bearrock

Members
  • Content count

    346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bearrock

  • Rank
    The Special Teams Ace
  • Birthday 11/17/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
    seems like forever
  • Favorite Redskin
    Darrell Green
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
    WHAT!!!!!! Blasphemy
  • Location
    Fairfax VA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hill alleged verbal sexual harassment and while those would support a civil case of sexual harassment, they would not rise to the level of criminal conduct. I thought FBI probe was done at the instruction of elder Bush, though I could be wrong about that. Did the FBI actually investigate Dr. Ford's allegations or did they just add the letter to background check material?
  2. On one hand, I'm thinking if FBI investigated Hill/Thomas, why can't they investigate now? On the other hand, what is the difference between Dr. Ford testifying after an investigation vs without an investigation? Would her testimony change based on the result of an investigation? Does she hope that the FBI comes back with a favorable report? I would imagine the far likeliest result is FBI saying the investigation is inconclusive.
  3. I recall somewhere between 90 to 70% accuracy for polygraphs, depending on who you ask. That's way too low a percentage to make it all that meaningful.
  4. You could throw everyone off and actually start eating booger on national tv. But yeah, especially where the setting is going to be her vs. Kavanaugh, it's going to be a difficult thing to sit through hours of questioning from members of Congress. But I'm sure her attorney will do a lot of prep with her. GOP members of the senate are in a delicate situation too, though. If they act like how they behaved during the Anita Hill hearing, I think you can expect electoral repercussion for the foreseeable future.
  5. Thinking, thinking.... Still thinking, thinking.... Okay, this could take a while
  6. There's a reasonable middle ground between anyone accused of a crime vs you gotta have a conviction. Whether the accusation is credible enough would depend on the individual senator's opinion.
  7. Couldn't the GOP do a quick additional hearing regarding Ms. Ford's allegations and still have the confirmation vote by end of September? Maybe early October at the latest? It seems pretty unlikely that there will be sufficient evidence to change anyone's mind at this point though.
  8. I can totally understand why she wouldn't come forward. And I don't think an allegation has to be proven to a level of criminal conviction for it to be considered by the Senate. But without any other corroborating evidence to go on, I don't see how the Senate can consider it. There's gotta be something more than an anonymous allegation.
  9. Agan, if the woman doesn't want to come forward and address this, how is the Senate or the FBI supposed to consider this at all? It's not like there's any other evidence to go on.
  10. All the more reason not to stoop to that level. But I'll concede that a payoff as an adult would be cause for investigation, but we got nothing to even remotely suggest that.
  11. If the woman does not wish to come forward, what is Congress (or even the FBI) supposed to do about it? Why does FBI even have jurisdiction? Wouldn't it be a state matter?
  12. Can't these schools add window units?
  13. bearrock

    Game Day Thread- Redskins at Cardinals

    I must have slept in today. Still dreaming I see.
  14. Murkowski should at least demamd a bill to protect tribal interest in exchange for her yes vote. GOP would have to be stupid to turn down that deal. Whether she could trust GOP leadership is another matter.
  15. Got it, thanks for clarifying. And I agree with it to a large degree. Individual responsibility is important and certainly accidental access should not be criminalized. I do think there are some circumstances where it is akin to burglarizing an unlocked house. Should the owner have locked the house? Of course. But the burglar is doing wrong by taking advantage of the lax security as well.