Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Open Discussion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Open Discussion Discuss Standards of Proof at the General Forum; Democrats have gone to great lengths to proclaim Dr Ford's accusations credible based on no defined standard of evidence. It ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-28-2018, 10:01 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,299
Thanks: 11,673
Thanked 12,508 Times in 7,356 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Standards of Proof

Democrats have gone to great lengths to proclaim Dr Ford's accusations credible based on no defined standard of evidence. It is worthwhile to examine the accepted legal standards to understand which one is being applied as a basis for evaluating the declarations of credibility.

Quote:
Generally, each of the three judicial standards of proof requires a different level of confidence in the facts supporting a decision:

beyond a reasonable doubt requires at least 95% confidence that the facts support a guilty verdict
clear and convincing requires at least 70-75% confidence that the facts support the decision
preponderance of evidence requires at least 50.1% confidence that the facts support the decision
But another more promiscuous standard seems at work here.

Quote:
A fourth standard of proof, “substantial evidence,” is defined as “‘more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
Using this so-called standard anything can be embraced as despositive evidence to validate the decision makers prejudice. It's easy to see the Democrats adopted this standard to declare Dr Ford's accusations beyond question.

Relative to sexual assault, schools in disciplinary proceedings may require a higher standard of proof than Senate Democrats.

Quote:
It has also been suggested that school officials deciding sexual assault cases may “unwittingly require clear and convincing evidence” regardless of the appropriate standard because of the serious consequences to the accused.
That's right, expulsion from school is a serious consequence but being denied a judicial appointment isn't.

https://home.campusclarity.com/standards-of-proof/
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-28-2018, 11:20 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,661
Thanks: 8,107
Thanked 5,688 Times in 3,250 Posts
Default Re: Standards of Proof

But you have to remember that there is something more at stake here. After all, they have a person's life and career to destroy in the name of politics.

I am sicked by the actions of these piles of human dung. I am hoping that good and decent people of all political leanings, paid attention yesterday to see how far the Democratic party will go in pursuit of their ideology.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-28-2018, 11:41 AM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,511
Thanks: 2,275
Thanked 36,011 Times in 20,562 Posts
Default Re: Standards of Proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
But you have to remember that there is something more at stake here. After all, they have a person's life and career to destroy in the name of politics.
If the Democrats believed Ford's story so much, they would be demanding Kavanaugh be removed from his CURRENT position, which is a lifetime-appointed appellate judge...

Their response to these accusations is "You can stay where you are in the second-highest seat in the federal judicial system."...You wouldn't do that if you TRULY believed he committed criminal actions and you believe he doesn't have the proper character...

That's ample evidence that this is all being done "in the name of politics"...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-28-2018, 11:51 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,661
Thanks: 8,107
Thanked 5,688 Times in 3,250 Posts
Default Re: Standards of Proof

This entire process is borderline criminal in the way the Democrats approached it.

But there is one thing that they could have done if they were at all serious about getting to the bottom of the allegations by Mrs. Ford. They could have advised her to go to the town where the crime occurred (provided that she could figure out which town it was) and press charges of assault or attempted rape against Mr. Kavanuagh.

But we all know they will never do that as it was never about getting to the truth, but using the alleged incident as a political weapon.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-28-2018, 04:09 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,448
Thanks: 9,761
Thanked 13,231 Times in 7,261 Posts
Default Re: Standards of Proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
This entire process is borderline criminal in the way the Democrats approached it.

But there is one thing that they could have done if they were at all serious about getting to the bottom of the allegations by Mrs. Ford. They could have advised her to go to the town where the crime occurred (provided that she could figure out which town it was) and press charges of assault or attempted rape against Mr. Kavanuagh.

But we all know they will never do that as it was never about getting to the truth, but using the alleged incident as a political weapon.

Yes but, that proper action would not put a wrench in Trump's machinery. this is a made up allegation. There is no evidence beyond her uncorroborated testimony.

ZERO.


Whilst the statute of limitations would permit aggressive prosecution, based on the evidence available, no prosecutor could get a warrant. Well, maybe in California.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-28-2018, 07:50 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,729
Thanks: 10,953
Thanked 7,018 Times in 4,729 Posts
Default Re: Standards of Proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Democrats have gone to great lengths to proclaim Dr Ford's accusations credible based on no defined standard of evidence. It is worthwhile to examine the accepted legal standards to understand which one is being applied as a basis for evaluating the declarations of credibility.
Quote:
Quote:
Generally, each of the three judicial standards of proof requires a different level of confidence in the facts supporting a decision:
beyond a reasonable doubt requires at least 95% confidence that the facts support a guilty verdict
clear and convincing requires at least 70-75% confidence that the facts support the decision
preponderance of evidence requires at least 50.1% confidence that the facts support the decision
But another more promiscuous standard seems at work here.
Quote:
Quote:
A fourth standard of proof, “substantial evidence,” is defined as “‘more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
Using this so-called standard anything can be embraced as despositive evidence to validate the decision makers prejudice. It's easy to see the Democrats adopted this standard to declare Dr Ford's accusations beyond question.
Relative to sexual assault, schools in disciplinary proceedings may require a higher standard of proof than Senate Democrats.
That's right, expulsion from school is a serious consequence but being denied a judicial appointment isn't.
https://home.campusclarity.com/standards-of-proof/

seems to me that the well worn standards of rumor and gossip is all many people really need... if they want/need to believe it anyway.

And that sometimes, no amount of evidence is enough if people don't want to see/believe it.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2018, 05:07 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,134
Thanks: 1,049
Thanked 1,620 Times in 745 Posts
Default Re: Standards of Proof

You will soon see the Democrats reverse course and embrace rule of law and "court of law" legal standards . . . As soon as Democrat operatives find one person to refute Kavanagh's testimony that he never drank to passing out / blacking out, the Democrats will demand that his entire testimony be dismissed.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2018, 08:12 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,299
Thanks: 11,673
Thanked 12,508 Times in 7,356 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Standards of Proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Yes but, that proper action would not put a wrench in Trump's machinery. this is a made up allegation. There is no evidence beyond her uncorroborated testimony.

ZERO.


Whilst the statute of limitations would permit aggressive prosecution, based on the evidence available, no prosecutor could get a warrant. Well, maybe in California.
Speaking of prosecutors, the prosecutor brought in by Republicans to conduct questioning briefed the Senators afterwards stating her expert opinion that there was no legal case against Kavanaugh due to lack of evidence. She stated the obvious. This explains why Blaisy Ford has never filed a complaint with local law enforcement. Nonetheless Democrats insist the FBI must be dispatched on a fools errand, a 7th background investigation gathering evidence of what has already known.

One thing is certain in the age of the Mueller witch hunt it would be foolish to be interviewed by the FBI without your attorney present. Any inconsistency will likely be turned into a charge of lying to the FBI with the exception of self proclaimed survivors of sexual assault by Republicans.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2018, 08:34 AM
Bat Bat is offline
Hinged
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,847
Thanks: 76
Thanked 1,257 Times in 760 Posts
Default Re: Standards of Proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
This entire process is borderline criminal in the way the Democrats approached it.

But there is one thing that they could have done if they were at all serious about getting to the bottom of the allegations by Mrs. Ford. They could have advised her to go to the town where the crime occurred (provided that she could figure out which town it was) and press charges of assault or attempted rape against Mr. Kavanuagh.

But we all know they will never do that as it was never about getting to the truth, but using the alleged incident as a political weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Yes but, that proper action would not put a wrench in Trump's machinery. this is a made up allegation. There is no evidence beyond her uncorroborated testimony.

ZERO.


Whilst the statute of limitations would permit aggressive prosecution, based on the evidence available, no prosecutor could get a warrant. Well, maybe in California.
Actually, the statue of limitations applies to the date the alleged crime occurred, and the statute at that time. Maryland 1982 the statute of limitations for attempted rape was one year. The state of Maryland has offered to ignore its laws and investigate if Mrs Ford were to file a criminal complaint.
I'm guessing that she won't file a complaint because filing a false complaint carries penalties.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bat For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
proof, standards

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0