Racket wrote:
Unless there's additional very damning evidence that hasn't been released to the public then there's pretty much no way they'd get a conviction.
That is NOT how a criminal case works. The public does not get to know everything that is presented. A criminal case is not a a public opinion poll.
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
I hear your concern but I’m also not confident in the fbi to conduct any investigation right now. They have lost all faith and trust in me. The upper management is my problem, not their rank and file.
Really? Why do you think they even know about you - let alone having "lost all faith and trust in (you)"?
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
I hear your concern but I’m also not confident in the fbi to conduct any investigation right now. They have lost all faith and trust in me. The upper management is my problem, not their rank and file.
Oh yeah, I forgot. DEEP STATE!
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You are saying an FBI investigation would be anti-male? So just looking into this in an honest way would energize independents?
I'd also like to point out that the investigation hasn't even started and you have people from both sides and in the middle screaming at each like crazy already!
You are one of the ones screaming. The majority of the screaming comes from the Trumpers. They want: DNA evidence from the scene. 8x10 color glossy photos pf the event. Full HD video of the event. And if those existed—which are not absolutely required in old sexual assault cases—, and prove Kavaugh "did it" then the Trumpers will scream: But he was a child. Set him free! Put him on the SCOTUS because he Trump's choice!
Trump on Twitter:
"I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!"
What an absolute sack of sh!t.
Duane wrote:
Actually the committee staff on the R side interviewed all of the potential witnesses that have been id'd so far under penalty of perjury = "PJ", "Judge", Kavanaugh. I believe they even reached out to this former classmate who put that post on Facebook and then removed it - the one about the rumors around school that this had occurred. But it turns out she had no direct knowledge nor and knowledge that it was Kavanaugh. The D staff were invited to participate and ask their own questions and declined. The D's are not interested in moving this along, just want to keep stringing the process out.
This is not true. Ford has not been interviewed. Neither has Kav's pal Judge. The FBI would do their research, which would include finding classmates and questioning them, then questioning names the classmates mentioned they did not know about, and questioning those unknown people. Eventually, you end up with good number of recollections that can be compared against each other. AN FBI investigation would go far beyond Kav, Ford and Judge.
When will this thread reach 40000 posts? How much $$$ has it made for the brojos on page views and ads?
STSBO wrote:
Duane wrote:
"No amount of politics should water down this..." "Allegations need to be taken seriously" Apparently Feinstein gets a pass on this for sitting on it for 6 weeks , and to this day refusing to let the Rs see the unredacted letter which was the accusation.
Nope. Feinstein does not get a pass. Her timing was pure political play. And I despise her for it.
BUT, that doesn't change anything regarding the seriousness or relevance of the charges.
Nice straw man, though. Good job!
Incorrect. Trump had the letter in had on September 13th. As president he gets redacted and non-redacted versions. During those three days the right-wing media was hot on her heels. She was forced into coming out on September 16th because of the media hounding.
The person who sent the media to attack her was: (1) Feinstein, (2) the FBI, or (3) Trump.
The correct political answer is (3).
Racket wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Yep. Statues is indeed correct, and I was mistaken. I bet Kavanaugh wishes he went to high school in another state, most of which have statutes of limitations of just a few years on such crimes. Makes an interesting twist here.
Look, I'm all for hating the guy and think he's not good for the position, but why accuse him or act like he's guilty of this? You know what most judges would do if you accuse someone of sexual assault in high school 35 years ago with only vague recollection as evidence? They'd laugh at you and tell you not to waste the court's time.
It's serious allegation considering he might be a Supreme Court justice, and that means the accuser has a serious burden of proof on her.
He's shady guy who I don't think should serve on the bench of the Supreme Court, but I'm not gonna call him a sexual predator yet.
I haven't called him a sexual predator. I haven't said he did this at all.
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
I hear your concern but I’m also not confident in the fbi to conduct any investigation right now. They have lost all faith and trust in me. The upper management is my problem, not their rank and file.
When did the FBI have faith and trust in you?
Bizarre world wrote:
For dickless detailers wrote:
Fixed
There is significantly more evidence to suggest this is a politically-motivated hit job, than an actual crime.
Add to the above bold that she went to the media, requested anonymity, and did not request an investigation until her she was outed publically.
How much more obvious can this get?
Of course, the bolded claims are fabricated and, unfortunately, alot of people swallow them hook, line and sinker.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaughs-fact-check.htmlFlagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
This is why I've been saying that this thread has fabricated facts at an astonishing rate. There is so much "information" swirling around this story that it's hard to tell which end is up.
"Statues" is right. It turns out that Kavanaugh can still be charged in Maryland.
This gives Dr. Ford's legal team a bit of leverage. They can tell Grassley's committee that if Republicans are too afraid to let the FBI uncover the facts then Dr. Ford can press charges in Maryland. At that point, law enforcement in Maryland will do a full investigation and the facts will come out anyway.
Yep. Statues is indeed correct, and I was mistaken. I bet Kavanaugh wishes he went to high school in another state, most of which have statutes of limitations of just a few years on such crimes. Makes an interesting twist here.
Then it would a state matter which Trump and Kavanaugh and Senate republicans can do nothing about. If found guilty, Trump cannot pardon Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh gets impeached.
States matter wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Yep. Statues is indeed correct, and I was mistaken. I bet Kavanaugh wishes he went to high school in another state, most of which have statutes of limitations of just a few years on such crimes. Makes an interesting twist here.
Then it would a state matter which Trump and Kavanaugh and Senate republicans can do nothing about. If found guilty, Trump cannot pardon Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh gets impeached.
I have no idea how this will go if for some reason he isn't confirmed or even if he is and Ford wants to pursue him further. Prosecutors don't typically take cases they think they can't win, and from what we know right now, it might be pretty hard to prove...but we might not know everything.
DJT wrote:
Trump on Twitter:
"I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!"
What an absolute sack of sh!t.
Trump's actions regarding the woman lead me to agree that he is the one who outed her name to his side of the media.
Pot meet kettle. It is not uncommon for the FBI to investigate nominees. If Kavanaugh was innocent, you'd think he'd welcome a 3 day FBI investigation. Ford doesn't seem afraid of an investigation. What are the Republicans hiding?! Why is Kavanaugh's verbal denial enough?
Just as some are trying to delay, the GOP is trying to rush a vote on a horrible candidate. Total sh*t show when it didn't need to be, but Trump decides to nominate a guy with a ton of baggage.
Coming as no surprise:
Trump walks back his plan to declassify Russia probe documents
The retreat comes after the president said he was told that releasing the documents might have a negative impact on the special counsel's Russia investigation, and allies had asked him not to put them out.
Duane wrote:
Nothing will ever pass the Senate again that takes 60 votes until one party or the other has the 60 votes.
This is likely to be (mostly) true for the foreseeable future, but remember that a SCOTUS justice only needs 51 votes now.
A sack of Trump wrote:
Trump's actions regarding the woman lead me to agree that he is the one who outed her name to his side of the media.
Why would Trump do that? You think he would try to scuttle his own nomination?
Flagpole wrote:
Racket wrote:
Look, I'm all for hating the guy and think he's not good for the position, but why accuse him or act like he's guilty of this? You know what most judges would do if you accuse someone of sexual assault in high school 35 years ago with only vague recollection as evidence? They'd laugh at you and tell you not to waste the court's time.
It's serious allegation considering he might be a Supreme Court justice, and that means the accuser has a serious burden of proof on her.
He's shady guy who I don't think should serve on the bench of the Supreme Court, but I'm not gonna call him a sexual predator yet.
I haven't called him a sexual predator. I haven't said he did this at all.
Tell me something I didn't already know wrote:
Racket wrote:
Look, I'm all for hating the guy and think he's not good for the position, but why accuse him or act like he's guilty of this? You know what most judges would do if you accuse someone of sexual assault in high school 35 years ago with only vague recollection as evidence? They'd laugh at you and tell you not to waste the court's time.
It's serious allegation considering he might be a Supreme Court justice, and that means the accuser has a serious burden of proof on her.
He's shady guy who I don't think should serve on the bench of the Supreme Court, but I'm not gonna call him a sexual predator yet.
Neither is anybody else.
Straw man much?
Pay even remotely close attention much?