D
dvdjs
Guest
I think it does. There are different standards of evidence and different processes for approval vs. removal.
- Status
Apparently, the standard here is accusation with no evidence.JonNC:
I think it does. There are different standards of evidence and different processes for approval vs. removal.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
“I never saw” does not equal “I don’t remember seeing”. You are stretching it making that claim.
D
dvdjs
Guest
And conversely.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Removal: beyond a reasonably doubt.
Approval: better to look elsewhere
Still, accusation with no evidence. A smear campaignJonNC:
Removal: beyond a reasonably doubt.
Approval: better to look elsewhere
D
dvdjs
Guest
Only if false.
How does one prove it false without due process? How does one prove it false when the time and place are not known? How is it proven false beyond the sited witnesses saying they never saw it? How does one disprove something that there is no evidence of having happened?JonNC:
Only if false.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
These are fair questions but not relevant to the distinction I made.
One cannot properly call accusations with no evidence a smear campaign unless the accusation is false.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Nope. If Dr. Ford is found not believable enough, Kavanaugh will be confirmed and be just fine despite her charges. And if her accusations are found believable enough, then what happens after (namely being denied a seat on the SCOTUS) is exactly what should happen. So either way, no unjust outcome for him.LeafByNiggle:
A PR problem? Yeah, destroying the reputation of a man who has a spotless record, and clearance at the highest level of government with no evidence, no witnesses, no known location or date, is simply bad PR.
You have got to be kidding.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If I say “I never saw X” when I might have been drunk 36 years ago, it has as much bearing as if I said “I don’t remember seeing.” There is no way someone can be sure of not seeing something 36 years ago while drunk.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
There probably isn’t a way to remember much that happened 36 years ago. Memory fades and distorts.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
But it is easier to remember something that did happen than the fact that something didn’t happen.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
No it isn’t.
One cannot properly, ethically, morally, accuse someone of such heinous behavior without evidence. It is perfectly reasonable to call it a smear campaign unless evidence is presented.JonNC:
These are fair questions but not relevant to the distinction I made.
One cannot properly call accusations with no evidence a smear campaign unless the accusation is false.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Nope. Accusing someone of something that you know is true but cannot prove to someone else is entirely moral. It may be ineffective, but it certainly moral. To make it immoral the accuser would have to either know the accusation is false, or at least not be sure it is true. To say you are sure when you are not is immoral. But if you are sure, it is moral.
Can you not imagine a scenario where you are the sole witness to a murder, but not have any evidence to present other than your testimony? I can.
Last edited:
Nope, because it prevents and undermines presumption of innocence, and by not taking it to court ( in this case intentionally), denies the accused due process. It is unethical and immoral.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Let’s separate two things you have run together. First there is the bringing of the accusation by the eye witness. That is moral whether there is supporting evidence or not. The other part is the reaction by a judicial system. That is where the concept of presumption of innocence comes in. If an accusation is made with insufficient supporting evidence, a moral judicial system will decide in favor of innocence, even in some cases where the accuser was right. In that case the accuser acted morally and the judicial system acted morally.LeafByNiggle:
Nope, because it prevents and undermines presumption of innocence, and by not taking it to court ( in this case intentionally), denies the accused due process. It is unethical and immoral.
Last edited:
In this case there is no eye witness. None.
Not if one is unwilling to take it to the authorities.
And this is the part being intentionally left out, leaving the accusation out there with the possibility of being challenged by cross examination.
The immorality is doing it in public, without evidence, without witnesses, without specific time and place, then not filing a complaint with the proper authorities. It becomes a smear.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Dr. Ford. (Unless you know for a fact that she is wrong.)LeafByNiggle:
In this case there is no eye witness. None.
Moving the goalpost, eh? Now you are saying it may be moral to make an unsupported accusation, but only if you file a complaint with the local authorities. That’s nonsense. Local authorities have heard the testimony the same as you and me. They can file charges if they wish. It is not as if they need the victim to initiate the proceedings. If you have a compliant about charges not being filed, your complaint is with the DA, not with Dr. Ford. I’m sure she would cooperate with anything they decided to do. She sure seemed like she wanted to cooperate with all the members of the committee, being as helpful and accommodating as possible with everyone (unlike a certain other witness).
It is being left out because no judicial action accusing Kavanaugh has happened. That’s the only time that the presumption of innocence is in play. You are trying to extend this theory to a “presumption of fitness for the Supreme Court.” I assure you there is no such legal principle as presumption of fitness for the Supreme Court unless proven unfit beyond the shadow of a doubt. Nope. No such thing.
Nope. Not if the accusation is true. It is not immoral to accuse someone, without supporting evidence, without corroborating witnesses, without even a certainty of the exact time and place, and not filing a complaint with the authorities. What commandment does that break? (Remember, I’m talking about the case where the accusation is true.)
Last edited:
- Status