SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Bozo the kKklown]

I think it’s amazing how people who wouldn’t hire someone who has a sexual assault allegation on their background check, think we should readily move Kavanaugh through and not investigate these allegations. 

 

I’m amazed but not surprised. 

 

Also spectacular that people think we should have an situation where the accuser and accused should have a life or death battle to see who is telling the truth.

 

This country is over because the idiots have won.

[twa]

23 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

It's unfortunate, but that's basically the situation.

 

She has to walk in front of a firing squad that views her as standing between them and achieving a goal they've toiled 40 years for, or her allegation goes poof.

 

 

 

Or she could go to the police(who even have people trained in dealing with sex crimes and victims)

 

the choice of a political circus is hers and Feinstein's

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Some of you are truly sad.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bearrock]

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.

[bobandweave]

Sorry not trying to derail

Edited September 19, 2018 by bobandweave

[NoCalMike]

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

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.

 

Well if she testifies before an investigation, doesn't that all but guarantee there won't be one?

 

Also, you do the investigation first, recover every bit of evidence possible from that night, then you can base your questions around what you now know to be true.  It could help shape & mold the questions being asked at the hearing. 

[Popeman38]

30 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I think it’s amazing how people who wouldn’t hire someone who has a sexual assault allegation on their background check, think we should readily move Kavanaugh through and not investigate these allegations. 

 

I’m amazed but not surprised. 

 

Also spectacular that people think we should have an situation where the accuser and accused should have a life or death battle to see who is telling the truth.

 

This country is over because the idiots have won.

Now wait a damn minute. I swear you have been arguing on this board that crimes committed as a minor should not impact people for the rest of their lives. Why is this any different?

 

No one suggested a death match between the two. But an accusation should not end a person’s career. Accusation have to be vetted. If not, an accusation is all that is required to ruin someone.

 

iI also like the way you call people in this thread idiots without actually addressing them specifically. 

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, bobandweave said:

 

 

I am so lost in all of this.

 

Not trying to be "that guy" but there are answers to some of these questions in this thread and in the news. 

[twa]

14 minutes ago, bearrock said:

On one hand, I'm thinking if FBI investigated Hill/Thomas, why can't they investigate now?  

 

That was a federal crime allegation between two federal employees

 

add

interestingly the FBI investigation done earlier was leaked AFTER the hearings were thought done and resulted in Hill testifying before the committee.

 

odd how that happens

Edited September 19, 2018 by twa

[visionary]

Perhaps she is hoping an investigation will dig up some of the facts she is less sure of and find other witnesses or people who can corroborate the circumstances whom she hasn't been in contact with.

[Cooked Crack]

13 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Why did the accuser when making it public decide to tell her story to the Senator who happens to have a Chinese spy managing her office for 20 years? Why isn’t someone asking why the victim choose that senator to tell her story too? Or did everyone not think that a Chinese spy managing the office of the Senator not a big deal

Go back to Breitbart, my man.

 

12 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Now wait a damn minute. I swear you have been arguing on this board that crimes committed as a minor should not impact people for the rest of their lives. Why is this any different?

Has Kav ever had to answer for his crime?

[twa]

7 minutes ago, visionary said:

Perhaps she is hoping an investigation will dig up some of the facts she is less sure of and find other witnesses or people who can corroborate the circumstances whom she hasn't been in contact with.

 

perhaps she should go to the police?

 

[NoCalMike]

6 minutes ago, visionary said:

Perhaps she is hoping an investigation will dig up some of the facts she is less sure of and find other witnesses or people who can corroborate the circumstances whom she hasn't been in contact with.

 

Exactly.  Right now if the hearing happens the way the GOP wants, it will be purely 100% he said-she said.  A proper investigation could result in additional information being shared & collected to help aid the hearing.  And then everyone can just throw up their hands and go back to their corners.

 

If you are asking questions at the hearing why would you even want to be in a he said-she said situation if it was at all possible to avoid it?  If you take the accusation seriously like the GOP is claiming they do, they should want to do their due diligence on this. 

[twa]

5 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Has Kav ever had to answer for his crime?

 

Last I checked answering for a crime requires charges to be filed and that trial thingy.

what do they call people that want to punish people outside that avenue?

 

lynch mob?.... vigilantes?

 

I feel like I'm forgetting another term 

[visionary]

8 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Has Kav ever had to answer for his crime?

Seems a little early to ask this, though he does seem to be doing pretty well for himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

perhaps she should go to the police?

Perhaps she will.

 

Perhaps you would be taking a completely different stance on the sexual assault accusations if the political affiliation of the parties were reversed.

Just now, twa said:

Last I checked answering for a crime requires charges to be filed and that trial thingy.

what do they call people that want to punish people outside that avenue?

 

lynch mob?.... vigilantes?

 

I feel like I'm forgetting another term 

The Republican National Convention.

[Bozo the kKklown]

28 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

I swear you have been arguing on this board that crimes committed as a minor should not impact people for the rest of their lives. Why is this any different?

Yeah, to play in the NFL or work at McDonald's. NOT BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WITH A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO IMPACT WOMEN'S RIGHTS!?

 

Unreal that you would make a false equivalency like this. Completely unreal.

Edited September 19, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin

[twa]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Perhaps she will.

 

Perhaps you would be taking a completely different stance on the sexual assault accusations if the political affiliation of the parties were reversed.

 

Perhaps,but pointing her in the right direction never hurts 

 

I'm pretty fond helping the police jail sexual offenders and encourage others to do so.

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

36 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

No one suggested a death match between the two.

What in the funk do you think having this hearing would actually be? 

36 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

iI also like the way you call people in this thread idiots without actually addressing them specifically. 

That sounds like a personal issue you need to confront.

 

My post was aimed at those in the Senate, and their supporters, who think this spectacle should go forward.

Edited September 19, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin

[Popeman38]

13 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Has Kav ever had to answer for his crime?

In order to answer for a crime, a crime has to have been committed, and one has to be charged with that crime. And part of the due process in answering to a charge is that the accused gets to face the accuser. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

Perhaps,but pointing her in the right direction never hurts 

 

I'm pretty fond helping the police jail sexual offenders and encourage others to do so.

You’re an American hero. I don’t think I’m alone in saying that you make Fred Rogers look like Jerry Sandusky.

[bearrock]

30 minutes ago, twa said:

 

That was a federal crime allegation between two federal employees

 

add

interestingly the FBI investigation done earlier was leaked AFTER the hearings were thought done and resulted in Hill testifying before the committee.

 

odd how that happens

 

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?

[Popeman38]

@BenningRoadSkin you don’t drop an attempted rape accusation the day before a committee vote and expect everyone to accept it as gospel and cancel the nomination. Accusations have to be proven, not the other way around. No matter how opposed you are to his confirmation, absent the accusation being proven there is no reason for him or the President to withdraw his nomination. 

 

So so what the funk I think the hearing would be is her having the chance to detail her allegation to the committee, and have the committee question the nominee. 

 

My my point about a crime impacting someone the rest of their life is that is a crime shouldn’t impact your life forever, an accusation shouldn’t either. He has been accused. An accusation should not be enough to prevent an appointment. Hell, we had a President elected with multiple rape allegations (and then Trump was elected). 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Popeman38

[visionary]

Yeah, I still remember what those evil Democrats did to Merrick Garland.  ?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by visionary