[ExI] Perjury

[spike at rainier66.com]

From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of John Clark
Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury

 

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:50 AM <spike at rainier66.com <mailto:spike at rainier66.com> > wrote:

 

>>>…Well shouldn't a job interview be influenced by a criminal accusation? 

  >> Not unless it is proven. 

 

>…Spike, that's just nuts…John K Clark

 

Ja to all, however…

 

If the senate allows an unproven accusation count as evidence, then we all have evidence against us, and these are serious virtual charges indeed.  All of us have them, we all do.  It doesn’t matter if we are seeking a job, or… if we are in a custody battle after a bitter divorce.  If we allow an accusation to be used as evidence, it becomes a weapon.  If it can stand up in court as evidence without evidence, we have given away the presumption of innocence.  We learned in 1693 that this is a bad idea.

 

I noticed the betting on PredictIt has swung to the right about 5 to 6 points this week.  What I think is happening there is that bettors are speculating that voters will realize, in their quieter moments, that this could have been me.  The women are realizing it could have been her husband, her father, her brothers, her uncles, nephews, cousins, it could have even been her.  Read on please.

 

There was something that really caught my attention, something no one really talked about much.  The third accuser, Julie Swetnick, testified she was at about a dozen parties where women were drugged, raped, etc, and saw Kavanaugh by the punch bowl.  Was he by the punchbowl in all ten parties?  Or just one?  Which one?  

 

OK then, we extrapolate from there to he was the one who spiked (no relation) the punchbowl, if the punchbowl was spiked (no relation.)  However… she was five years senior to the defendant when all this took place, so she could well be considered the responsible adult in the room.  We don’t know if the defendant knew there were drugged women being raped at that moment somewhere in the house, but we do know that the accuser knew and made no attempt to rescue her, no apparent attempt to intervene, made no panic calls to the constables, made no police report after the fact, didn’t even offer emotional support to victim.

 

So… why isn’t Julie Swetnick being charged for accomplice to rape?

 

Because… no victim has come forth.  A corpse in necessary, or at least a missing person for a murder allegation, ja?  So where is the rape victim who claims she was the one who was drugged and raped at the party where Julie Swetnick was an apparently complicit witness?  Why isn’t Julie being charged?  Isn’t there enough evidence to put her away?  She made accusation of herself herself, and if an accusation is evidence, we have enough evidence.  It’s a confession, ja?

 

But I will give her credit where credit is due: she looks terrific for 58.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20181004/6d198256/attachment.html>