Itâs certainly notable that Fairfax has called for an investigation by legal authorities, as I understand that both cases are potentially still within the respective Statute of Limitations, so heâs exposing himself to legal jeopardy.
Not exactly the actions of someone who is not confident in his innocence.
Additional conversations. Like, âWhat the f___k do we do now?â
As I said on another string out here, if Fairfax wants due process, impeachment is due process i this case. (Due process is simply the process that is due.)
To me, Fairfaxâs transgressions are far more seriousâindeed, of another dimensionâthan those of Northam or Herring, disturbing as they are.
What if the women involved donât want to go through a lengthy criminal process, which would be likely to take a year or two, and might be derailed by prosecutors at any time, without prior consultation with the accusers? I have a client who is an accuser in a sexual assault matter, and itâs not easy to be sitting around waiting while the system plays out.
Testifying at an impeachment hearing would be unpleasant, perhaps even torture (look what happened to Dr. Blasey Ford), but likely not has hard as bringing criminal charges.
Also the criminal charges would have to be brought in two different states, further confusing, delaying and generally messing things up.
And itâs not easy being the accused, particularly if they feel they are innocent of the charges.
And in a country which presumes innocent until proven guilty, allowing people to have their lives ruined by unsubstantiated statements is just plain wrong.
I prefer due process before calling for someone to resign or to impeach them. Certainly the 2 women in question should be taken seriously, but due process is what this countries legal system demands.
So letâs have the legislature convene a committee to investigate and, if the charges are substantiated, bring impeachment before the House (I am assuming that Virginiaâs process parallels that in the US Constitution).
âUnsubstantiatedâ does not mean that the accusersâ words are insufficient to conclude that he did what he is charged with. There is no requirement in law or logic that there be any third-party witness or forensic proof. While womenâjustifiably, given past resultsâoften refuse to go forward in a âhe said/she saidâ situation, it is perfectly possible for there to be a legally proper result in such a situation. (I happen to find the accusations credible, and I know of no reason why these two women would come out and put themselves in a position where they will be vilified, if not crucified, for speaking out.)
As Iâve said out here, an impeachment proceeding would constitute due process in this situation.
And the standard of proof in such a proceeding does not need to be âbeyond a reasonable doubt.â That applies when the state is seeking criminal penalties. Impeachment is a civil proceeding, so a preponderance-of-the-evidence (more probable than not, even by the tiniest of margins) is appropriate.
And, by the way, a jury could decide that there is no reasonable doubt if the only evidence is the the testimony of accuser and accused. No more is required.
As long as itâs a full investigation, not just a hearing, Iâm on board with that. Given what happened to Ford, I think demonstrated why those hearings are not the best venue.
She passed a lie detector test, and was highly credible under oath. Kavanaugh lied about things (just for starters, his beer consumption), never agreed to a lie detector test, and managed to get a truncated investigation which wasnât allowed to talk to most people, himself included.
Iâd rather see independent investigators not under a 5-minute timeclock, who can adversarily question ALL of the parties, and do that crucial back-and-forth questions of who/what/when to help establish an independent view of guilt or innocence.
For example, the woman who claims rape and reported it immediately to her friends, what did they do? Did she go to the campus clinic for STD checks? If yes, there may still be medical records. If no, why didnât she?
Fairfax claims he continued to be in touch with both women after the encounters on friendly terms. The first woman said in her statement they never talked again, with the clear implication that there was no further contact. Does anyone have dusty old cell phones around? Old e-mails in a forgotten account? Good things that an investigation to dig into.
Would you say the same if the Lt. Governor was a Republican?
Funny thing, thatâs what everyone says. Back with I was 14 or 15, I had my own experience with a false accusation, nothing as serious as this stuff, but enough. It wasnât in the courts, so juvenile investigators or something.
And they kept asking the same questionâwhy would someone ever make this up. Until I volunteered for a lie detector test, and found some letters that the girl had written to me and a sibling which established a very different relationship than she had presented in statements.
And that established for the investigator that, well, turns out the girl and some of her friends did have an ax to grind, and the case was dropped.
Absolutely. Based on my own personal experiences, I want things to be answered correctly and with due process.
The Virginia state constitution lists âmalfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crime or misdemeanorâ as reasons for impeachment.
He hasnât done this.
Wow. Kavanaugh was the one being accused. He is the person for whom fair treatment was needed. You have flipped the script to âfairness to the accuserâ. The accuser in point of fact has no right to âfairnessâ. Thatâs NOT part of the English common law tradition. It is âfairness for the accusedâ which is the issue.
I see that you have a history of being the subject of a false accusation. I too was falsely accused of something, and the ability to clear my name and correct the record was not present. In most places, the accuser is given more credence. The term is âkafka-trappingâ - if you are defending yourself, you are assumed to be guilty and the defense is evidence of guilt. For the last 40 years, certain kinds of accusations are given automatic credence, and the ability to dig yourself out is often limited.
Not meaning to, maybe poorly worded. What I meant was that the hearings proved to be very inadequate to establishing things to a reasonable conclusion. At the end of them, Kavanaugh had made some clearly misleading if not outright untruthful statements about at least his alcohol consumption (couldnât answer how many beers was âa lotâ for him, even though he âloves beerâ). But the hearings just steam-rolled over that and through to confirmation.
An independent investigation would have dug away at questions and possible inconsistencies like that.
For that, totally agree. And every time I see someone say, âShe seems credible, why would she lie about this?â after reading a statement prepared with a friendly lawyer and no cross-examination, I want to scream.
Everyone can sound perfectly credible under those circumstances. Thatâs why we have lawyers and courts and investigators to go beyond that, turn over the log, and see what crawls out.