One and only Kavenaugh Hearings Thread (part 1)

[reflechissez]

Once again, duh… And the evidence presented is often sworn statements.

[reflechissez]

@ohknow35

I don’t know anything about buzzfeednews, so don’t shoot the messenger. But here’s the story I mentioned a few minutes back.

Two Men Told Senate Staffers They Had “The Encounter” With Christine Blasey Ford, Not Brett Kavanaugh

Someone is willing to admit to a crime? Do you believe them?

[ohknow35]

I know nothing about them. All I know is what’s been reported so far.

Do you??

[Zander]

@WildRose

@Zander

@WildRose

@Zander

@WildRose

@Zander

@WildRose

@Kyshia

It is untrue that there is no evidence. I’m confused, because all of your other posts are so fact-filled.

Present it then.

Sworn testimony is evidence. Your stament there is no evidence is false.

BTW, I haven’t decided on the credibility of this (mounting) evidence, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, yet.

And once again.

@WildRose

There’s no evidence to suggest the claims are true and no reason to blindly accept them other than partisan politics and prejudice.

Even when given under oath and unsubstantiated allegation is not evidence the allegation is true.

I could file a lawsuit tomorrow alleging you sexually assaulted me last night. At trial, the only proof I introduce could be my testimony on the stand: “WildRose sexually assaulted me on the night of September 25, 2018. I suffered an injury as a result.” The jury is permitted to accept that testimony, by itself, as evidence the allegation is true. You are incorrect.

I think what you’re trying to say is you haven’t seen non-testimonial corroborating evidence, which I have not seen either, but that is to be expected, especially at this very early juncture.

No, I’m completely correct, at that point the jury simply considers the credibility of the people involved and has to make a decision.

The verdict only says which they believed if either not whether or not there was any proof behind the allegation other than the credibility of those involved.

In such cases both sides will present evidence as to the credibility of the accuser and the accused.

Even if they find in your favor it doesn’t prove the allegation is true, only that they found one side to be more credible than the other.

The burden of proof in a civil trial is preponderance of the evidence, which literally (and I try to use this word sparingly, but it is apt here) means the jury finds the allegations “more likely than not true.” So, uh, yea, if the jury rules in my favor, by definition it means they found the allegation true.

Or, wait, are you just making the captain obvious point that just because a party wins a civil case, that doesn’t mean the underlying claim was 100% true? Because, duh.

You are conflating the allegation with the testimony. They are two distinct things. The allegation takes the form of the pleading, i.e. the Complaint, in which I assert the causes of action against you. The pleading = the allegation.

My testimony at trial is evidence the allegation asserted in my pleading is true, which allegation a jury must have “more likely than not” found true in order to rule in my favor. The testimony = the evidence.

This is like me trying to explain to you how the inside of an AR-15 works. I wouldn’t try to do that because I’d look like an idiot.

And once again, it is the credibility of the witnesses in such a case that determines how the case comes out. The more credence is given to the more believable person largely as determined by the evidence presented supporting their credibility.

Oh, okay, so what you meant to say is that you don’t find the sworn testimony (i.e. evidence) from these women to be credible, not that there is “no evidence to suggest the claims are true”?

[reflechissez]

@ohknow35

I know nothing about them. All I know is what’s been reported so far.

Do you??

You know nothing about Ford other than what’s been reported, but you don’t believe her.

[ohknow35]

I know that everyone she named being there has given sworn statements saying they have no idea what she is talking about. I know she hasn’t named a place that it happened. She knows all their names, but doesn’t know whose house it was??

What, did they all break into some random stranger’s house??

[WildRose]

@reflechissez

Once again, duh… And the evidence presented is often sworn statements.

No, you can’t cross examine a sworn statement.

Our system requires that except in rare and exceptional circumstances that witnesses can be cross examined.

[WildRose]

@Zander

@WildRose

@Zander

@WildRose

@Zander

@WildRose

@Zander

@WildRose

@Kyshia

It is untrue that there is no evidence. I’m confused, because all of your other posts are so fact-filled.

Present it then.

Sworn testimony is evidence. Your stament there is no evidence is false.

BTW, I haven’t decided on the credibility of this (mounting) evidence, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, yet.

And once again.

@WildRose

There’s no evidence to suggest the claims are true and no reason to blindly accept them other than partisan politics and prejudice.

Even when given under oath and unsubstantiated allegation is not evidence the allegation is true.

I could file a lawsuit tomorrow alleging you sexually assaulted me last night. At trial, the only proof I introduce could be my testimony on the stand: “WildRose sexually assaulted me on the night of September 25, 2018. I suffered an injury as a result.” The jury is permitted to accept that testimony, by itself, as evidence the allegation is true. You are incorrect.

I think what you’re trying to say is you haven’t seen non-testimonial corroborating evidence, which I have not seen either, but that is to be expected, especially at this very early juncture.

No, I’m completely correct, at that point the jury simply considers the credibility of the people involved and has to make a decision.

The verdict only says which they believed if either not whether or not there was any proof behind the allegation other than the credibility of those involved.

In such cases both sides will present evidence as to the credibility of the accuser and the accused.

Even if they find in your favor it doesn’t prove the allegation is true, only that they found one side to be more credible than the other.

The burden of proof in a civil trial is preponderance of the evidence, which literally (and I try to use this word sparingly, but it is apt here) means the jury finds the allegations “more likely than not true.” So, uh, yea, if the jury rules in my favor, by definition it means they found the allegation true.

Or, wait, are you just making the captain obvious point that just because a party wins a civil case, that doesn’t mean the underlying claim was 100% true? Because, duh.

You are conflating the allegation with the testimony. They are two distinct things. The allegation takes the form of the pleading, i.e. the Complaint, in which I assert the causes of action against you. The pleading = the allegation.

My testimony at trial is evidence the allegation asserted in my pleading is true, which allegation a jury must have “more likely than not” found true in order to rule in my favor. The testimony = the evidence.

This is like me trying to explain to you how the inside of an AR-15 works. I wouldn’t try to do that because I’d look like an idiot.

And once again, it is the credibility of the witnesses in such a case that determines how the case comes out. The more credence is given to the more believable person largely as determined by the evidence presented supporting their credibility.

Oh, okay, so what you meant to say is that you don’t find the sworn testimony (i.e. evidence) from these women to be credible, not that there is “no evidence to suggest the claims are true”?

Which of these accusers has given sworn testimony against Kavenaugh?

[wiley8425]

“Under oath.” Conveniently missing from that statement. Go figure.

[reflechissez]

@ohknow35

I know that everyone she named being there has given sworn statements saying they have no idea what she is talking about. I know she hasn’t named a place that it happened. She knows all their names, but doesn’t know whose house it was??

What, did they all break into some random starnger’s house??

In high school I went to many parties and didn’t know the owner.

I would expect Kav and Judge to deny being there. Actually, Judge said he doesn’t remember being at the party, not that he wasn’t there. I don’t know about the other 2 people.

[WildRose]

Why should we exactly? How has she substantiated any allegations that she’s made?

[reflechissez]

@WildRose

@reflechissez

Once again, duh… And the evidence presented is often sworn statements.

No, you can’t cross examine a sworn statement.

Our system requires that except in fare and exceptional circumstances that witnesses can be cross examined.

When a person raises his/her hand to swear to tell the truth, what follows is a sworn statement. Good grief, dude.

[wiley8425]

Oh look, a distinction without a difference.

[WildRose]

No, in court that is called sworn testimony.

[reflechissez]

@WildRose

No, in court that is called sworn testimony.

There are over 8,000 posts in this thread. You have a lot of people to argue with. Enjoy.

[Zander]

Sworn declarations are testimony. I honestly haven’t been keeping track. Haven’t some of them released these?

[WildRose]

@Zander

Sworn declarations are testimony. I honestly haven’t been keeping track. Haven’t some of them released these?

I’ve seen nothing presented so far given under oath by anyone involved other than Kavenaugh.

[Zander]

Read the sworn declaration by Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick

Might be others. Haven’t looked.

[madasheck]

@Zander

Read the sworn declaration by Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick

Might be others. Haven’t looked.

Some people could care less. It’s pretty disgusting.

[WildRose]

I agree, trying to ruin a man simply out of partisan bias is pretty disgusting.