Steve_American wrote:1] That standard applies to an American court of criminal law where both sides can call as many witnesses as they want.
The nature of the charge was criminal, so fair-minded people would assume the same standards apply.
Steve_American wrote:2] In a kangaroo court one or both sides are not allowed to call as many witnesses as they need.
Nobody was denied any witnesses. Ford's witnesses weren't called, because they all gave sworn statements that they could recall no such event.
Steve_American wrote:3] In this case the FBI was kept from interviewing many people who came forward with evidence. It didn't even re-interview Dr. Ford. Even though she said she had more to add.
They can only do a fact-finding investigation. They cannot conduct a criminal investigation of a non-federal crime. Everybody knew this already. It was just a delay tactic.
Steve_American wrote:4] The FBI didn't interview Kavanaugh about the facts of the accusation. Some say this wasn't necessary, because he had already testified under oath. However, his opening statement contained just one point that is relevant, his claim that he didn't do it. His other testimony was mostly evasions of the actual questions. In an interview it is much harder to evade answering the question.
A criminal defendant isn't required to answer any questions at all.
Steve_American wrote:5] My main point here is in #1 above. Because the Dems could not call additional witnesses it was unable to provide the collaboration that the Repuds asked for. This was so totally because they could not call even one more witness. It was not because there were no witnesses that they could have called.
The term is called "corroboration." They could not obtain any witnesses to corroborate the story. There were sworn statements from Ford's named witnesses, none of whom corroborated her story.
Steve_American wrote:6] The fact that the Repuds of the public can't see the kangaroo court-ness of this process just illustrates their bias.
They could see it just fine. There is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland. If Blasey-Ford wants to file an affidavit of probable cause, she can do that right now and invoke a regular criminal court. She will lose, obviously.
Steve_American wrote:. . a] In traumatic situations it is common to not remember the details around the event but be crystal clear about things like the identity of a known person who attacked you.
Yes. In legal terms, this is called a "reasonable doubt." You have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If your memory is compromised, you are out of luck.
Steve_American wrote:. . b] Dr. Ford named 4 or 5 people who were at the party. Kavanaugh's calendar [which Dr.Ford could not have seen prior] says that several people, who's names match, were all at a party on Fri. night July 1st. Not one of these people says that the attack didn't happen; they all say something like 'I don't remember that particular party'. Which is not surprising, as any memory expert witness could testify to if such experts could have been called. For example, I remember where I was when I heard about the Columbine HS shooting, when JFK was shot, and when I first saw on live TV the 2nd plane crash into the WTC. I could add others. OTOH, I don't remember the date of any of the parties that I went to while I was in college, do you?
Even if we take that at face value, once again we have a situation where you can't prove the case. Most rape victims know where they were, what time it was, where they were before and after, what they were wearing, etc.
Steve_American wrote:. . c] Several people have said on camera that they remember Kavanough from HS or college and they think he must have lied when he said he never got blackout drunk. People like his room mate and people who lived n the same dorm floor, etc. The FBI interviewed none of them. None of them were called before the judicial committee.
He assented to falling asleep. By definition, you don't remember when you black out. He did say that nobody ever told him of some things he did while he was blacked out. Anybody could come forward with that evidence if they had done so.
Steve_American wrote:I could go on, & on, & on; but this should be enough to convince any unbiased human [if there is one in America today] that the preponderance of the evidence presented supports Dr. Ford and that much additional evidence was not allowed to be presented to the committee.
The preponderance of the evidence does not support her case at all. She doesn't even have enough to establish probable cause. The standard of evidence for a criminal charge is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is even a doubt about probable cause.
Steve_American wrote:This process was a kangaroo court if I ever saw one.
Yes. That's why if you want to make a criminal complaint, you go to the local authorities, not the Senate Judiciary committee.
SpecialOlypian wrote:Why does Generic White Man With No Qualifications deserve to be on the SCOTUS? Is there a particular ruling or thoroughly wonderful thing that Kavanaugh has done that you would like to share with us? What qualifies him?
He spent quite some time on the DC court of appeals--generally considered the second highest court in the land. Besides, he has a friend named Squi. That alone makes him a standout.
SpecialOlympian wrote:Yes, obviously nobody remembered Kavanaugh's attempt to rape her because most rapists don't operate in the open in front of witnesses.
Ford described proceeding upstairs to a bedroom with both Judge and Kavanaugh. She also said that Leland Keyser was there, and she named another person too. All of them denied that the party ever took place. Ford could not recall when it occurred, where it occurred, how she got there or how she left. Avenatti's client, Swetnick, claims that she attended many high school parties as a college sophomore where rape was conducted in the open, and boys politely waited their turn in line. I consider the story apocryphal.
SpecialOlympian wrote:Would you like to finally explain how tariffs increase the price of corn in Thaliand and how it hurts Godstud?
I have a degree in business, so I understand tariffs. Tell me about how it hurts Godstud though. That'll make a nice bedtime story.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden