Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[ipecac]

Does anyone remember when Trump was accused by multiple women of sexual assault a month before the 2016 elections? The answer is no, because they all magically disappeared from the media spotlight when that desperate tactic just didn't work

It's all rather pathetic.

[Huinesoron]

Does anyone remember when Trump was accused by multiple women of sexual assault a month before the 2016 elections? The answer is no, because they all magically disappeared from the media spotlight when that desperate tactic just didn't work

It's all rather pathetic.

Er, yes, many people remember that. The fact that our current society thinks it's something that should just be glossed over is a pretty horrifying indictment. So far as I can tell (from a quick glance over Wikipedia, admittedly), none of them were ever investigated on an official level (some where by various media outlets).

I'm not actually sure who would be doing the investigation; in a lot of US states, the statute of limitations for a generic felony (which the kinds of assault he was accused of would seem to be) is pretty short: 3 years, 5 maybe (source). Since Wikipedia lists only one incident more recent than 2010 (this list), it looks like even if all of the accusations were true, Trump couldn't be charged with anything. So the police wouldn't be looking into it, and nor I suspect would the FBI.

I suppose if he outright denied something and then ?someone? proved it was true, that would be perjury (wasn't that what they attempted to impeach Clinton over?), but again, that comes back to the same question of who does the proving.

You're right - it was a desperate tactic. Being the victim of sexual assault is seen as deeply shameful by many (even though it shouldn't be), so going public with it is a difficult and heart-rending decision. Add in the fact that those women [all right, 'whichever portion of those women were telling the truth'] knew (statute of limitations again) that there was no possibility of him being convicted of anything, and that the immediate response from a large segment of the public is a) disbelief, b) claiming it was their own fault, and c) (as always on the internet) death threats and the like, and you come to understand just how desperate these women must have been to keep their attacker from becoming President of the United States. So yes, they took their information/accusations to the voting public, hoping that sharing the awful things that happened to them would make a difference.

It didn't. Can you blame them for not wanting to stay in the spotlight afterwards?

hS

[AdrienIer]

Same for Dr Ford : she's recieving death threats and harassment letters, but somehow she's doing it as a tactic and for fame and glory ? As Anita Hill proved there's nothing to gain from coming out against someone powerful

[Huinesoron]

Same for Dr Ford : she's recieving death threats and harassment letters, but somehow she's doing it as a tactic and for fame and glory ? As Anita Hill proved there's nothing to gain from coming out against someone powerful

I think the hypothesis is that Dr. Ford and other women in a similar situation are deliberately sacrificing themselves to bring down someone they hate. But that logic leads to a weird tangle of 'they must be doing it on principle, because they're not getting anything out of it themselves, but they must have no principles, because they're lying in the most despicable way', so I'm not sure that's much better?

It's still better than the people saying (about Brett) "boys will be boys", or "everyone does it", because actually, no, not every young man traps underaged girls in rooms, pins them to beds, tries to pull their clothes off, and smothers their screams. That's not remotely acceptable behaviour, and people who (by their words) believe he did it shouldn't be trying to excuse it.

hS

[suboptimal]

In the event that he was appointed to the Supreme Court, and a year later the accusations were found to be true (to whatever degree of 'found to be true' is needed) and he was impeached, what effect would you expect that to have on decisions made during his tenure? I feel like 'we appointed someone ?ineligable' [Article III says that justices hold their offices 'during good Behaviour'; a guilty decision would indicate that he was not only an attempted rapist, but had also ?lied directly to Congress, before his appointment, which hardly sounds like 'good behaviour' to me] would lead directly to 'and therefore all his votes are invalid', but that could mean a lot of cases previously 'decided' would suddenly be hung votes. Depending on the timeframe, presumably they could also have been used as precedent in lower courts; would the verdicts based on those now-redacted precedents be overturned?

The alternative seems to be that the decisions of someone who obtained his position through dishonest means remain valid, which sounds like a horrifying precedent in its own right. (In the related scenario where Trump ends up being proven to have gained his position through dishonest means, we can plausibly expect the next Democratic president, whenever that happens, to walk back almost everything he did; the Supreme Court doesn't operate in the same way, by my understanding.)

With regards to judges, their removal does not result in an invalidation or roll back of any decisions they were involved in.  As your first scenario lays out, attempting to resolve the effect on all of the cases decided on any close votes would be messy.  The only way in which one of those decisions could be reversed post-removal would be if the bad behavior at issue had a provably direct outcome upon a decision.  Even then that would require going through the appellate process to get a shot at reversal.

Of course, that assumes that impeachment is even a practical outcome.  Given the political climate there'd have to be something completely irrefutable behind impeachment in order to hit the 2/3 supermajority required to convict in the Senate.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Same for Dr Ford : she's recieving death threats and harassment letters, but somehow she's doing it as a tactic and for fame and glory ? As Anita Hill proved there's nothing to gain from coming out against someone powerful

I think the hypothesis is that Dr. Ford and other women in a similar situation are deliberately sacrificing themselves to bring down someone they hate. But that logic leads to a weird tangle of 'they must be doing it on principle, because they're not getting anything out of it themselves, but they must have no principles, because they're lying in the most despicable way', so I'm not sure that's much better?



hS

Once you hate someone enough to resort to this tactic you don't respect them. You believe they don't deserve any rights. And if they don't have rights there's no principles for you to break.


Trump has a built in defense to getting attacked: he might have been target by a cash payout. This actually happened with Stormy Daniels and Ivana Trump (via divorce). He also has a lot of contacts and acts in such away that he's an easy target. You could argue that there's too many women but that that's an intellectual argument which would require you to treat Trump with respect.  LOL 

Ipecac, the reason it's over 50% for me is 2012 is before #MeToo.

[Mardoc]

There should also be an FBI investigation, and if the accusations are proven true he should be impeached. 
Darrell

Or, there's the third way: hold off on appointing him to the Supreme Court until the allegations have been investigated.

Why do you guys think this is remotely feasible?  The FBI isn't magic.  

What's alleged isn't a Federal crime, they have no jurisdiction, it's probably long past statute of limitations (IANAL), it's not the sort of crime the FBI has expertise in, and the area they might have special skill with - forensic evidence - there's no way it could have survived this long.  

Supposedly there were all of three people in the room, who were all under the influence of alcohol, and have all testified (although only Kavanaugh has done so under oath, and there was no testimony at the time this happened). Anything that could have been evidence at the time has long since healed or been cleaned - and it couldn't have been very substantial evidence to begin with, or else there would have been charges filed.  It's unlikely the bed or linens lasted; there's even a pretty high probability the house has been torn down or completely remodeled.  At this point you probably can't even prove that there was a party which they both attended, let alone prove anything that happened at the party.  The one thing that might maybe have survived until now was people's memories - but the last week's media coverage certainly contaminated any recollections beyond those of the central people who we've already heard from.

And of course, the way I've heard it (thirdhand, granted), there isn't even a year or location alleged.   Thus even if the FBI had a time machine and jurisdiction as time-cops, they might not be able to get any evidence.

Whatever is done, is pretty much going to have to be done with what's already known.  Can't punt the question to the FBI.  It really comes down to a question of judgment, and a question of priorities.  The hard questions, like 'who do you believe?', 'are memories reliable', 'which is more important, job performance or character?', 'do people change?'.

[ipecac]

Add in the fact that those women [all right, 'whichever portion of those women were telling the truth'] 

At least you acknowledge this part.

Same for Dr Ford : she's recieving death threats and harassment letters, but somehow she's doing it as a tactic and for fame and glory ?

The obvious possibility is that she's trying to block Kavanaugh's appointment.

Ipecac, the reason it's over 50% for me is 2012 is before #MeToo.

There has been no reliable evidence that Kavanaugh was accused in 2012.

[AdrienIer]

Same for Dr Ford : she's recieving death threats and harassment letters, but somehow she's doing it as a tactic and for fame and glory ?

The obvious possibility is that she's trying to block Kavanaugh's appointment.

That's the point : why would she sacrifice herself, her career, her safety, the safety of her family to block the appointment of someone who has done nothing to her ?

[mackoti]

Same for Dr Ford : she's recieving death threats and harassment letters, but somehow she's doing it as a tactic and for fame and glory ?

The obvious possibility is that she's trying to block Kavanaugh's appointment.

That's the point : why would she sacrifice herself, her career, her safety, the safety of her family to block the appointment of someone who has done nothing to her ?

I supose that kavanaugh  and his wife getting death threats , is a prove he didnt do it using same logic as you. I am born  in comunist contry and using this kind of tactic was very common even my  uncle felt to it , first they said he destroyed a comunist symbol, after that he threatened  mayor and his famiily  and without any prove after just considered him guilty and put him in jail. 

So you saying she is a very carring person and she is doing it because of others my question why did she let such a dangerous man free so many years to let to do same thing to other women? 

And another question for you as i worked with some cases were abused took place and even I had some very bad experience in my life and belive me those people remeber the day the year very clear and the place and I do the same , she beeing very unclear about that makes me wonder.

And if she didnt look for fame and glory why didnt do this 5 , 10 , 20, 30 years ago? When the judge was a nobody and justice would have been served.

And another thing I read Nancy Pellosy said that the party will do whatever its takes to stop this appointment.