicans chose a potential rapist over the possibility of a delay.

True enough.

Yeah I deleted it sorry, I don't know how to say what I would like to say.

I think I get caught up in point making and get way the fuck off track.

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

"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.

that there is a pretty good assessment, toad
 

.

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.