Posted Sep 27, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
I am certainly not partisan here in this matter. I have previously written that I did not care for Brett Kavanaugh based upon his decisions in law. I have read decisions from the Supreme Court and found that you cannot guarantee their reasoning will support Republican or Democrat. All this hype that they must oppose anyone appointed by Trump is just stupid and it really undermines the country. Justices who have been appointed by Republicans, as the Chief Justice, ended up being the key player who upheld Obamacare. So there is not a litmus test in such things. All of this yelling and screaming is really pointless.
This is a picture going around that asserts Dr. Christine Basley Ford with George Soros. There are a lot of problems with these allegations besides three witnesses saying they do not support her. She now claims she told four others back then of the incident. In law, the reason you have a statute of limitations is that one cannot defend against something 36-years before. The typical limitation in 5 years.
When the people making accusations are being promoted by political operatives, I no longer trust either side. Meanwhile, the same lawyer for Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, is now involved in the whole Brett Kavanaugh affair. It is extremely curious how this guy is always defending women making claims yet they are not paying him. Now he has tweeted that Julie Swetnick is his client who has made allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge claiming she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and Mark Judge to get teenage girls “inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys.” But a quick background check on Julie Swetnick revealed that her ex-boyfriend had to get a restraining order against her. This is just getting ridiculous. Avenatti is lucky. If this were the Obama Administration with the bureaucrats on his side, they would be targeting Avenatti for taxes or failing to file some form that carries 10 years in prison. He is obviously a reckless zealot if he does not check the stories of these women he loves to bring forward against any Republican.
There is absolutely no way to prove anything and that seems to be the whole point. This sort of sexual allegations that amounts to a bunch of I thinks should be outlawed plain and simple and anyone who makes such an accusation and their lawyer should be imprisoned. If someone actually raped someone and there was a report given to the police at that point in time, then you have something credible.
The list of wrongful conviction is horrendous to start with. There is an endless supply of wrongful convictions and few people pay attention to them. These sorts of allegations that Avenatti’s statement she believed that they intended to “gang-rape” girls is outrageous. That is what she wants to say but it is worthless in court. If they actually committed such an act then fine. To say she “thinks” that was their “intent” is like a cop throwing you in prison because he, “thinks” you wanted to kill your spouse but just never tried.
Even the New York Times wrote: “Exonerations of wrongfully convicted people have become so routine in recent years that their stories are almost commonplace. “ A woman knowingly falsely accused two men of rape. She testified against them and there was no physical evidence whatsoever. The jury, as far too often, assumed the woman was telling the truth and convicted the two men. After 26 years, they were released when DNA proved the evidence was not theirs. The woman finally confessed to investigators from the district attorney’s office and the Innocence Project the rape “never happened.” Her admission came after DNA testing connected the semen found on her body to another man through an F.B.I. database.
The BBC ran a story that was really shocking. The number of teachers in France who had been accused of sex with pupils between 2008 and 2013, were at least involving 959 teachers. Of all those allegations, of having inappropriate relationships with pupils, around 250 were actually prosecuted. Some teachers have committed suicide just being accused of child molestation. A false accusation will destroy a person’s life. Then there was the famous French Outreau trial that they made a documentary about. The Outreau trial was a 2004 criminal trial in France concerning sexual abuse allegations against children by a group of teachers. The trial revealed that the main witness for the prosecution, convicted for the abuse, had lied about the involvement of other suspects who were, in fact, innocent to reduce their own sentence. Several innocent suspects had nevertheless spent years jailed on remand and one died while in prison. The Outreau trial produced national outrage in France and everyone was asking how the prosecutors could carry out such a trial with innocent men and women being held for years in jail on unfounded suspicions made by a single witness. Finally, in January 2006 even the French President called the trial a “judicial disaster” and this is the very same quality of evidence being hurled around over Kavanaugh right now.
As I have said, I disagreed with his legal opinion in cases. I would have voted against it. But I certainly would not do so based upon this firestorm of accusation by women backed by questionable politically active lawyers.
Nobody should be allowed to come forward making allegations with no physical evidence and 36 years later no less. Then the attorneys involved are clearly political operatives and not legitimate attorneys. You should not destroy a person’s life with such vindictiveness all to what end? This is all mud-slinging just because a person is put forward by the opposite party. Argue on his decisions, not what he did when drunk in school. There is an abundance of studies that show memories of that far back are not reliable. Many researchers have also investigated whether people differ in how susceptible they are to such false memories.
“While research over the last few decades has shown that presenting contradictory evidence impairs memory, recent work by Anderson and others shows that presenting related material can also impair memory. Similarly, while 10 years ago there was relatively little work on meta-memory judgements, a vast amount has been conducted recently. We know not to take at face value statements like: ‘I have not thought about that for years’, and work my Merckelbach and colleagues suggests those people with recovered memories may have particularly unreliable meta-memories. In summary, 10 years of data has not altered our opinions, but has solidified them with scientific evidence. Here we only scratch the surfaces of large and sometimes controversial areas of research.”