Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

What the **** is this?

Politics at its absolute, out of touch worst.

There's legitimacy in wanting to establish if someone making very serious, historic allegations is "credible". But a bunch of mostly ageing, male senators and a career prosecutor doesn't seem like the best group to do it. It seems like one of the worst.

There's legitimacy in wanting to establish if someone is fit for a role, and that should surely consider a whole, verified picture, after the evidence has all been gathered.

This hearing isn't that place (at this time).

The awful state of it all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From listening to the hearings, the crux of it seems to be not whether or not they can prove what happened on the day - they can't, it's almost impossible - so the hearing becomes about the motivation for the accusation, is it genuine or was it 'encouraged' by outside interest?

That's the question they're looking to make this about. It's interesting, I'm not sure you can get any sort of result from this hearing - given the distance between now and when the incident took place, it's more a trial of the accuser, if she stands up as someone with integrity, then Kavanaugh's career is over, if they can paint her as someone under political pressure from lawyers and media figures, then it's her that's done, not him. The issue of sexual assault isn't under discussion, this is about her character.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

From listening to the hearings, the crux of it seems to be not whether or not they can prove what happened on the day - they can't, it's almost impossible - so the hearing becomes about the motivation for the accusation, is it genuine or was it 'encouraged' by outside interest?

That's the question they're looking to make this about. It's interesting, I'm not sure you can get any sort of result from this hearing - given the distance between now and when the incident took place, it's more a trial of the accuser, if she stands up as someone with integrity, then Kavanaugh's career is over, if they can paint her as someone under political pressure from lawyers and media figures, then it's her that's done, not him. The issue of sexual assault isn't under discussion, this is about her character.

 

She wrote the letter to a congresswoman while he was just on a list of potential nominations.

She also has therapy notes and even has two front doors at her house because of her PTSD.

If she's making it up, it's a very, very long con.

And what's the motivation for it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more horrendous this is, the more it destroys all the inroads the GOP have made in encouraging the female electorate to vote for them over the last few years. It's all but destroyed after today, years of work gone in the blink of an eye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

She wrote the letter to a congresswoman while he was just on a list of potential nominations.

She also has therapy notes and even has two front doors at her house because of her PTSD.

If she's making it up, it's a very, very long con.

And what's the motivation for it?

I'm not saying she's making it up, far from it. Just that the hearing isn't about whether or not there was a sexual assault and whether Kavanaugh was responsible, that's not what today is set up for - today is set up to test the integrity of the complainant. That's what they're probing and pushing at, lawyers looking for weaknesses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'm not saying she's making it up, far from it. Just that the hearing isn't about whether or not there was a sexual assault and whether Kavanaugh was responsible, that's not what today is set up for - today is set up to test the integrity of the complainant. That's what they're probing and pushing at, lawyers looking for weaknesses. 

I'm not saying you are, it was a rhetorical question.

If you're watching this thing, she is super credible and clearly disturbed by the whole thing. It has the capability to ruin her life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

If you're watching this thing, she is super credible and clearly disturbed by the whole thing. It has the capability to ruin her life.

This is the thing - if the "whole thing" is the attack, then you could say it's already ruined her life, she's dealt with it throughout her life and it's alway been in her mind. This hearing isn't going to change that. According to the US authorities, given the 36 years that has elapsed since the attack, the chances of ever bringing a criminal prosecution are next to nothing. Knowing that, the question that's being put at this hearing, the key matter, is what her motivation is in bringing it to court. It's this that she's being pressured on.

The key to the day is her credibility and for me, whilst I'm leaning in her direction, I don't think she looks "clearly disturbed" enough; she looks relaxed, calm and lawyer-ly. For me, for her to win the day, I'd like to see more emotion, more of a vindictiveness against the man who ruined 36 years - as it is, the hearing are able to make her look like a woman who has found ways to deal with an awful incident and is now being used for political expediency.

I don't like that, but it's what seasoned lawyers do; it's what American show trials are based on - make it about the person, not the attack. 

Other than stopping Kavanaugh's nomination for Supreme court, what are the other potential outcomes of today? It's not a court hearing, but it feels like she's on trial - what can she get from this? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

This is the thing - if the "whole thing" is the attack, then you could say it's already ruined her life, she's dealt with it throughout her life and it's alway been in her mind. This hearing isn't going to change that. According to the US authorities, given the 36 years that has elapsed since the attack, the chances of ever bringing a criminal prosecution are next to nothing. Knowing that, the question that's being put at this hearing, the key matter, is what her motivation is in bringing it to court. It's this that she's being pressured on.

The key to the day is her credibility and for me, whilst I'm leaning in her direction, I don't think she looks "clearly disturbed" enough; she looks relaxed, calm and lawyer-ly. For me, for her to win the day, I'd like to see more emotion, more of a vindictiveness against the man who ruined 36 years - as it is, the hearing are able to make her look like a woman who has found ways to deal with an awful incident and is now being used for political expediency.

I don't like that, but it's what seasoned lawyers do; it's what American show trials are based on - make it about the person, not the attack. 

Other than stopping Kavanaugh's nomination for Supreme court, what are the other potential outcomes of today? It's not a court hearing, but it feels like she's on trial - what can she get from this? 

 

 

 

Her voice was cracking and she was nearly crying at some points. What more do you want?

It wasn't a trial. Motivation wise, she stated at the start it was her civil duty to come forward so that people know what Kavanaugh is like as a human, before he's granted a lifelong appointment to the highest court in America. She raised this before he was even nominated.

I think you're miles off here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Her voice was cracking and she was nearly crying at some points. What more do you want?

It wasn't a trial. Motivation wise, she stated at the start it was her civil duty to come forward so that people know what Kavanaugh is like as a human, before he's granted a lifelong appointment to the highest court in America. She raised this before he was even nominated.

I think you're miles off here.

I don't want any more from her, I think she's doing a good job in a tough situation. But the nature of what she's volunteered for means that it's her that will be judged. The only question that's going to be addressed at this hearing is whether her motivation was either civil duty, hatred of Kavanaugh or political manoeuvre. I hope she's successful in ensuring that what appears to me to be an awful human being isn't allowed to step up to an incredibly powerful position of judgement.

Where good lawyers will pick at her, is in her statement that she didn't want to fly despite her flying all of the time, in her not knowing who paid for the polygraph, in her not being sure on the days some things happened - all of which actually mean diddly squat, but are being made to create a picture of doubt on her credibility. 

My initial post was just in reaction to the (in my opinion) misguided hope that todays hearing would be about details on the assault.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bickster said:

The more horrendous this is, the more it destroys all the inroads the GOP have made in encouraging the female electorate to vote for them over the last few years. It's all but destroyed after today, years of work gone in the blink of an eye

Unfortunately, you make the mistake of thinking those people hear any of this, e.g., their fb likely has that filtered out and getting "news" from fox is very helpful. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â