I have one question: would Ford's testimony convict kavanaugh in a court room?

[Wyatt earp]

If you say yes you go by feelings and not by the rule of law and the constitution


If you say no then you go by rule of law and the constitution.


Let's see what side these sentators are on ..


Prosecutor tells wavering senators she wouldn't charge Kavanaugh, as vote looms

The sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's hearing told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, sources told Fox News—guidance that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.

The prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, spoke at an overnight meeting where all 51 Republican senators were present, two people briefed on the session said.

“Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn't even seek a search warrant.

Mitchell’s opinion could sway fence-sitting senators ahead of a critical Senate Judiciary Committee vote set for Friday afternoon.

 

[Claudette]

Nope. You would never get a grand jury to take that case to court.

I also doubt an honest lawyer would try to take it to court.

No witnesses. No proof and a case that's 30+ years old??

Not in a million years.

 

[Jackson]

I am very pleased she had that meeting with the Senators. Good for her.

 

[rightwinger]

Nope
But this is not a court room

It is a job interview to see if this guy deserves a promotion

 

[Claudette]

A job interview he won quite handily.

He'll be the next SC Justice come Saturday.

Enjoy

 

[Jackson]

Spartacus is orating at the moment. Lord, what a useless piece of crap. Get on your chariot and go far, far away!

Oh, he walks out of the hearing! Please lose your way back!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Her case would have never made it to court.

 

[task0778]

You couldn't even get a search or arrest warrant based on so little evidence. It really boils down to this:

When somebody accuses you of something, should the rest of us believe it or give you the chance to refute it? Forget the court of law crap, just consider the question. Do you have the right to defend yourself or not, not just in a court of law but everywhere else? What if it's at your job and somebody accuses you of lying or stealing, should you be fired without being given a chance to say anything or offer any alibi to show you didn't do it? What if it's in your neighborhood, somebody accuses you of doing something with the teenage girl or boy next door. Should we automatically say you did it?

Most people I think would say no, in this country we do not presume guilt, whether it's in a court of law or not. Most of us would say hey, I know that guy and that's not like him, or maybe I'm not surprised cuz he's such a jerk and he's been in trouble before. Suppose it's your dad, husband, son, brother? Aren't you going to want to hear the whole story and see what the evidence is? What are you going to think when the accuser can't tell you where or when and her witnesses all say it didn't happen or I don't remember?
Some say well it's court of law and nobody gets convicted. Maybe Kavanaugh won't go to prison if the confirmation is denied, but his reputation is forever destroyed and his career as a jurist is over. So he faces serious consequences anyway even if it isn't a court of law. Is it fair then to do that to somebody when there is nothing but an accusation against him?

NO. In this country we have or should have a sense of fairness. If I accuse you of something as heinous as rape or attempted rape then don't you think I should have SOMETHING to support my story? Frankly, I see no reason to adopt a different standard for a SCOTUS nominee than I do for you or me who is accused of messing around with the next door neighbor's kid. Justice requires that facts rather than emotions should rule the outcome, and if it's you in the chair facing your accusers, wouldn't you like to know exactly where and when the alleged attack took place, so maybe you could prove you were somewhere else? Of course you would, IMHO we should always extend that right to everyone is accused of something, in or out of court.

 

[chops_]

Wow! What a loaded question.

First of all, even if it made it to some court room; it would be easily thrown out. Her testimony had many holes. So much so, even the juries would have a much harder time convicting Kavanaugh on any charges that would have been brought on him.

Secondly, where's the proof? The evidence(s)?

Bottom line: There is none.

Just another reason (and a very weak one) to derail and destroy his character. As well, as a good man.

 

[Claudette]

You couldn't even get a search or arrest warrant based on so little evidence. It really boils down to this:

When somebody accuses you of something, should the rest of us believe it or give you the chance to refute it? Forget the court of law crap, just consider the question. Do you have the right to defend yourself or not, not just in a court of law but everywhere else? What if it's at your job and somebody accuses you of lying or stealing, should you be fired without being given a chance to say anything or offer any alibi to show you didn't do it? What if it's in your neighborhood, somebody accuses you of doing something with the teenage girl or boy next door. Should we automatically say you did it?

Most people I think would say no, in this country we do not presume guilt, whether it's in a court of law or not. Most of us would say hey, I know that guy and that's not like him, or maybe I'm not surprised cuz he's such a jerk and he's been in trouble before. Suppose it's your dad, husband, son, brother? Aren't you going to want to hear the whole story and see what the evidence is? What are you going to think when the accuser can't tell you where or when and her witnesses all say it didn't happen or I don't remember?
Some say well it's court of law and nobody gets convicted. Maybe Kavanaugh won't go to prison if the confirmation is denied, but his reputation is forever destroyed and his career as a jurist is over. So he faces serious consequences anyway even if it isn't a court of law. Is it fair then to do that to somebody when there is nothing but an accusation against him?

NO. In this country we have or should have a sense of fairness. If I accuse you of something as heinous as rape or attempted rape then don't you think I should have SOMETHING to support my story? Frankly, I see no reason to adopt a different standard for a SCOTUS nominee than I do for you or me who is accused of messing around with the next door neighbor's kid. Justice requires that facts rather than emotions should rule the outcome, and if it's you in the chair facing your accusers, wouldn't you like to know exactly where and when the alleged attack took place, so maybe you could prove you were somewhere else? Of course you would, IMHO we should always extend that right to everyone is accused of something, in or out of court.

You are right about that. No Judge would issue a warrant with such flimsy evidence. No way. No how.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Nope. You would never get a grand jury to take that case to court.

I also doubt an honest lawyer would try to take it to court.

No witnesses. No proof and a case that's 30+ years old??

Not in a million years.

A prosecutor would never touch this case.

Democrats just prove over and over how incredibly stupid they are

 

[gallantwarrior]

Nope. You would never get a grand jury to take that case to court.

I also doubt an honest lawyer would try to take it to court.

No witnesses. No proof and a case that's 30+ years old??

Not in a million years.

A prosecutor would never touch this case.

Democrats just prove over and over how incredibly stupid they are

Stupid like a fox, maybe? If the Senate votes against Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, then the Dems have won, haven't they?

 

[chops_]

Nope. You would never get a grand jury to take that case to court.

I also doubt an honest lawyer would try to take it to court.

No witnesses. No proof and a case that's 30+ years old??

Not in a million years.

A prosecutor would never touch this case.

Democrats just prove over and over how incredibly stupid they are

Stupid like a fox, maybe? If the Senate votes against Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, then the Dems have won, haven't they?

I wouldn't worry, Kavanaugh will be the next SCOTUS Judge.

SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh actually has a nice ring to it. Early congrats to Judge Brett Kavanaugh!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Nope. You would never get a grand jury to take that case to court.

I also doubt an honest lawyer would try to take it to court.

No witnesses. No proof and a case that's 30+ years old??

Not in a million years.

A prosecutor would never touch this case.

Democrats just prove over and over how incredibly stupid they are

Stupid like a fox, maybe? If the Senate votes against Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, then the Dems have won, haven't they?

No. If Kavanaugh fails it is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT THE FAULT OF THE GOP.

We hold the power. We have the required seats. Your side show could have tipped the scales but that wouldn't be the reason.
If they fail to pass him I may sit out the midterms.

Will not support incompetent fools

 

[bodecea]

Nope. You would never get a grand jury to take that case to court.

I also doubt an honest lawyer would try to take it to court.

No witnesses. No proof and a case that's 30+ years old??

Not in a million years.

True....but a court of law (which this was not) would never REFUSE to call a witness such as Ford.

 

[chops_]

Nope. You would never get a grand jury to take that case to court.

I also doubt an honest lawyer would try to take it to court.

No witnesses. No proof and a case that's 30+ years old??

Not in a million years.

True....but a court of law (which this was not) would never REFUSE to call a witness such as Ford.

Ford was never a "witness". She can't even remember the most important details that was asked to her. How would she even be a "witness"?
Even if she was made to appear as a "witness"; she would try to lie her way out of her testimony. Why would she try to perjure herself?

 

[Claudette]

Nope. You would never get a grand jury to take that case to court.

I also doubt an honest lawyer would try to take it to court.

No witnesses. No proof and a case that's 30+ years old??

Not in a million years.

True....but a court of law (which this was not) would never REFUSE to call a witness such as Ford.

I agree and I can guarantee the State would have gone after her like stink on shit.

It wouldn't have been the kid glove treatment she got in that hearing.

 

[Pop23]

If it did make it to court, would Fords Husband show up?

So far he’s a no show

Why is that?

 

[william the wie]

Nope. You would never get a grand jury to take that case to court.

I also doubt an honest lawyer would try to take it to court.

No witnesses. No proof and a case that's 30+ years old??

Not in a million years.

A prosecutor would never touch this case.

Democrats just prove over and over how incredibly stupid they are

This will be given a pass as it always is by the Rs

 

[The Original Tree]

You wouldn't even be able to file a police report with her testimony.

Hence, Fake Outrage over a Fake Accusation.