It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Sexual McCarthyism': Dershowitz Says Dems Set 'Terrible Precedent' With Kavanaugh Allegations

page: 1
20

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Source: Sexual McCarthyism': Dershowitz Says Dems Set 'Terrible Precedent' With Kavanaugh Allegations



"This kind of sexual McCarthyism is a terrible, terrible precedent," said Dershowitz, arguing that sexual assault claims should be taken seriously but a witness possibly making up a statement "out of whole cloth" must also be taken seriously.

Dershowitz was referring to reports that Leland Ingham Keyser told FBI investigators she was urged to clarify her statement by Monica McLean, a former FBI agent and friend of Christine Blasey Ford.

Ford said Keyser was at the party where she alleges Kavanaugh attacked her in a bedroom, but Keyser told the Senate Judiciary Committee she doesn't know Kavanaugh and had no recollection of being at a party with him.


IMO, for the majority of Kavanaugh supporters, this is the primary reason. I know for me, it was that she had no supporting evidence from anyone but herself that this event happened, and that Brett Kavanaugh was the perpetrator. I don't put blind belief into anything in my life. When it comes to criminal charges of any kind, I actually believe in innocent until proven guilty regardless of the venue (i.e. trial vs "job interview"). I'll explain why...

In a job interview, as a hiring manager (which I have been in the past) I would not accept any baseless accusations of a derogatory nature about the candidate unless there was actual proof from more than a single person making the claim. See, that is what references are for as part of that process. Granted, a list of references coming from the candidate will always be the best they can provide, it is within the interviewers realm to decide if the reference is telling the truth based upon the questioning that is done.

In the Kavanaugh case, the references he provided all were glowing praise for him (not a surprise). However, the references provided by his accuser, Dr. Ford, to a person did NOT agree with her accusation. Her "best friend" at the time of the alleged event even mentioned in her sworn statement that she never even met Kavanaugh at all. That statement (which the MSM usually fails to include in their reporting) means this event, in her opinion did not happen since she has never met him.

Is it plausible that Dr. Ford mistook her attacker?
Is it plausible that her memory is faulty, considering many of the other details were also vague or non-existent?
The only thing Dr. Ford stated in her testimony that was "indelible in her hippocampus" was the laughing.....NOT the face. Even though she testified that she was 100% sure it was him. Really, not indelibly burned into your hippocampus?

I do not believe we should live our lives blindly believing anything from anyone without getting both sides of a claim and getting all the actual facts. Emotion is great in it's place, but IMO it's place is not in judgement of legal matters.

I agree with Mr. Dershowitz here that if we do go down this route, we are making a grave decision for our future....in every aspect of our lives.



edit on 10/5/2018 by Krakatoa because: fixed spelling errors




posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   
None of us can know what actually happened.

All we can do is weigh the evidence. Anyone who weighs this evidence and comes up against Kavanaugh used a faulty scale.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa


I agree with Mr. Dershowitz here that if we do go down this route, we are making a grave decision for our future....in every aspect of our lives.




Meanwhile:

‘Make them scared’ website posts uncorroborated sexual assault claims against male students

Provided without the obvious comment.
edit on 5-10-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 02:55 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

It's tough. People should be more focused on the evidence than the political colours someone wears. People aren't automatically guilty because we think their music's # or their movies suck, right? Not liking someone doesn't mean they're a sex offender or that anyone has an *intuition* radar that beats court evidence. In this climate, that's what most people are doing...basing levels of guilt on political teams and gut instinct.

What they don't realise is how finger pointing affects everybody and can happen to them too. It's been a political cosh since forever; MLK was a target of state-sponsored smears. What used to be called 'poison pen letters' are now tweets, posts and FB comments. Hands up anyone who hasn't retweeted, starred or liked a nasty comment?!

There's a lot to dislike about social media and it's the false allegations and smear campaigns that should worry the most. Instead we're collectively fanning the flames that might burn away trust and freedom.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
"Sexual McCarthyism"....what a fantastically descriptive term for what we just witnessed these past few weeks.

Here's a great example. I was arguing with someone I know, on a friend's thread about it. He's an ultra-liberal (but he's also fairly well known for his attraction to barely legal gals, (he's in his 40's) that are in the stage productions he's also in).

I was fine sticking to the points of argument. THEN, he tried to attack me personally.

Bad idea.

I started with just a jab, after he said, "I never liked you, now I know why"....

I said, "Why? I think you're creeptastic!"

(all of our acquaintances would surely get the joke here)...especially being on a topic of rape and making women creeped out.

He messaged me, asking me to delete the comment.

Me: Really? Why?

Him: You know why....

Me: So, how does it feel to be in Kavanaugh's shoes? You know the proverb about glass houses I take it?

Him: Yep. We good?


He got the point of "sexual McCarthyism" then, I think.

(I did delete the comment, because I can be nice, and I had proven my point.) (and I'm sure plenty had already seen it).




edit on 8-10-2018 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
the McCarty investigations as well as the Salem Witch Trials are very good comparisons of what is going on in society today with claims of sexual assault, rape, and other sexual misconduct. and it's not just within the US alone, Canada is having the exact same problems. right up to using what would appear to be false allegations in an attack/political assassination against political rivals.

the worst part of this whole thing in this case against Kavanaugh is the reasoning for those against him. that we should automatically believe those who are making the accusations. which of course means automatically disbelieving those who such accusations are made against. and that is exactly what happened with both the McCarty investigations as well as in the Salem Witch Trials. yet why should we believe one person over the other? what is it that makes an accuser any more truthful than the person the accusations are against? and this is exactly why we have justice systems in place. so that accusations of crimes can be investigated by what is supposed to be an impartial party (ie the police). a party that has no noting to gain or loose either way. and then if it seems likely (ie they find evidence of possible wrongdoing), then to pass it onto an impartial court of law, and an impartial jury (again people who should not have anything to loose or gain no matter what the result is in the end). to decide who is guilty or telling the truth. this is the very thing that every justice system in every free country is built on. and along with that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. which if you think about it actually applies to both the accused and accuser. with the onus being on the accuser proving that the accused is guilty. it is NOT for politicians who ALL have something to gain or loose to decide. it is not for the biased (on both sides) media to decide. and it is not for the general public to decide, especially based on what they are being told by the biased media. it is also not for schools and businesses to decide. it should ONLY and ALWAY be for the impartial courts of law to decide. based upon actual evidence of said crimes taking place.




top topics



 
20

log in

join