Author Topic: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?  (Read 13418 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 271,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,216
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« on: September 30, 2018, 11:52:51 »
I've been following the Kavanaugh hearings for a seat on the USSC and have been noting various senators comments respecting the lack of corroboration respecting Professor Ford's allegations. Usually these come with comments that she was a credible witness.

This made me wonder about the requirement for corroborative evidence (or even "recent complaint) in sexual assault (or rape) allegations in the US because that doesn't exist in Canada anymore.

Quote
Corroboration not required

274 If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272, 273, 286.1, 286.2 or 286.3, no corroboration is required for a conviction and the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 274; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 11; 2002, c. 13, s. 12; 2014, c. 25, s. 16.
Previous Version
Marginal note:Rules respecting recent complaint abrogated

275 The rules relating to evidence of recent complaint are hereby abrogated with respect to offences under sections 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155 and 159, subsections 160(2) and (3) and sections 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 and 273.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 275; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 11; 2002, c. 13, s. 12.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-64.html#docCont

My research brought me to this article in the US and the following quotation:

Quote
Today, the corroboration requirement has virtually disappeared from the modern
rape law.
According to George Fisher, “No American jurisdiction retains a general
corroboration requirement in rape cases. Georgia abolished the last remaining
statutory rule in 1978 . . . and, Nebraska the last remaining common law rule in
1989.”46 As recently as 2004, Michelle Anderson reported that Ohio is one of only
three jurisdictions retaining the corroboration requirement in any of its sexual offense
provisions.47 Deborah Denno noted that even the drafters of the Model Penal Code
“acknowledged the controversy surrounding the rule in the 1970s and stressed that
attitudes toward the doctrine were increasingly in a state of flux.”48 Many legal
scholars have credited feminist critiques of the corroboration requirement as being
largely responsible for its demise. These critics emphasized that no other crime
required the victim to meet special credibility standards, 49 that the corroboration
requirement operated as a barrier to the successful prosecution of sexual offenses,50
and, finally, that no empirical evidence existed to support the notion that women make
a large number of false rape accusations (i.e., that “ladies lie”).51

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1786&context=fac_articles

That begs the question why Republican senators feel that believing Dr Ford isn't sufficient and that there needs to be something more in the way of corroboration when the law doesn't require it?

Maybe Kavanaugh's express lies about his "legal drinking age" and the meaning of "boofing" and "devil's triangle" while under oath will be sufficient to make them doubt his character.

http://time.com/5409564/brett-kavanaugh-drinking-age-maryland/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html

Thoughts?

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 235,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,330
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2018, 12:18:36 »

Thoughts?


The legal requirement to have or not have corroboration would be an issue if the confirmation hearings and eventual Senate vote were a criminal proceeding (or trial of any sort).  Unfortunately, it is not, so the rules of evidence don't apply.  And, judging from the refusal to hold any hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, neither do accepted rules of common decency or, arguably, constitutional requirements.

Those senators (mostly Republican) likely don't give a toss about whether or not Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh or if the nominee was a booze addled sexual predator in his youth.  If they could say "it was a phase he went through and is no longer that person" and not have to face the wrath of voters (well, those that would disagree with such an attitude), there would probably be one or two knuckle draggers who would.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,741
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,115
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2018, 12:28:48 »
I've been following the Kavanaugh hearings for a seat on the USSC and have been noting various senators comments respecting the lack of corroboration respecting Professor Ford's allegations. Usually these come with comments that she was a credible witness.

This made me wonder about the requirement for corroborative evidence (or even "recent complaint) in sexual assault (or rape) allegations in the US because that doesn't exist in Canada anymore.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-64.html#docCont

My research brought me to this article in the US and the following quotation:

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1786&context=fac_articles

That begs the question why Republican senators feel that believing Dr Ford isn't sufficient and that there needs to be something more in the way of corroboration when the law doesn't require it?

Maybe Kavanaugh's express lies about his "legal drinking age" and the meaning of "boofing" and "devil's triangle" while under oath will be sufficient to make them doubt his character.

http://time.com/5409564/brett-kavanaugh-drinking-age-maryland/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html

Thoughts?

 :cheers:

I think the most damning aspect of this event is that many have used the "it was 30 years ago" or "he was young and made a mistake" excuse to justify his nomination. This is a very very poor precedent, particularly when discussing a nomination for the supreme court. If the witnesses are deemed credible (and based on their credentials and their testimony it is reasonable to say they're credible) than how can republicans justify his nomination? surely there must be another conservative nomination that could be passed through without sacrificing their political futures....

The reality for most sexual assault victims is that (if you believe statistics) only 6 of every 1000 are reported, with only 3 convictions from those 6. The key issue is generally that rape/sexual assault is by its nature a "he said/she said" event as generally they don't occur in front of people. So, the question is always how do you maintain the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty with the singular nature of the crime and support victims rights? That's the crux of the Cavanaugh debate. IMHO, this should force his nomination from the top court of the land, at least until the facts can be proven in court.

Finally, there's the question of the independence of the supreme court as an institution. How does the court prove itself to be anything other than a partisan tool of either party if you have a judge on it who holds even the stigma of impropriety at best or the belief among a significant portion of the population that they're a sex offender at best?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,289
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2018, 13:45:17 »
The legal requirement to have or not have corroboration would be an issue if the confirmation hearings and eventual Senate vote were a criminal proceeding (or trial of any sort).  Unfortunately, it is not, so the rules of evidence don't apply.  And, judging from the refusal to hold any hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, neither do accepted rules of common decency or, arguably, constitutional requirements.

Those senators (mostly Republican) likely don't give a toss about whether or not Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh or if the nominee was a booze addled sexual predator in his youth.  If they could say "it was a phase he went through and is no longer that person" and not have to face the wrath of voters (well, those that would disagree with such an attitude), there would probably be one or two knuckle draggers who would.

Is the evidence of the numerous women who stood up for him any less valid using the same test?

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 350,101
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,143
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2018, 13:58:44 »
I've been watching this a little and it seems like a huge train wreck.

Ford seems like a huge train wreck herself. I'm not sure if she's normally a wreck of a woman or if her defense team made a point of making her appear as homely as they could. I'm not saying that to be a dick, I think she's being used and abused by the democrats.

Tons of inconsistency with her defense. Sure she was super emotional, I guess to many that equals credibility. But if I'm not mistaken the 3 or 4 witnesses she had all basically denied Kavanaugh's culpability.

It's scary at how many Americans seem willing to forget or ignore lack of evidence and proof. Trying to pick him apart for being angry at being called a rapist and having his life turned upside down is hilariously delusional.

Sen. Graham's rant on Ford's Kavanaugh testimony says it all.

It's all delay tactics to try and block Trump from filling that seat.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 553,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,677
    • The job.
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2018, 14:24:20 »
Delaying a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court for seven days? I'm shocked! < sarcasm  :)

The Republicans delayed Merrick Garland's nomination for 293 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland

« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 15:20:08 by mariomike »

Offline reverse_engineer

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 65,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,665
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2018, 14:46:03 »
I've been watching this a little and it seems like a huge train wreck.

Ford seems like a huge train wreck herself. I'm not sure if she's normally a wreck of a woman or if her defense team made a point of making her appear as homely as they could. I'm not saying that to be a dick, I think she's being used and abused by the democrats.

Tons of inconsistency with her defense. Sure she was super emotional, I guess to many that equals credibility. But if I'm not mistaken the 3 or 4 witnesses she had all basically denied Kavanaugh's culpability.

It's scary at how many Americans seem willing to forget or ignore lack of evidence and proof. Trying to pick him apart for being angry at being called a rapist and having his life turned upside down is hilariously delusional.

Sen. Graham's rant on Ford's Kavanaugh testimony says it all.

It's all delay tactics to try and block Trump from filling that seat.

I agree that the timing and circumstances for this are a bit suspect. Not to mention, he will now always be guilty in the court of public opinion.

With that said, sexual assault/sex crimes are horrible things (anyone that's had to investigate/deal with them in their careers can attest) that don't ever leave the mind and need to be taken very seriously.

Unfortunately it's a subject where there is never truly justice for victims, or for the wrongly accused.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,926
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2018, 16:30:55 »
I heard a commentator, on Fox and very proTrump, claim Doctor Ford's recall was based on regression therapy, which according to a number of sources is a dubious methodology. I don't know if this is true or not, and she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this is a smear, but who knows?

Remember back in the 1990s there was a spate of charges and convictions for child sexual abuse based on something called recovered memory syndrome. It was later determined the incidents were planted by the therapists and did not occur.

I am not being judgemental and would just as soon that the regression therapy played no part in this. However, I don't know, and the recovered memory rush to judgement made me suspicious of long past incidents suddenly being asserted as fact.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 16:34:22 by Old Sweat »

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 121,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,457
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2018, 17:11:19 »
In the US we have a statute of limitations. The FBI now has begun to investigate these 36 year old allegations. The Democrats are doing everything to derail this nomination.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 282,737
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,676
    • Army.ca
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2018, 18:12:44 »
In the US we have a statute of limitations. The FBI now has begun to investigate these 36 year old allegations. The Democrats are doing everything to derail this nomination.
.........and one can only wonder at the hullabaloo had this been a democrat and the POTUS was democrat and the GOP trotted out a whole bunch of dubious accusers and smear campaigns in order to subvert the process. The fact that none of this was revealed when the democrats approved his nomination to the federal court, very quickly, is totally suspect in itself.

The FBI has a week, then they can give the GOP Senate a chance to bypass the committee and blow up the filibuster. The sooner the better.

Meanwhile, it's a good thing our PM isn't open to hearings like this. However, then again, why not?
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,363
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2018, 20:47:21 »
Not knowing what "corroboration" means in a legal sense, I went to Wikipedia.

"Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition."

What would be the initial evidence?  The accusation and the victim's story presumably are the proposition, and the only other evidence available supports Kavanaugh strongly.  If a person can be deemed guilty based on a story, then the liberal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has been shat out, along with the general idea "better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted".  If unsupported stories are deemed sufficient, then prepare for many false claims (the kind that are unproven and can neither realistically be proven or disproven) to be levied in future as weapons (in politics, in the workplace, etc).

To summarize, Kavanaugh isn't guilty of anything, and all the people suspecting or alleging guilt have taken leave of their senses (by virtue of ignoring the evidence) in pursuit of their politics.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is the default out of the court as well as in it, except for people inclined to tyranny.  All of the questions people claim have been raised about Kavanaugh's history or temperament speak only to their own prejudices and political agendas.  The Democrats on the committee were raising infantile points and deserved to be brought up short.

People are reading too much into the boilerplate "I found Ford credible" statements.  People against the nomination have a strong motive to say it even if they don't believe it, because they want the nomination torpedoed.  People with reputations (politicians and other public figures, people who are worried about their in-group status, etc) who are for the nomination also have a strong motive to say it, because they don't want to be at the bottom of a pig wrestling match.

Similarly, I doubt the additional weeks' delay is something Republicans regret.  Rachel Mitchell was there to insulate the Republican members of the committee from political (election campaign) heat.  Playing along with the demand for one more FBI "investigation" is also political insulation; Flake, who is not seeking re-election, not coincidentally was one of the few Republicans who could initiate it without consequences from Republican voters.

That everything has been played to effect political delay, including all the excuses made to delay the hearings and to delay and extend any kind of further investigation, tends to negate the possibility that any of the accusations have any merit.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,745
  • It's all good
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2018, 21:32:47 »
Highest court

Highest standard.

Pretty simple.

For all the apologisers and conspiracy theorists, try applying the above litmus test to your odd protestations.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,363
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2018, 21:44:23 »
In which case Kavanaugh should be confirmed.  He's had an exemplary career and led a praiseworthy life.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 271,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,216
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2018, 21:47:48 »
Not knowing what "corroboration" means in a legal sense, I went to Wikipedia.

"Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition."

What would be the initial evidence? The accusation and the victim's story presumably are the proposition, and the only other evidence available supports Kavanaugh strongly.  If a person can be deemed guilty based on a story, then the liberal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has been shat out, along with the general idea "better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted".  If unsupported stories are deemed sufficient, then prepare for many false claims (the kind that are unproven and can neither realistically be proven or disproven) to be levied in future as weapons (in politics, in the workplace, etc).

To summarize, Kavanaugh isn't guilty of anything, and all the people suspecting or alleging guilt have taken leave of their senses (by virtue of ignoring the evidence) in pursuit of their politics.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is the default out of the court as well as in it, except for people inclined to tyranny.  All of the questions people claim have been raised about Kavanaugh's history or temperament speak only to their own prejudices and political agendas.  The Democrats on the committee were raising infantile points and deserved to be brought up short.

. . .

The sworn statements by any complainant in an assault case (including sexual assault) is in fact evidence and not a mere "story". If believed then it is sufficient to convict. If the accused also presents evidence which is credible then that leads to a reasonable doubt upon which he/she should be found not guilty.

Thousands of people in Canada are convicted on the basis of evidence by a sole complainant every year. That's how the law works both here and in the US.

There is no evidence that supports Kavanaugh "strongly". Kavanaugh denies the incident. That is evidence which is open to be looked at critically by anyone since it's self-serving. No other witness has come forward to deny that the event occurred. At best there are people who say they have no memory of it. In the case of Mark Judge it too is self-serving but in short supports nothing one way or the other.

You are right that Kavanaugh hasn't been found guilty of anything. I'm not sure but I presume that the jurisdiction where this happened probably has a statute of limitation on it (Canada doesn't) so I presume he will never be charged with anything much less convicted.

In the spirit of full disclosure I don't like Kavanaugh but my dislike is based on the fact that he is a "constitutional originalist" and entirely too strong a supporter of Presidential immunity. Up until recently I considered him an upright citizen.

What the recent hearings have led me to believe is that he was an entitled frat boy jock in high school and college with a definite drinking problem. More recently there have been questions about his gambling and the $200,000 for baseball season tickets he spent for friends and was repaid. I don't consider that a proven issue one way or the other. His testimony, which I watched, left me with the distinct impression that he lied through his teeth to the committee in order to minimize his youthful indiscretions (I don't include the more serious Ford allegation as an indiscretion; just the general frat boy stuff). Calling his drinking as being at a legal age when it clearly wasn't, his false definitions of "boofing" and "devils triangle" and claiming that his reputation for "ralphing" comes from a weak stomach and not overindulgence in alcohol and the mischaracterisation of the other attendees letters and the numerous other incidents of evasiveness and rationalization all make me question his integrity. This is easily on a par with Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" -- and I know how you feel about that one. To me a lie is a lie. I thought Clinton was a liar then and I think Kavanaugh is one now.

 [cheers]
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,741
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,115
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2018, 21:48:00 »
In the US we have a statute of limitations. The FBI now has begun to investigate these 36 year old allegations. The Democrats are doing everything to derail this nomination.

the question isn't in regards to a criminal investigation or statutes of limitations and the statement seems to miss the broader point of debate- do you want someone who potentially committed a serious sexual crime (and if he had been convicted would be on a list) to be a judge on the supreme court? Does this judgment seem worthy of the position that is being offered? Regardless of political affiliation (which lets be honest, this is all this is) there is due diligence that should be conducted.

.........and one can only wonder at the hullabaloo had this been a democrat and the POTUS was democrat and the GOP trotted out a whole bunch of dubious accusers and smear campaigns in order to subvert the process. The fact that none of this was revealed when the democrats approved his nomination to the federal court, very quickly, is totally suspect in itself.

The FBI has a week, then they can give the GOP Senate a chance to bypass the committee and blow up the filibuster. The sooner the better.

Meanwhile, it's a good thing our PM isn't open to hearings like this. However, then again, why not?

Your assertion that democrats/liberals would be treated any differently seems to not really hold water when one considers the fates of Weinstein, Spacey, and Al Franken. Al Franken of course was very much a democrat and was very much forced to resign under investigation by democrats for misdoings which arose. As for the assertion that the GOP doesn't regularly trot out dubious accusers and conduct smear campaigns to subvert a political process, I can only assume that you are being tongue in cheek as you only need look as far as the "birthers" and the prolonged witch hunt about email servers and Benghazi that Clinton was under (or the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton for a consentual if ill advised sexual relationship).

Not knowing what "corroboration" means in a legal sense, I went to Wikipedia.

"Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition."

What would be the initial evidence?  The accusation and the victim's story presumably are the proposition, and the only other evidence available supports Kavanaugh strongly.  If a person can be deemed guilty based on a story, then the liberal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has been shat out, along with the general idea "better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted".  If unsupported stories are deemed sufficient, then prepare for many false claims (the kind that are unproven and can neither realistically be proven or disproven) to be levied in future as weapons (in politics, in the workplace, etc).

To summarize, Kavanaugh isn't guilty of anything, and all the people suspecting or alleging guilt have taken leave of their senses (by virtue of ignoring the evidence) in pursuit of their politics.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is the default out of the court as well as in it, except for people inclined to tyranny.  All of the questions people claim have been raised about Kavanaugh's history or temperament speak only to their own prejudices and political agendas.  The Democrats on the committee were raising infantile points and deserved to be brought up short.

People are reading too much into the boilerplate "I found Ford credible" statements.  People against the nomination have a strong motive to say it even if they don't believe it, because they want the nomination torpedoed.  People with reputations (politicians and other public figures, people who are worried about their in-group status, etc) who are for the nomination also have a strong motive to say it, because they don't want to be at the bottom of a pig wrestling match.

Similarly, I doubt the additional weeks' delay is something Republicans regret.  Rachel Mitchell was there to insulate the Republican members of the committee from political (election campaign) heat.  Playing along with the demand for one more FBI "investigation" is also political insulation; Flake, who is not seeking re-election, not coincidentally was one of the few Republicans who could initiate it without consequences from Republican voters.

That everything has been played to effect political delay, including all the excuses made to delay the hearings and to delay and extend any kind of further investigation, tends to negate the possibility that any of the accusations have any merit.

The reality of sexual assaults is that they are by their nature a "he said/she said" crime as generally people aren't raped in a group setting. So, how does the legal system then punish offenders unless there is some mechanism. Moreover, one of the key reasons why women don't come forward is due to feelings of hopelessness and helplessness that include seeing how other women (such as in this case) have been treated and that they wont be believed. The difficulty with a high profile case such as this (or Clarence Thomas) is that it reinforces this image that there's no point in coming forward because you're just going to be accused of lying. Frankly, comparing her and Cavanaugh's testimony was enlightening- she told a story and he got irrationally angry, which made him look guilty (in a personal sense not necessarily a legal sense). Absolutely there must be fair proceedings and the accused must be seen as innocent until proven guilty, but the accuser must also not be viewed as "lying until proven not to be" which unfortunately is how this is always done. If that was your daughter/sister/mother I feel you would have a different opinion. But it's only for a seat on the highest court in the US, so no reason to do any due diligence.

What I dont really understand is why the Republicans are willing to do on the hill for this particular judge. If/when he is pushed through they will lose a ton of political capital, unless it has something to do with his views on executive branch authority and his statement that, "Congress might consider a law exempting a President -- while in office -- from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel."

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,745
  • It's all good
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2018, 21:48:19 »
In which case Kavanaugh should be confirmed.  He's had an exemplary career and led a praiseworthy life.

Other than that unresolved sexual assault allegation, the ABA concerns 12 years ago, and again the recent ABA concerns....but yes, other than that and....oh wait - there was the partisan outburst during his hearing and his churlishness under questioning...but other than all that, I am sure you have it right - very exemplary, very praiseworthy.

"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 271,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,216
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2018, 22:08:32 »
Other than that unresolved sexual assault allegation, the ABA concerns 12 years ago, and again the recent ABA concerns....but yes, other than that and....oh wait - there was the partisan outburst during his hearing and his churlishness under questioning...but other than all that, I am sure you have it right - very exemplary, very praiseworthy.

See here:

Quote
The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.b1b4314294ff

 [cheers]
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,569
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2018, 22:18:18 »
Other than that unresolved sexual assault allegation, the ABA concerns 12 years ago, and again the recent ABA concerns....but yes, other than that and....oh wait - there was the partisan outburst during his hearing and his churlishness under questioning...but other than all that, I am sure you have it right - very exemplary, very praiseworthy.

Just clarify, the ABA have no special concerns with Kavanaugh, and continue to rate him as “well qualified” and beyond reproach. They recommended him to the Senate to proceed. Their concern is with the process that has unfolded and support the FBI investigation (which they support) on the sole fact it should not (hopefully) be a partisan led or directed investigation. Further, the ABA is concerned only with allegations raised by complainants, and not the wider probe that is being demanded.

Kavanaugh will fall down not because he did anything to any of these women ( he probably didn’t) but he will go down because of his testimonial conduct and his own credibility in regards to the partisanship allegiance that he revealed in his testimony.
I find it ironic and disconcerting that Ginsberg, now off the court, has come out swinging as a full blown advocate for the partisan nature of judicial nominees as an acceptable method to vet beyond the pale. Although always a strong and persuasive minority voice, she was often the one creating judgements leading the opinions on protection of individuals suspected or accused of fundamental criminal or civil rights for persons accused, militating against narrow minded and poorly executed investigations by the state, and was generally a voice for those who are accused without credible evidence beyond bare accusations. In fact this was the very thing she railed against while on the court.
... Move!! ...

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 271,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,216
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2018, 22:23:44 »
Just clarify, the ABA have no special concerns with Kavanaugh, and continue to rate him as “well qualified” and beyond reproach. They recommended him to the Senate to proceed. Their concern is with the process that has unfolded and support the FBI investigation (which they support) on the sole fact it should not (hopefully) be a partisan led or directed investigation. Further, the ABA is concerned only with allegations raised by complainants, and not the wider probe that is being demanded.

Kavanaugh will fall down not because he did anything to any of these women ( he probably didn’t) but he will go down because of his testimonial conduct and his own credibility in regards to the partisanship allegiance that he revealed in his testimony.
I find it ironic and disconcerting that Ginsberg, now off the court, has come out swinging as a full blown advocate for the partisan nature of judicial nominees as an acceptable method to vet beyond the pale. Although always a strong and persuasive minority voice, she was often the one creating judgements leading the opinions on protection of individuals suspected or accused of fundamental criminal or civil rights for persons accused, militating against narrow minded and poorly executed investigations by the state, and was generally a voice for those who are accused without credible evidence beyond bare accusations. In fact this was the very thing she railed against while on the court.

Do you know something about Justice Ginsberg that we don't know????

Last I saw she was still sitting and had every intention of staying there.  ???

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 147,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,792
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2018, 22:25:15 »
As far as I know, Mr. Kavanaugh has not been charged with any crime, nor are the hearings on his appointment before the U.S. Senate a legal matter. There is no "standard of proof" at issue, nor any breach of a criminal statute at play.

This said, it seems to me that the full and sole purpose of "confirmation" hearing before the U.S. Senate are a matter of verifying the suitability and fitness of a proposed appointee for the office for which the appointee is proposed.

In the case of judges of the highest U.S. court, it seems to me that two important factors that should be considered (amongst many and not necessarily above or beyond those others) are whether the proposed appointee shows that he has "good judgement" (in the "common sense" and "fairness"  sense) and is a "wise man" in the most positive sense of the term.

Without going into any debate about the "accusations" against him, I watched his own personal performance before the senate committee and must say that he failed to strike me as someone who has either of those two qualities that I find essential for a Supreme Court judge. In my mind, any Senators who wish to ensure, above party politics, that the Supreme Court is furnished with judges that show good common sense , decency and wisdom should vote against his appointment on the basis of his own appearance before the committee alone.

But that's my personal, free, opinion and it's worth what you pay for it.  :nod: 

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,569
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2018, 22:33:37 »
FJAG: I read those reports and more than less looked at the persons comments -on average- that were interviewed and complained. A record of anti-Bush (primarily Academic) commentary that ran completely counter to the judicial history of the man. In particular, he had been sceptical and challenging on de novo cases for which there was already an existing remedy. And yes, he did not consider the state as an untrustable  enemy of the people.
Still, I don’t think he should get the nod, his testimony was confrontational, he chose words poorly, and opened himself up to inquiry that was self inflicted and I wonder just how many beers each week he really consumes. More than the average judge, apparently.
It may well be that from this past week forward there will never be a judge that is “ good enough”,but in this case he’s just not credible due to claims outside of the sexual misconduct allegations.
... Move!! ...

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 271,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,216
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2018, 22:35:41 »
Yet another of Kavanaugh's former classmates who say that he mischaracterized his drinking problem before the committee. This one's a male.

Quote
North Carolina State University professor Chad Ludington has joined a handful of other former classmates of Brett Kavanaugh in contradicting the Supreme Court nominee’s claims about his past drinking habits.

Ludington told the New York Times in a statement Sunday that Kavanaugh played down “the degree and frequency” of his drinking to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. He said he often saw Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption.”

Kavanaugh, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by three different women, denied in his testimony that there was any possibility he ever drank so much alcohol that he may have lapses in his memory.

Ludington called Kavanaugh’s answers about drinking a “blatant mischaracterization” based on his experiences around the judge when they attended Yale University together.  Ludington claimed he often saw Kavanaugh “belligerent and aggressive” while drunk.

More here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-classmates_us_5bb157bce4b027da00d46d72

 [cheers]
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline kkwd

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 110,282
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 631
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2018, 23:34:15 »
I don't subscribe to forced acceptance. I'll make up my own mind. Diversity of thought and opinion is essential.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,363
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2018, 23:40:52 »
>The sworn statements by any complainant in an assault case (including sexual assault) is in fact evidence and not a mere "story". If believed then it is sufficient to convict.

I understand that then to be the initial evidence.

Nothing that has come to light about Kavanaugh's teenage and university years is remarkably different from what I observed (I went though HS and university at about the same time).  It's foolish to take things written in yearbooks at face value.  It's foolish to assume that the understanding of slang phrases can't differ, or that people sometimes misunderstand them (I know this by numerous examples).  It's foolish to assume that things people say - particularly boys and young men - reflect reality or actual intent rather than wishful thinking or posturing.  Most importantly, though, I know that virtually everyone I knew in HS or uni was a remarkably different person 5, 10, and 15 years later; many of those who were jackasses became serious, accomplished, straitlaced people.  To assume that a person is marked by youthful jackass-ery (excluding serious crimes) much later in life is a failing of the assessor, not the person.  The only relevant item in this case is the accusation of sexual assault.

>you want someone who potentially committed a serious sexual crime (and if he had been convicted would be on a list) to be a judge on the supreme court?

The problem with that is "potentially" is inflicted by mere accusation.  The bar has to be higher than that.

>Weinstein, Spacey, and Al Franken.

Weinstein and Spacey are not politicians.  But Keith Ellison is.  Or ask Democrats how they feel about Juanita Broaddrick, whose accusation has long-standing and was contemporaneous.  Or ask Democrats whether they will revisit Ted Kennedy's reputation.  Some Democrats are, in fact, treated very differently.

>she told a story and he got irrationally angry

Don't forget that Kavanaugh was also accused of orchestrating gang rapes, and was asked inane questions by committee Democrats.  His anger had more than one font.  Most people accused of orchestrating gang rapes should be expected to show emotion.

>impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton for a consentual if ill advised sexual relationship

Clinton was impeached for perjury, not for a sexual relationship.

 Some people are outraged by Kavanaugh's emotional displays (temper); I am complacent - his anger was merited; his scolding (and schooling) of the Democratic committee members was warranted.

The concerns of the ABA from 12 years ago have apparently been resolved (his current rating); the committee stands behind the current rating irrespective of the committee chairman's personal initiative (the letter that got everyone so excited).

Politically, Republicans stand to lose their supporters if they don't vote to confirm, and they never stood to gain support from anyone not already in their camp.  If allegations against Kavanaugh are proven, there is an impeachment process.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 271,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,216
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2018, 00:07:18 »
Brad.

I'm not worried that he was a jackass in high school and college.

I'm worried about the fact that he's lying about it now.

 [cheers]
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/