Posted on 02/05/2019 6:46:39 AM PST by maggief
oh, I haven’t heard that.
My observations of outcomes for men who have been through it: the 20 years is overwhelmingly preferable.
The woman is being set up by the Democrats. Hiring Blasey Ford’s attorney’s lends credibility Lt. Gov. Fairfax.
Who recommended she hire them?
Kavanaugh’s wife should sue those who defamed her husband for the intentional infliction of emotional distress on her and their daughters; mostly to keep those same people doing the same to the next nominee, and the money.
Bring out Christine Blasey Ford in blackface...Yeah...that will work.
Gonna be a shit show!
I’m back, GF!
Something has gone haywire in the Democrat party. In previous times, no matter what a Democrat politician got caught doing currently or in the past, the rules were:
1. Democrats do not resign
2. Democrats do not break ranks
3. Democrats stick to the double standard (make excuses for the behavior of their own, but not for same behavior in non-Democrats)
Have you seen the movie “Law Abiding Citizen”? It’s great. It’s on Netflix.
Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX6kVRsdXW4&list=PLjIZO5jNQk_JpslGLUnSiWNMzVXg_-Il2
Yippee! Good to see you, GF!
Aaannnddd it worked out all so well for Ford when she hired this team. This will go nowhere, especially since he is a lib.
Fairfax admits to having consensual sex with the woman 20 years ago. That’s all?
I don’t care if he is a flaming liberal. The word of a woman, on its own, is not evidence. Some may not like this statement, but even if he did sexually assault her, there is still no evidence he sexually assaulted her.
Oh, this is gonna get good.
The woman wants a fight!!
You don’t understand; let me orient you. This is 2019 and Fairfax is a Democrat: the scandal, therefore, is that he had sex with a *woman*.
That isn’t exactly true, although it has some merit.
To wit, imagine a panhandler, and a city visitor. The visitor walks over, and listens to the panhandler play music on a guitar. What happens next is in dispute.
According to the visitor, he pulled out his wallet to give the man a dollar. When the man saw him throw the dollar in the case, the man got mad, grabbed the wallet, pulled out all the cash, and ran off.
According the the panhandler, the he told the visitor his sob story, the man took compassion on him, and gave him everything he had in his wallet. The panhandler then packed up to go find a homeless shelter for the night, since he had enough money.
Now — can a criminal charge be filed in this case? As you said, we have nothing but the victim’s word, and an empty wallet; the panhandler says the gift was consensual.
IN fact, can’t ever robber say whatever they stole was “consensual”? How often is there actual evidence that the exchange of money was forced? If the robber physically assaults you, yes, but when have you heard anybody suggest that, if you want to prosecute a robber, you better get them to physically attack you, or else everybody will think you were just being kind and giving him money.
In this case, there is “evidence”. The woman’s testimony, if given under oath, is evidence. The man will then have to testify, under oath, and that will be “evidence”.
There will then be circumstantial evidence presented. The man will likely have character witnesses claiming he never did this, the woman will have witnesses claiming she was upset later, or that she has never lied to get anybody in trouble.
In this case, there is no doubt that the two were alone in the hotel room, so most of what would be “evidence” is already being conceded — he DID meet her, he took her to his room, he had a sexual encounter with her.
The only dispute is over whether she said “yes” to it, or not.
She will be discounted somewhat because, so far as we know at this point, she never mentioned it to anybody until last year after he won.
But she will not suffer from the most common discrediting:
- He has admitted being with her.
- She is a liberal black democrat, so there is no racial or political reason for this.
- She lives in California, so had no reason to think about this until she saw it on the news that he won an election.
- She went to a newspaper, but didn’t pursue it further, and never asked for money, so it doesn’t appear she has a monetary motive.
- The story is out NOW because a friend of hers asked permission to circulate it — meaning she HAD spoken about it privately. That she didn’t bring it up again can be seen as her not looking for publicity (the counter is that she TOLD the friend to do it for her, for that reason).
I don’t think he could possibly be prosecuted for this. Although frankly, you have to wonder how he could ever be, under your theory. Suppose she RAN OUT OF THAT ROOM and went to the first person she saw and said “That man just forced himself on me”. And he came out and said “It was entirely consensual, until she asked for my phone number, and I told her it was a one-time thing. Then she said I just used her, and got mad and ran out”.
Your analogy is not a good one.
The alleged sexual assault happened 20 years ago. A panhandler robbed the guy the same day. The victim of the panhandler likely got a good look at him and could describe him to the police, who probably already knew his name and where to find him.
As you can see, the reliability of the victim of the panhandler is much better, and there is probably some physical evidence.
But your complaint was that there was no “evidence”, not that the evidence was old (it was 14 years ago, not 20, but still a while ago).
And there is no dispute about the “facts”. Both parties agree they met, went into his room, and engaged in sexual activity.
So the ONLY evidence we have that it wasn’t consensual is that one of the two parties says it was not consensual.
I do not have a problem with believing a woman would remember being forced to do a sex act, 14 years later. She might not remember what the guy looked like, but she would remember the activity. And since he admits to being in the room, she doesn’t HAVE to remember it.
So, my analogy stands — how do you ever determine that a crime happened when there is no physical evidence, if there is a different interpretation where the act was consensual?
BTW, this comes up in car thefts by relatives. What if someone claims you offered them your car, but you say they took it without permission? What if your neighbor takes your garden hose?
Yes, we would “believe” the woman more, MAYBE, if she had talked about this the day after; but even the day after, we’d still be in the same evidentiary situation, having to weigh the veracity of the two participants.
Which is why I am saying that the word of the participants IS evidence, it is just evidence that has to be weighed in a different manner than physical evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.