Tara Reade is a person who exists

[Derec]

Of course it is whataboutism - our discussion was about the reliability of Grassley and no one else.

Actually it's about reliability of rape accusers like Tara Reid. Look at the thread title - it's not about US Senators.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it is whataboutism - our discussion was about the reliability of Grassley and no one else.

Actually it's about reliability of rape accusers like Tara Reid. Look at the thread title - it's not about US Senators.

No, it is not about the reliability of rape accusers like Tara Reid. It is about Tara Reid's accusation against Joe Biden.

 

[Jarhyn]

Holy shit, so, Beerbro lied. We can see the dishonesty on the very face of those who defend him because they don't expect someone who kept meticulous records of what they did every day for 30 years to remember what they did 30 years ago.

If that isn't evidence of rape apologia, I don't know what is.

Of course, I don't get these facts from any media, I got them from watching the fucking hearing itself on C-SPAN as it happened, and reading the goddamn calandar. The calandar Beerbro brought to the hearing. The one he made himself, and put up on screen for the Senate and entire nation to see.

Even if he can't remember the party, can we at least expect them to read their own documents and be consistent with them? Talk about willful fucking ignorance

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It is possible Derec misremembers, because accuser Judy Munro-Leighton allegedly recanted according to Sen. Charles Grassley.

I don't know whether she did or not, but Mr. Grassley is a partisan POS, so I would not take his word on it.

According to the committee he chaired. Which also has Democrats on it.
'I was angry, and I sent it out': Woman admits she fabricated a claim about writing an anonymous letter that accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault

Besides, JML is a partisan activist too.

Investigators were able to find Munro-Leighton due to her "relatively unique name," and determined she resided in Kentucky. According to their findings, they deduced that she was what they described as a "left-wing activist," who is "decades older than Judge Kavanaugh."

After being interviewed by investigators on Thursday, Munro-Leighton, who had never met Kavanaugh in person, "admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe' letter,'" Grassley's office said.

She claimed originally that she was Jane Doe, the author of an anonymous letter that was sent to Sen. Kamala Harris. She then recanted that claim.

Iow, she is not the author of the letter. The author of the letter still exists and her claims still exist, it's just that Munro-Leighton is not that author.

Fucking hell.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Put up or shut up.

And you claim that this fff guy must be right because he taught law.

No, he IS right because he teaches law and knows what the legal definitions are. He's not speculating; he's not offering an opinion; he's stating a well-established fact of law.

What evidence do you present that he is being dishonest?

I already mentioned the bait and switch

That is YOUR mischaracterization based entirely on your demonstrated ignorance, not evidence of his dishonesty.

He then went on--in great detail and quoting case law that I posted previously--affirming that fact that "prior consistent statements" are in fact a well established component of corroborative evidence.

Oh case law.

Yeah, it's the basis of our jurisprudence.

Can you point me of case law examples of criminal convictions for 30 year old rapes based on no other evidence

Jtfc. Push those goalposts!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"The future is female" - as feminists print on t-shirts and wear proudly, indicating there's no room for half of humanity in its misandrist dystopia.

It's not a mutually exclusive proposition. I know, because, (a) I'm intelligent and (b) I actually know the woman who coined that phrase. As with so many other things you post, your apparent inability to put yourself in another's shoes to understand what it is they meant--not what you misconstrue it to mean--is not anyone else's problem, it is yours.

 

[Derec]

No, he IS right because he teaches law and knows what the legal definitions are. He's not speculating; he's not offering an opinion; he's stating a well-established fact of law.

Doesn't mean he is automatically correct.

That is YOUR mischaracterization based entirely on your demonstrated ignorance, not evidence of his dishonesty.

I am mischaracterizing nothing. Physical evidence of a recent hit and run is not at all like telling things to some other people in a 30 year old case.

Yeah, it's the basis of our jurisprudence.

Then you should be able to present case law that resembles this case, where a conviction was obtained solely on alleged "prior consistent statements" by the accuser.

 

[Derec]

No, it is not about the reliability of rape accusers like Tara Reid. It is about Tara Reid's accusation against Joe Biden.

Then why do you people keep rehashing the failed attempt at destroying Kav's career with some unsubstantiated 30 year old accusations?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Doesn't mean he is automatically correct.

Yeah, actually it does, because, once again, he's not speculating. Here's the fucking Federal Rule of Evidence that proves it: Rule 801. It literally could not be more clear:

Under the rule [prior consistent statements] are substantive evidence.

As to your

 

[Derec]

As to your

In other words, you got nothing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As to your

In other words, you got nothing.

No, in actual words, you pathetically tried to stuff a strawman, so fuck off.

 

[Rhea]

**Reminder to all posting right now**

 

[Arctish]

Doesn't mean he is automatically correct.

Yeah, actually it does, because, once again, he's not speculating. Here's the fucking Federal Rule of Evidence that proves it: Rule 801. It literally could not be more clear:

Under the rule [prior consistent statements] are substantive evidence.

As to your

In other words, you got nothing.

He has a link to Rule 801 of the Federal Rule of Evidence. And since you obviously read his post, you do too.

Do you understand what that means?

Koyaanisqatsi has established that his claim is correct. "Prior consistent statements" are a well established component of corroborative evidence. Christine Blasey Ford's prior consistent statements are genuine, admissible-in-a-court-of-law evidence, no matter how much you wish they weren't. So let's just acknowledge Koy's point and move on.

 

[Trausti]

Yeah, actually it does, because, once again, he's not speculating. Here's the fucking Federal Rule of Evidence that proves it: Rule 801. It literally could not be more clear:

Under the rule [prior consistent statements] are substantive evidence.

As to your

In other words, you got nothing.

He has a link to Rule 801 of the Federal Rule of Evidences. And since you obviously read his post, you do too.

Do you understand what that means?

Koyaanisqatsi has established that his claim is correct. "Prior consistent statements" are a well established component of corroborative evidence. Christine Blasey Ford's prior consistent statements are genuine, admissible-in-a-court-of-law evidence, no matter how much you wish they weren't. So let's just acknowledge Koy's point and move on.

Ditto Tara Reade?

 

[Arctish]

Yeah, actually it does, because, once again, he's not speculating. Here's the fucking Federal Rule of Evidence that proves it: Rule 801. It literally could not be more clear:



As to your

In other words, you got nothing.

He has a link to Rule 801 of the Federal Rule of Evidence. And since you obviously read his post, you do too.

Do you understand what that means?

Koyaanisqatsi has established that his claim is correct. "Prior consistent statements" are a well established component of corroborative evidence. Christine Blasey Ford's prior consistent statements are genuine, admissible-in-a-court-of-law evidence, no matter how much you wish they weren't. So let's just acknowledge Koy's point and move on.

Ditto Tara Reade?

Are you asking if Tara Reade's prior consistent statements are genuine, admissible-in-a-court-of-law evidence as per Rule 801 of the Federal Rule of Evidence?

Of course they are. Why wouldn't they be?

 

[Trausti]

I'd rather doubt that Evidence Rule 801 would allow the alleged prior consistent statement by Ford as she did not name Kavanaugh. She purportedly said "federal judge." There are hundreds of federal judges. Reade named Biden specifically. Usually need that to get the evidence in.

 

[Derec]

Koyaanisqatsi has established that his claim is correct. "Prior consistent statements" are a well established component of corroborative evidence. Christine Blasey Ford's prior consistent statements are genuine, admissible-in-a-court-of-law evidence, no matter how much you wish they weren't. So let's just acknowledge Koy's point and move on.

Whether they would be admissible or not is not the issue. I think such hearsay should not be admissible because it can be easily faked, especially when vouched for by somebody like the accuser's husband or close friend, but again, that is not the issue. The issue is whether such weak evidence could ever establish that the accused was guilty.

Koy mentioned case law. What case law does he have where somebody was convicted of a 30 year old rape based on "prior consistent statements".

 

[laughing dog]

Koyaanisqatsi has established that his claim is correct. "Prior consistent statements" are a well established component of corroborative evidence. Christine Blasey Ford's prior consistent statements are genuine, admissible-in-a-court-of-law evidence, no matter how much you wish they weren't. So let's just acknowledge Koy's point and move on.

Whether they would be admissible or not is not the issue. I think such hearsay should not be admissible because it can be easily faked, especially when vouched for by somebody like the accuser's husband or close friend, but again, that is not the issue. The issue is whether such weak evidence could ever establish that the accused was guilty.

Whether they are admissible is the issue. Your views on what or what should not be admissible is not the issue.

You do realize that just because evidence is legally admissible in a case does not necessarily mean a conviction?

 

[Trausti]

Koyaanisqatsi has established that his claim is correct. "Prior consistent statements" are a well established component of corroborative evidence. Christine Blasey Ford's prior consistent statements are genuine, admissible-in-a-court-of-law evidence, no matter how much you wish they weren't. So let's just acknowledge Koy's point and move on.

Whether they would be admissible or not is not the issue. I think such hearsay should not be admissible because it can be easily faked, especially when vouched for by somebody like the accuser's husband or close friend, but again, that is not the issue. The issue is whether such weak evidence could ever establish that the accused was guilty.

Koy mentioned case law. What case law does he have where somebody was convicted of a 30 year old rape based on "prior consistent statements".

Well, time lapse doesn't invalidate application of the rule. But in Ford's case, her alleged prior consistent statement is only relevant as to "federal judge." It is not corroborating evidence against Kavanaugh. Seriously doubt this would be admitted at a trial. The reported cases always have the victim identifying the actual defendant in the prior statement. I mean, if Ford had said a human-life form had assaulted her in high school, would that be corroborating evidence against Kavanaugh?

 

[Arctish]

Koyaanisqatsi has established that his claim is correct. "Prior consistent statements" are a well established component of corroborative evidence. Christine Blasey Ford's prior consistent statements are genuine, admissible-in-a-court-of-law evidence, no matter how much you wish they weren't. So let's just acknowledge Koy's point and move on.

Whether they would be admissible or not is not the issue. I think such hearsay should not be admissible because it can be easily faked, especially when vouched for by somebody like the accuser's husband or close friend, but again, that is not the issue. The issue is whether such weak evidence could ever establish that the accused was guilty.

Koy mentioned case law. What case law does he have where somebody was convicted of a 30 year old rape based on "prior consistent statements".

You are the only one suggesting that prior consistent statements are all that's needed to justify a conviction in cases where it exists.

I'm glad you finally recognize that it's evidence, but you are jumping to ridiculous conclusions.