Mormon Women's Group Call on LDS Senators to Investigate Allegations Against Kavanaugh

[Walden]

22 minutes ago, randy said:

Just like nobody can probably name the woman accusing the #2 Democrat in the DNC Keith Ellison of sexual assault and verbal abuse.  This woman provided actual EVIDENCE of his abuse and yet all we hear about him is...crickets.  Same with Bill Clinton and Juanita Broddericks rape claim.  The Democratic led panel that was hearing evidence wouldn't even read her statement into the record.  Why isn't she believed by the Democrats? or Paula Jones? ….or the family of Mary Jo Kopechne?  both sides have plenty of ammo to shoot at the other.....and to what end?  

The truth does not matter, it is partisanship that rules.

Heck, the current president admitted, no, actually he boasted, on tape that he sexually assaulted women on a regular basis and he was still elected to the highest office in the land.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

but their are records coming forward though, and why should we just believe him? because he says he didn't do it? okay, is that the new standard of proof now? it would make trials go so much quicker!, "are you guilty?", "no", allright, case closed!

No, I am saying that the actions of a 17-year-old have no bearing the balance of his life. I am far more concerned about how he served as a judge. The mistakes of an individual's youth are meaningless. It has absolutely nothing to do about if he did or didn't.  Why would it?

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Problem is, there are more women coming forward with accusations.  It's not just one "she"" now and it's not just "a woman", but "women".
"

They are coming forward to talking about his youth. What, he has been perfect as an adult so therefore we destroy his life? As I mentioned in Duncan's comment - I don't care if he did or he didn't. It is meaningless to me. I want to know about his adult life and how he acted as a judge. There has not been a single shred of evidence that he is not less than a stellar judge for both men and women. Not an iota and you really think everyone should be concerned about his behavior as a teenager.  Please tell me we have not stooped to this level of puritanical stupidity in order to please the Left.  

[alter idem]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I mean the four witnesses who corroborate that her claims are good faith, made years before the SCOTUS nomination.

Once again, this info. about 'corroborating witnesses' has been reported in such a way as to mislead the public and it's apparently working.  The 'witnesses' are only corroborating that she told them this story before this summer when she brought her allegations to Feinstein.   Isn't that called 'hearsay' and isn't even allowed as evidence?  They can't say her 'claims are good faith' because they were not present at the event, they did not know Kavanaugh,  they cannot corroborate that she's telling the truth about an assault by Kavanaugh or anyone else-- they can only say that she told them some general things about once being assaulted and this telling was a couple of years ago.  It's still her word against his (he's denied it) and no one else remembers what she's claiming.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I am saying that the actions of a 17-year-old have no bearing the balance of his life. I am far more concerned about how he served as a judge. The mistakes of an individual's youth are meaningless.

You can’t be serious.  If he sexually assaulted girls as a teenager, it speaks to his character and is not meaningless, imo.

Of course people can change and never repeat a behavior, but that doesn’t mean what they did is now meaningless (especially for the victim).

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I am saying that the actions of a 17-year-old have no bearing the balance of his life. I am far more concerned about how he served as a judge. The mistakes of an individual's youth are meaningless. It has absolutely nothing to do about if he did or didn't.  Why would it?

You should maybe let the Church's missionary department know about this; they should maybe change their interview process to reflect such an opinion.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I am saying that the actions of a 17-year-old have no bearing the balance of his life. I am far more concerned about how he served as a judge. The mistakes of an individual's youth are meaningless. It has absolutely nothing to do about if he did or didn't.  Why would it?

if that 17 year old murdered someone it wouldn't have any bearing on their life? why do any backgrounds checks at all? If you are guilty then fess up to it, as part of their repentance process, guilt doesn't go away over time and his chickens seem to be coming home to roost

[Gervin]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I am saying that the actions of a 17-year-old have no bearing the balance of his life. I am far more concerned about how he served as a judge. The mistakes of an individual's youth are meaningless. It has absolutely nothing to do about if he did or didn't.  Why would it?

In my state, a 17 year old charged with sexual assault is charged as an adult.  Not sure where you live.  If a "mistake" was made ("yeah, we were all horsing around and things got a little handsy - that was a mistake") then it would come across as a mistake from the accuser.  It doesn't.  Maybe she made it all up, going back to 2012, or maybe she was treated in a painful and unfair manner, or maybe - and most likely - she was harmed (and harmed greatly) by an assault.  Your glib dismissal not withstanding, that's a crime.  Tomorrow isn't about a crime, however.  It's about establishing facts and credibility.  Let's see how your adult handles himself.  

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

They are coming forward to talking about his youth. What, he has been perfect as an adult so therefore we destroy his life? As I mentioned in Duncan's comment - I don't care if he did or he didn't. It is meaningless to me. I want to know about his adult life and how he acted as a judge. There has not been a single shred of evidence that he is not less than a stellar judge for both men and women. Not an iota and you really think everyone should be concerned about his behavior as a teenager.  Please tell me we have not stooped to this level of puritanical stupidity in order to please the Left.  

It matters what he did in the past (especially if he was involved in sexually abusing others).  Just because he was young when it took place, we are just supposed to ignore it or give him a pass?  And, how do you know he "has been perfect as an adult"?  You really believe he's perfect?

[alter idem]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

but their are records coming forward though, and why should we just believe him? because he says he didn't do it? okay, is that the new standard of proof now? it would make trials go so much quicker!, "are you guilty?", "no", allright, case closed!

But,  the same goes for his accusers!  Because THEY said he did it, we're supposed to believe them?  What 'records' do you think are coming forward?  There's nothing.  They offer no dates, no times, not even a place where these three separate events are supposed to have happened.  They offer no evidence, no corroborating witnesses, no police reports, nothing. These were 'parties' and yet, apparently no one who attended the parties during that time remembers anything that is being claimed. So I have to ask.  Is this the new standard of proof?  If it is a woman who makes the claim against a Republican, it's true.   The man is guilty, cased closed.  Is that what we've come to?

[alter idem]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the FBI do this normally for USSC judges? why are they being prevented from doing their job? what is the republican party hiding that the FBI can't get involved? 

How are  they supposed to investigate when the accuser can't tell them when it happened, where it happened and who was there?  A lot of investigation work has actually already happened--the new papers have been searching for witnesses ever since they found out about this and they've come up empty.  They have not been able to find a single witness who can corroborate these accusations by Ford and Ramirez.  The one by Sweatnick is so new and so vague there's no way to investigate it at all.

 

The man has had six FBI background checks done already.  No one is preventing them from doing their job, except for the accusers who don't have anything useful to offer.  

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sure.  Tell us where you were and what you were doing, in detail, on September 26, 1995.  Thanks in advance!  

It's hard enough when there's a date but none of these accusers can place the events to a date, a year or even a place.  I don't know how anyone can think the FBI can investigate when the memories of the accusers are murky.

And, you'd think with the 3rd accuser's description of several parties where girls were gang raped and apparently the guests at the party were aware of it, someone would have reported it to the police, their parents, etc. and there would be some witnesses who would have remembered that this happened.

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, alter idem said:

But,  the same goes for his accusers!  Because THEY said he did it, we're supposed to believe them?  What 'records' do you think are coming forward?  There's nothing.  They offer no dates, no times, not even a place where these three separate events are supposed to have happened.  They offer no evidence, no corroborating witnesses, no police reports, nothing. These were 'parties' and yet, apparently no one who attended the parties during that time remembers anything that is being claimed. So I have to ask.  Is this the new standard of proof?  If it is a woman who makes the claim against a Republican, it's true.   The man is guilty, cased closed.  Is that what we've come to?

their are witnesses, he denies going to any of these parties yet his yearbooks say something else, he was a Renata Alumnus, meaning he knew who she was. Interestingly he said in an interview that he wasn't at that party but she , as you say, has never said which party, how does he know which party she is talking about? the guy is skeezicks! It's what the US has come to, we're fine😊

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, alter idem said:

How are  they supposed to investigate when the accuser can't tell them when it happened, where it happened and who was there?  A lot of investigation work has actually already happened--the new papers have been searching for witnesses ever since they found out about this and they've come up empty.  They have not been able to find a single witness who can corroborate these accusations by Ford and Ramirez.  The one by Sweatnick is so new and so vague there's no way to investigate it at all.

 

The man has had six FBI background checks done already.  No one is preventing them from doing their job, except for the accusers who don't have anything useful to offer.  

the republicans are trying to push it through, if there are true or false things then what would be the harm to investigate it? what are they hiding?

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, alter idem said:

The man has had six FBI background checks done already. .  

If none of these women ever made a complain or filed any charges (with the school or with the police), nothing would have shown up regarding these accusations on a background check, right? 

Edited September 26, 2018 by ALarson

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And if this was a criminal trial that would mean something. And if this went to trial and Kavanaugh was convicted I would be outraged (barring there being more substantive evidence). The presumption of innocence is not a part of the political process and is not mandatory or even recommended.

It is also “presumed innocent” not “being innocent”.

If the Republicans were smart they would pull Kavanaugh and nominate someone else.

 

They can nominate someone else but what makes you think they won't do the same thing to that person?  It's so easy to destroy a person when you've got the support of the media to trumpet these unsubstantiated allegations and totally undermine the process.

And, forcing the Republican to pull him is exactly what his accusers/critics want!  The whole purpose is to force Kavanaugh to withdraw his name or for Pres. Trump to withdraw the nomination.  What you are suggesting is what the Democrats want.  For that reason alone, I think he should see this through to the bitter end.  They've already destroyed his reputation and his good name.  There will be no criminal charges against him because there's nothing to charge him with, there's no evidence and no witnesses.  But his reputation will be ruined and his ability to go back to being a judge will also be damaged beyond repair.

 

If Kavanaugh withdraws they win (they wanted this delayed until after the midterm elections) and they will be emboldened to do this every time and with every nominee the Pres. puts forward.  As Kenngo said, they could continue this into 2020 easily.  All they have to do is delay and destroy into Pres. Trump's third year and then they can evoke the 'Thurmond rule'.  They are confident they can win the presidency in 2020 and then appoint their own choice to the supreme court.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, alter idem said:

 

They can nominate someone else but what makes you think they won't do the same thing to that person?  It's so easy to destroy a person when you've got the support of the media to trumpet these unsubstantiated allegations and totally undermine the process.

And, forcing the Republican to pull him is exactly what his accusers/critics want!  The whole purpose is to force Kavanaugh to withdraw his name or for Pres. Trump to withdraw the nomination.  What you are suggesting is what the Democrats want.  For that reason alone, I think he should see this through to the bitter end.  They've already destroyed his reputation and his good name.  There will be no criminal charges against him because there's nothing to charge him with, there's no evidence and no witnesses.  But his reputation will be ruined and his ability to go back to being a judge will also be damaged beyond repair.

 

If Kavanaugh withdraws they win (they wanted this delayed until after the midterm elections) and they will be emboldened to do this every time and with every nominee the Pres. puts forward.  As Kenngo said, they could continue this into 2020 easily.  All they have to do is delay and destroy into Pres. Trump's third year and then they can evoke the 'Thurmond rule'.  They are confident they can win the presidency in 2020 and then appoint their own choice to the supreme court.

But, what if the allegations are true?

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If none of these women ever made a complain or filed any charges (with the school or with the police), nothing would have shown up regarding these accusations on a background check, right? 

Correct.  The FBI does not typically do any muckraking into one's high school days unless there is an allegation worth investigating.  They're good, but they're not omniscient.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I am saying that the actions of a 17-year-old have no bearing the balance of his life. I am far more concerned about how he served as a judge. The mistakes of an individual's youth are meaningless. It has absolutely nothing to do about if he did or didn't.  Why would it?

If he is lying about it now, that is not a meaningless statement about his current character (I am not saying he is or isn't, been preoccupied and have not put enough study into it to justify an opinion, imo).

[alter idem]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

But, what if the allegations are true?

They may be true, and if they are true, crimes were committed.  But you can't accuse and convict someone of crimes for which there is no evidence.  This is still America and we have a legal system which is fair to the accused, as well as the accuser.  This is political wrangling at the most egregious level and whether any crimes were committed are not the concern of the Democrats.  I guarantee that if Kavanaugh just withdraws the Dems(and the media)  will drop all interest in the claims of these women because their usefulness will be spent.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, alter idem said:

They may be true, and if they are true, crimes were committed.  But you can't accuse and convict someone of crimes for which there is no evidence.  This is still America and we have a legal system which is fair to the accused, as well as the accuser.  This is political wrangling at the most egregious level and whether any crimes were committed are not the concern of the Democrats.  I guarantee that if Kavanaugh just withdraws the Dems(and the media)  will drop all interest in the claims of these women because their usefulness will be spent.

Let me clarify what I was asking - I agree that you can't convict someone of a crime without evidence.  You can certainly accuse, however.  That being said, this isn't a criminal proceeding.  You're focused on the politics and that's not what I'm asking about.  I'm asking your opinion - If he did, in fact, do the things of which he is accused, is he an appropriate candidate for the Supreme Court?

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

So the same senators now, Chuck Schumer, Cory Booker et al were around in 1991 saying that to Clarence Thomas?

I don't recall making any claims about Sens. Schumer and Booker.

[alter idem]

Bluebell started this thread asking if we should care about the desires of the group 'Mormon women for ethical government'.  I thought some of you might be interested in this response from an LDS woman Republican leader in Utah to the efforts of this group to give credibility to the accusers' claims and to delay the vote.

 

http://cherilyneagar.com/2018/09/mormon-women-opposing-kavanaugh-should-support-lds-values/

 

She believes that one reason there is so much opposition to kavanaugh is that he is pro-life.  That's true, we've already seen it.   I wonder where Mormon Women for ethical govt. stand on the issue of abortion.  Are they pro-life or pro-choice?  I don't know if they've admitted their position, especially if they are pro-choice which would be opposite of the church's stand on abortion.

 

[Anijen]

Just now, ALarson said:

If none of these women ever made a complain or filed any charges (with the school or with the police), nothing would have shown up regarding this on a background check, right? 

ALarson, I like your critical thinking approach. In true socratic method let us look at your question and add to it.

Why didn't they file a complaint? Why, back then, had not one person filed a complaint or pressed charges?  Why if gang rapes were happening and continued to happen, why did not one charge or one complaint not come forward? Why was it not talked about by other students, other party goers? Why didn't the police investigate these allegations back then, when "so many" it was fresh in the memories of all who were at the parties? Why at the 11th hour after the Senate hearings is past are these allegations brought up? Why weren't these allegations brought up by even one Democrat Senator (or any Senator) during the hearing, after all, they had the letter by July? 

When doing background checks and investigations, not just best friends are talked to, but other students who attended school contemporaneously with Kavanaugh. It is a certainty that class mates, teachers, principles, boy scout leaders, associates and friends of Kavanaugh were contacted and questioned and these allegations were never brought up when it happened, were not brought up in not a single time of the six prior times he was vetted for his Art III judgeship. You would think it least one person, one party goer, one witness, one anybody would have at the very least said; "hey, there was this one rumor of rape." But, no, only after the Senate hearing, just before a call for a vote, right at the 11:59 hour is this even brought up.  Furthermore, what has been brought up is vague (no date is certain, no location it happened at is given, no time, even the year is unclear) Additionally, the witnesses and accusers against Kavanaugh have ambiguous statements, such as "he was there," or I don't recall, but believe this is what happened." Moreover, the one witnesses actually named in the letter denies it happened. It is facially apparent (obvious on its face, or IOW; more likely than not) that this is a political ploy to delay the vote. 

Is ruining a good mans reputation, his accomplishments, his life justify such a political tactic? I say it is despicable! The best solution, fair to both parties, is to confirm Kavanaugh now, however, continue the investigation and have people testify under oath. If found guilty, impeach him and send him to prison.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree that the late release does suggest partisanship.  But my questions concern the group in the OP (who have no control over when information is released).  In your opinion, have all the allegations been thoroughly investigated or could it be morally responsible to request a delay until that happens?  Do LDS senator's have a moral responsibility to make sure that the allegations are thoroughly investigated before proceeding?

I think any Senator has a moral responsibility on a number of fronts and levels to protect the applicable constitutional due process (in this case, for confirming a nominee for appointment). American politics allows a number of fronts and levels of free expression that work both for and against that constitutional due process, and we have over 200 years (more, if you consider those politicians who study history) of refining the means and ways of political strategy, technique and influence, some for better and some for worse, morally-speaking. In the political arena, this kind of morality used to be commonly taught as civic virtue.

Inasmuch as the American system depends and thrives on compromise (often expressed as putting the welfare of the community above personal or individual interests --which often requires protecting the sanctity of the individual), I do not think Senators are morally responsible for making “the” correct political decision or for even reflecting the predominant moral compass of their constituency. I don’t see the issues of investigation and timing of the vote as a matter of morality per se. If anything, I think the Senators are morally obligated to seek compromise solutions and then proceed to influence so that compromises can reflect a higher standard of morality to better protect the future welfare of the country.

Edited September 27, 2018 by CV75