Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono on Kavanaugh

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Senator Horino said we "need to believe" the accuser, which necessarily means we need to disbelieve Kavanaugh, and deny him a SCOTUS seat, without any due process.

She is saying we should punish Kavanaugh without any due process.

He's not being charged in a criminal court, I'm not sure how due process really applies in a legal sense in this case. I do think it's fair to ensure the allegation is properly looked into now that it's out in the open.

I'll ask you Spence, and have fun with this question...why is Senator Horino saying we "need to believe" Kavanaugh's accuser, but she isn't saying we need to believe Keith Ellison's accuser?

I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison.

Why would anyone who feels this disqualifies Kavanaugh, not feel that Keith Ellison should step down? Both men have been accused of domestic violence against women. One gets a pass form the left, one is presumed guilty from the left. How come?

I think one difference here is that Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story, offering evidence but refusing to produce it etc...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

He's not being charged in a criminal court, I'm not sure how due process really applies in a legal sense in this case. I do think it's fair to ensure the allegation is properly looked into now that it's out in the open.


I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison.


I think one difference here is that Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story, offering evidence but refusing to produce it etc...

"I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison."

Ahhhh, you dodging skills are second to none.

"Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story"

Mrs Fords version that she is telling today, differs from what she told her therapist, so she is also apparently changing her story. She's having trouble remembering where and when it happened, isn't it possible she's misremembering the who as well? This is exactly why we have statutes of limitations.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Mrs Fords version that she is telling today, differs from what she told her therapist, so she is also apparently changing her story. She's having trouble remembering where and when it happened, isn't it possible she's misremembering the who as well? This is exactly why we have statutes of limitations.

The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist. As for her making a mistake on the assailant, that's what an investigation would be for. I don't think she would have come forward unless she personally was sure it was him.

In the Ellison case the initial allegation was actually made by her son which she eventually went along with. She's told the press multiple stories about a video that would prove her story and that she wouldn't give it to them anyway...it's all very strange.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist. As for her making a mistake on the assailant, that's what an investigation would be for. I don't think she would have come forward unless she personally was sure it was him.

In the Ellison case the initial allegation was actually made by her son which she eventually went along with. She's told the press multiple stories about a video that would prove her story and that she wouldn't give it to them anyway...it's all very strange.

"The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist"

True, or it could be a mistake by her.

Spence, Kavanaugh's best ability to prove innocence, would be to show he was somewhere else at the time. How can he begin to do that, when the accuser can't specify the when and the where? There's literally no possible way to defend himself against this.

It's a morally disgusting tactic, but politically very shrewd. No one knows how to bring a gun to a knife fight, like a liberal.

Oh, OK, you don't believe Ellison's accuser because her story is strange. But nothing strange about sending a letter, telling the senate to hold onto it while the FBI is doing a background check, not mentioning it during 38 hours of questioning. Nah, that's normal, at least by current liberal standards.

If I was Trump, if there's another vacancy (please Ginsberg), I'd go out of my way to fill it with the person that the liberals would hate the most, someone who would make them beg Trump to re-nominate Kavanaugh.. "Ability to infuriate liberals", would be near the top of my list of attributes I'd look for.

Your side won big by fighting dirty against honorable men like McCain and Romney. They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, Kavanaugh's best ability to prove innocence, would be to show he was somewhere else at the time. How can he begin to do that, when the accuser can't specify the when and the where? There's literally no possible way to defend himself against this.

That's why you have professionals like the FBI conduct an investigation. They would interview her several times, see if her story changes, talk to others she went to school with, see if there's any corroborating evidence. They might find something or they may simply say there's not enough to form a conclusion.

But the standard here isn't the same as for a crime.

It's a morally disgusting tactic, but politically very shrewd. No one knows how to bring a gun to a knife fight, like a liberal.

I'd say usually it's just the opposite. Dems have a habit of asking "oops, did I hit you too hard?"

Oh, OK, you don't believe Ellison's accuser because her story is strange.

I think it's very strange that she says she has a video and text messages that prove her story but she can't find them or it would be too embarrassing. That doesn't pass the smell test with flying colors.

But nothing strange about sending a letter, telling the senate to hold onto it while the FBI is doing a background check, not mentioning it during 38 hours of questioning. Nah, that's normal, at least by current liberal standards.

My understanding is she didn't want the exposure, it wasn't until a staffer leaked that the memo existed that it was made public. Could be a ruse, no idea.

If I was Trump, if there's another vacancy (please Ginsberg), I'd go out of my way to fill it with the person that the liberals would hate the most, someone who would make them beg Trump to re-nominate Kavanaugh.. "Ability to infuriate liberals", would be near the top of my list of attributes I'd look for

This doesn't surprise me, sounds like a good basis for leadership.

Your side won big by fighting dirty against honorable men like McCain and Romney. They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers.

You continue to have a pretty jaundiced view of things. Also, it's better so say that "we're" lucky he's limited by separation of powers. We'll see how long even that lasts.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd say usually it's just the opposite. Dems have a habit of asking "oops, did I hit you too hard?"

Sure, sure. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh.