The Saga Continues, Those Who Demand That Women Who Have Been Sexually Assaulted Should be Heard are Amazingly Silent (1 Viewer)

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
5,046
Alyssa Milano said it the best way just , I think, yesterday/today(?): something along the lines of: the point of the metoo movement was never that all women should just be believed in everything they say, but rather, the default of never believing the woman should be changed.

Ok, now that's something I think most people can get on board with.
I can't disagree with the view that you start by not disbelieving the woman. How many double-negatives is that? Must be a record! :D

I am not altogether convinced the #metoo movement was just about that. A question I have , because I don't actually know the answer, is was the default of never believing the woman typical? I thought everybody got their day in court. I do know that with the reverse, when a man was the victim from the woman, the sentences are more lenient. #mantoo

I'm all for equal justice for all, not just for women, but for men too. Treat everybody the same. Same sentences for similar crimes. Not saying a woman can't consent when drunk while the man can, as is the case in the UK. That makes no sense whatsoever. Can someone please explain that one to me? Maybe I am missing something.
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 08:46
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,104
New York Times article: Democratic Frustration Mounts as Biden Remains Silent on Sexual Assault Allegation
The Biden campaign talking points, which were first reported by BuzzFeed News, instruct supporters to describe the candidate as a “fierce advocate for women” who has never faced any “complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct.” The talking points also inaccurately suggested that an investigation by The New York Times this month found that “this incident did not happen.”

In a statement issued Wednesday, The Times noted that the investigation “made no conclusion either way.”" (emphasis added)
At a minimum, we should be grateful that the Times made a grudging push back against the Democrats misuse of the Times article. In a related situation, the accusations against General Flynn seem to be unraveling. Evidently new documentation has been released by the FBI. In response, President Trump called on CNN to undertake some soul searching in their reporting. Maybe the news-media, CNN and the Times, are finally facing the reality that the negative biased stories that they have been spewing out may be reaching an end-of-life and it is time to return to real balanced news.
 
Last edited:

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 05:46
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
3,854
CNN and the Times, are finally facing the reality that the negative biased stories that they have been spewing out may be reaching an end-of-life and it is time to return to real balanced news.

Hah!
B.S..gif
 
Last edited:

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 08:46
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
2,471
Evidently new documentation has been released by the FBI.
Actually his lawyers did. This is not an unusual practice. Its legal and has been used for decades. Your local PD uses it also however on a local level being caught lying to the cops is used as a consciousness of guilt argument. Doubtful that they would persuade a Judge to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, as he did break the law and then lied about it, but it would certainly give trump cover to pardon him.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
5,046
I saw something on YouTube where the FBI were quoted as saying they were either trying to get him fired or to resign. I mean what kind of law enforcement is it? Corrupt for sure.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 07:46
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
20,242
Tera, you asked the question about whether voting was a decision of "what is better for me" or what is better for all" and I think there are nuances.

In the case of Trump vs. Clinton, I asked a third question: Which one is the lesser evil? That is not QUITE the same as "what is better for all." I have had that terrible bargain twice in my life now. The 2016 elections, and a time many years ago when the Louisiana governor's race pitted Edwin Edwards against David Duke. Edwards was known to be crooked and had been investigated by CBS news in the show 60 Minutes. He was a "Teflon" politician because NOTHING stuck to him. His tendency to spend other people's money was well known. But David Duke was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, about as racist a bunch of yahoos as you would ever find. Our choices in the final election were a bigot or a crook. I voted for the crook based on the idea of "picking the devil you know over the devil you don't."
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 08:46
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
2,471
True, but it could be vacated.
Same thing.

I saw something on YouTube where the FBI were quoted as saying they were either trying to get him fired or to resign. I mean what kind of law enforcement is it? Corrupt for sure.
Flynn was suspected of violating the Logan Act. An old law rarely used but a law still on the books none the less. There were recordings of his call so the FBI already knew before speaking to him what was going on. It is much easier to prove that he lied to the FBI, a felony, than to prove that he violated the logan act. So what do you do? You give him the opportunity to tell the truth or to lie. Either way he gets charged. I'm not even sure he pleaded to the logan act so technically he could possibly still be charged even if trump pardons him.

If you really want to look at dirty cop tricks look up the Reid Technique. I've taken several seminars on it.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
5,046
Moke, are you in the legal profession?
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 05:46
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
3,854
He confessed to the judge during his colloquy not the FBI.
The reid technique on the other hand is arguably coerced.
This is a generalization of what happened to Fynn >
“If you don’t confess, I’m going to arrest your wife, I’m going to arrest your family, I’m going to go to the newspaper and basically make sure that a very embarrassing story about you is highly publicized.” So it would be improper to make threats like that to compel someone to make a confession. Sometimes the police make promises. “Look, I’m going to talk to the DA, I’m going to see that no charges are filed, I’m going to see that the case is dismissed, you won’t go to jail.” And oftentimes, those are promises and assurances that really are untrue, but they would often compel a person to make an admission—even an innocent person, sometimes, to make a confession or an admission—that is not really voluntary.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 08:46
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,104
Moments ago, Karl Rove spoke of the "box" that Biden is trapped in. Biden simply can't ask a women, who spoke up on the Kavanaugh nomination process, to be his vice-presidential running mate. The reason: the women assert that it is up to the accused (Kavanauigh, now Biden) to prove their innocence. Of course, that is an incorrect interpretation of how the legal process is supposed to work, but it points to the newspeak language being used by the Democrats to confuse and manipulate the electorate.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 05:46
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
3,854
He confessed to the judge
After the FBI is done with you. :rolleyes: Of course you have to agree to the plea.

How else could you explain all the minority's sitting in jails all around the country? Do you think they got a fair trial?

You can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 08:46
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
2,471
This is a generalization of what happened to Fynn >
The other argument to that is he took the hit to protect his son. Look at drug cases. Car pulled over, drugs found, cop asks whos drugs are they. If everyone in car says not mine they all get charged. If lets say the husband says they're his to protect his wife is that coerced or a calculated decision?

btw, I'm not arguing his guilt or innocence I'm just saying that the strategy notes that were released aren't that big a deal.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom