[ExI] Perjury

spike at rainier66.com spike at rainier66.com
Thu Oct 4 18:45:21 UTC 2018



From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Dave Sill
Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 10:37 AM
To: Extropy chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury


On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:22 PM <spike at rainier66.com <mailto:spike at rainier66.com> > wrote:


>>…My suggestion would be that if a criminal allegation is being made, it must be proven in a criminal court.  Otherwise it cannot be admissible even in a job interview.


>…Oh, so you'd rather not be alerted to potential problems even after the statute of limitations has expired?


Depends on how you look at statute of limitations.  The accuser testified she feared she would suffocate.  So she is actually accusing the defendant of… attempted involuntary manslaughter.  There is no statute of limitations on that.


The business about muffling screams really muddies the waters, because now the sexual assault part of the story is nearly irrelevant.  If one is facing death, one cares little about the configuration of one’s clothing.


>… In this case, Kavanaugh would have sailed through the confirmation and we'd be stuck with him…


Not at all.  If criminal infractions can be proven, he will be impeached.


>…Now there's at least a chance he won't be confirmed…  -Dave


Ja.  But recall, the libertarian Rand Paul was planning a down vote.  Then if any AAAANNNY… other partisan voted down (which is fairly likely) then he was out.  Now, Rand Paul is on board, even if he doesn’t want to be: he can’t prove he wasn’t swayed by an unproven allegation.  Same with the two or three from the other side of the aisle.


The whole thing is filled with paradox for sure.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20181004/bc0e8cde/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list