When and Where Are Missing

 

Kavanaugh’s accuser wants him to testify first. This is absurd. In a court case, the prosecution speaks first and then the defense responds. This is especially important in a situation where the accusation lacks important details. Using the old critical questions a report should ask:

1. Who: Brett Kavanaugh

2. What: attempted sexual assault

3. When: Not given. If this was as serious as she claims it was, she would remember a date or be able to reconstruct it (such as third Friday in August 1981). Of course, this would open her up to refutation if any of the three men she has named were not in the DC area on that date.

4. Where: Not given — same problem

5. Why: Many people have attested to BK’s character. I have not heard if he was a binge drinker in high school. Perhaps he acted differently under the influence but there does not seem to be a pattern here.

Published in Politics
Tags:
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    When and where do not matter.

    As for why? To keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court and push any vote past the midterm elections – by any means possible. Any.

    • #1
  2. Misthiocracy, Joke Pending Member
    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending
    @Misthiocracy

    Fun fact: The man who originally coined the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” in the 18th Century was himself the target of a whisper campaign claiming that he was guilty of “seduction”, which was a criminal offense at the time.  He was never indicted, and there was no evidence to support the claim.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Garrow

    • #2
  3. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    This post assumes an Anglo-American tradition of jurisprudence. 

    How quaint!

    The white male author doesn’t understand that the new America which massive immigration has created – largest foreign-born population in the US ever – deserves a new and diverse legal philosophy. 

    What he considers common sense and universal principles are simply cultural biases. Billions don’t share them and consider them instead relics of white Western patriarchy in need of fundamental transformation. 

    • #3
  4. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    Of course, white Western males will be strictly held to those old Anglo-American standards by the diverse New America whenever it suits the Coalition of the Ascendent…and harms the interests of people like the author.

    But everyone is used to that.

    You’ve been lectured and criticized about failing to live up to Christian ideals by atheists, agnostics and non-Christians for decades now, haven’t you?

    • #4
  5. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    The Presumption of Innocence is a Constitutional Right.

    Hell, if Justice Kennedy found penumbras, emanations and “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” in the Constitution, surely (don’t call me Shirley!) the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct.

    And this includes the right to face his accuser and that it is the responsibility of the accuser to prove the charge.

    • #5
  6. Misthiocracy, Joke Pending Member
    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending
    @Misthiocracy

    Columbo (View Comment):
    The Presumption of Innocence is a Constitutional Right.

    Up here in the Great White North, when Trudeau Père got to replacing Common Law rights with the so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he made dang sure that the section on legal rights only applies to people who have been charged with a crime.  If you haven’t been charged then, according to the Charter, you have no right to the presumption of innocence and no right not to be compelled to testify against yourself (i.e. no right to remain silent).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_11_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

    When this is brought up most legalists assure us that the old Common Law rights are still in effect, but their assurances ring really hollow.

    • #6
  7. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    Columbo (View Comment):

    The Presumption of Innocence is a Constitutional Right.

    Hell, if Justice Kennedy found penumbras, emanations and “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” in the Constitution, surely (don’t call me Shirley!) the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct.

    And this includes the right to face his accuser and that it is the responsibility of the accuser to prove the charge.

    Dr. Ford is “define(ing) one’s own concept of existence, of meaning” isn’t she?

    Who are you to gainsay it? You with your Anglo-Saxon principles of what is and isn’t justice. 

    We live in a New America, one modeled on the diverse principles and the ideals of the United Nations, the Colors of Benetton and United Federation of Planets. 

    That is the emanation of 40 years of massive legal immigration, favored by liberals, “conservatives” and libertarians alike. 

    Enjoy!

    • #7
  8. Simon Templar Inactive
    Simon Templar
    @SimonTemplar

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    You’ve been lectured and criticized about failing to live up to Christian ideals by atheists, agnostics and non-Christians for decades now, haven’t you?

    Yep, and hate to admit it but they are usually correct.

    But then I ask them why do those ideals even matter to them.  Fun usually ensues as they twist themselves into knots.

    • #8
  9. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    That is the emanation of 40 years of massive legal immigration, favored by liberals, “conservatives” and libertarians alike.

    Enjoy!

    How blind we are to support a system of legal immigration that’s the product of representative (constitutional) government.

     

    • #9
  10. Simon Templar Inactive
    Simon Templar
    @SimonTemplar

    Freesmith (View Comment):
    That is the emanation of 40 years of massive legal & illegal immigration, favored by liberals, “conservatives” and libertarians alike.  FIFY

     

    • #10
  11. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    You’ve been lectured and criticized about failing to live up to Christian ideals by atheists, agnostics and non-Christians for decades now, haven’t you?

    Yep, and hate to admit it but they are usually correct.

    But then I ask them why do those ideals even matter to them. Fun usually ensues as they twist themselves into knots.

    Knots? The answer to your question is easy. It’s #4:

    ”Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    • #11
  12. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    This post assumes an Anglo-American tradition of jurisprudence.

    How quaint!

    The white male author doesn’t understand that the new America which massive immigration has created – largest foreign-born population in the US ever – deserves a new and diverse legal philosophy.

    What he considers common sense and universal principles are simply cultural biases. Billions don’t share them and consider them instead relics of white Western patriarchy in need of fundamental transformation.

    But I identify as…

    • #12
  13. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    That is the emanation of 40 years of massive legal immigration, favored by liberals, “conservatives” and libertarians alike.

    Enjoy!

    How blind we are to support a system of legal immigration that’s the product of representative (constitutional) government.

    “Blind” about a system that was misrepresented to the public from the start and that had been relentlessly propagandized for in our schools, media, largest corporations and institutions, including entertainment. 

    “The product of representative (constitutional) government” that no one ever gets to vote for, because both major parties and all the money are on the same (other) side. Like affirmative action. 

    Oh, wait! I know. I’ll just start my own political party and win federal office. 

    Right after I invent a new internet. 

    • #13
  14. Simon Templar Inactive
    Simon Templar
    @SimonTemplar

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    You’ve been lectured and criticized about failing to live up to Christian ideals by atheists, agnostics and non-Christians for decades now, haven’t you?

    Yep, and hate to admit it but they are usually correct.

    But then I ask them why do those ideals even matter to them. Fun usually ensues as they twist themselves into knots.

    Knots? The answer to your question is easy. It’s #4:

    ”Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Yes that is what they do, but when I ask why they care so much about whether or not I live up to my ‘sky-god’ rules their argument disintegrates rapidly.

    • #14
  15. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    And don’t you folks worry about our judicial traditions, things like the right to face one’s accuser and equality before the law. 

    The same elite culture that has made “all-white” a pejorative and the same law schools that turn out the multitudes of diverse young lawyers willing to believe in and work for Dr. Ford will surely preserve and protect Anglo-American jurisprudence. 

    After all, if we can’t trust our universities to defend Western culture, who can we trust?

    • #15
  16. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    You’ve been lectured and criticized about failing to live up to Christian ideals by atheists, agnostics and non-Christians for decades now, haven’t you?

    Yep, and hate to admit it but they are usually correct.

    But then I ask them why do those ideals even matter to them. Fun usually ensues as they twist themselves into knots.

    Knots? The answer to your question is easy. It’s #4:

    ”Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Yes that is what they do, but when I ask why they care so much about whether or not I live up to my ‘sky-god’ rules their argument disintegrates rapidly.

    Their argument may disintegrate, but not its effectiveness, as anyone who reads David French regularly will quickly understand. 

    • #16
  17. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    And about our universities: 

    Imagine if the Trump Department of Justice and the entire mainstream “conservative” movement gets its way and forces Harvard and all elite colleges to open themselves up to 40 or 50 percent Asian-American admissions, rather than the quiet quota they currently enforce.

    What in 2018 could possibly go wrong with that for America and the West? Deep down, everybody has the same universal values.

    • #17
  18. JosePluma Coolidge
    JosePluma
    @JosePluma

    Kavanaugh

    • #18
  19. Simon Templar Inactive
    Simon Templar
    @SimonTemplar

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    You’ve been lectured and criticized about failing to live up to Christian ideals by atheists, agnostics and non-Christians for decades now, haven’t you?

    Yep, and hate to admit it but they are usually correct.

    But then I ask them why do those ideals even matter to them. Fun usually ensues as they twist themselves into knots.

    Knots? The answer to your question is easy. It’s #4:

    ”Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Yes that is what they do, but when I ask why they care so much about whether or not I live up to my ‘sky-god’ rules their argument disintegrates rapidly.

    Their argument may disintegrate, but not its effectiveness, as anyone who reads David French regularly will quickly understand.

    I do not often read Mr. French’s work.  It is somewhat effective because people let it flat foot them instead of staying on topic as well as turning their pseudo-intellectual questions and talking points back on them.  They have their talking points down pat yes, but few can think outside of the box.  Corner a LibTard sometime and try to get them to think.  Most can’t/ won’t.  They just get angry and/ or violent.  Win-win for me (most to the time).

    Actually you never have to corner one.  They’ll corner you and then you ‘rope a dope.’  It is fun.

    • #19
  20. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    I’m curious why the Democrats are calling for an FBI background check first, when if Feinstien had shared the info a few month ago, it would have been done by now.  It really is disingenuous and part of the scam. 

    In the big scheme of things, Ford’s accusations and proof, were not even taken seriously by the Democrats. So now she is a prop to use to delay. 

    Ford keeps making statement through the WaPo and that bothers me deeply. 

    This is the most stupid pubic discourse I can remember listening to. The fact it plays on news organizations makes me think the public really is fairly stupid and unable to gather, anyalize and synthesize information in an intelligent manner to make discernments necessary for integral life. 

    It makes “it’s just about sex” seem scholarly.

    • #20
  21. Simon Templar Inactive
    Simon Templar
    @SimonTemplar

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    This is the most stupid pubic discourse I can remember listening to. The fact it plays on news organizations makes me think the public really is fairly stupid and unable to gather, anyalize and synthesize information in an intelligent manner to make discernments necessary for integral life. 

    It makes “it’s just about sex” seem scholarly.

    Yes sir.  Which is another reason that I keep saying that voters have to have skin in the game.  How many illegals are going to vote this November?

    • #21
  22. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Never mind the formalities that this isn’t a criminal case, how can anyone anywhere under any circumstances defend or explain himself before he is told what he’s supposed to defend or explain?

    • #22
  23. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    She will never testify.

    • #23
  24. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    She will never testify.

    Yeah, the obvious out is that she’s been so traumatized by the last week’s events that she is unable to testify, and the charge is withdrawn with a cloud still around Kavanaugh.

    Win/Win for the Democrats.

    • #24
  25. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Never mind the formalities that this isn’t a criminal case, how can anyone anywhere under any circumstances defend or explain himself before he is told what he’s supposed to defend or explain?

    No. I think it is a basic in growing up.  It kind of violates the idea you can take the fifth amendment against self incrimination.

    • #25
  26. Simon Templar Inactive
    Simon Templar
    @SimonTemplar

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    She will never testify.

    Truer words were never spoken.

    • #26
  27. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    That is the emanation of 40 years of massive legal immigration, favored by liberals, “conservatives” and libertarians alike.

    Enjoy!

    How blind we are to support a system of legal immigration that’s the product of representative (constitutional) government.

    “Blind” about a system that was misrepresented to the public from the start and that had been relentlessly propagandized for in our schools, media, largest corporations and institutions, including entertainment.

    “The product of representative (constitutional) government” that no one ever gets to vote for, because both major parties and all the money are on the same (other) side. Like affirmative action.

    Oh, wait! I know. I’ll just start my own political party and win federal office.

    Right after I invent a new internet.

    We get it.  A republican form of government doesn’t work for you because “the people” aren’t smart enough.  We should really fix that and make sure “the right people” set the agenda.  Keep digging.

    • #27
  28. Jeff Hawkins Coolidge
    Jeff Hawkins
    @JeffHawkins

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    She will never testify.

    Truers words were never spoken.

    Will be spun as Republicans being unreasonable and mean

    • #28
  29. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    Jeff Hawkins (View Comment):
    Will be spun as Republicans being unreasonable and mean

    That’s what kids say about their parents. Democrats are immature.

    • #29
  30. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    That is the emanation of 40 years of massive legal immigration, favored by liberals, “conservatives” and libertarians alike.

    Enjoy!

    How blind we are to support a system of legal immigration that’s the product of representative (constitutional) government.

    “Blind” about a system that was misrepresented to the public from the start and that had been relentlessly propagandized for in our schools, media, largest corporations and institutions, including entertainment.

    “The product of representative (constitutional) government” that no one ever gets to vote for, because both major parties and all the money are on the same (other) side. Like affirmative action.

    Oh, wait! I know. I’ll just start my own political party and win federal office.

    Right after I invent a new internet.

    We get it. A republican form of government doesn’t work for you because “the people” aren’t smart enough. We should really fix that and make sure “the right people” set the agenda. Keep digging.

    The “right people” are setting the agenda now. 

    Enjoy!

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.