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

[Vel]

How can we expect him to be anything but angry when he is under attack........................If he wasn't angry then I'd be thinking.........hmmmm......

Awwww - BOO HOO!!

Oh BOO HOO. Look at the crazy lying slut cry:

She has an excuse - Nobody tried to rape Kav

Nobody tried to rape him? We all witnessed the reputational rape that was happening right in front of us. Just like other victims, that man has had something taken from him that he will NEVER get back. Quit being a partisan fool and imagine what it would feel like to be an innocent man accused of such a crime. Then imagine your anger at not being allowed your due process rights to clear your name. No wonder he was livid.

 

[DrLove]

Satirical news viewers are infinitely better informed that those who get their "news" from Fox

by "better informed" they mean the people polled swallowed leftwing propaganda.

No, I mean better informed.

Yet Another Study Shows US Satire Programs Do A Better Job Informing Viewers Than Actual News Outlets

I recall the study. They asked a lot of questions that required the subjects to agree with leftwing propaganda to have it scored as "correct."

The study was just another example of sleazy leftwing propaganda.

No you hopeless idiot - These are questions like:

Who is your governor?
Who is the president of Russia?
Name one Supreme Court Justice

You know, questions you'd be likely to flub.
Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions | Pew Research Center

So comedy shows give you those answers??? Since when?

Here is an example - Colbert's SuperPAC
2 minutes and 46 seconds - YOU CAN DO IT my furry friend!

 

[bodecea]

So..why wasn't Mitchell used to interview Kavanaugh?....only Ford?

 

[DrLove]

Nobody tried to rape him? We all witnessed the reputational rape that was happening right in front of us. Just like other victims, that man has had something taken from him that he will NEVER get back. Quit being a partisan fool and imagine what it would feel like to be an innocent man accused of such a crime. Then imagine your anger at not being allowed your due process rights to clear your name. No wonder he was livid.

There are no "due process rights" in a job interview. Can you imagine screaming like the in the most important job interview of your life -- Maybe telling your potential female boss that you like beer a dozen times?? -- Bullying her and asking her to answer a question she is asking you???

Me neither

 

[Windparadox]

Also, not being considered is the fact both parties were juveniles in a beer influenced incident. Both could have been charged with underage drinking, but also could have been charged as generic "juvenile offenders" and had court cases in Juvenile Court where judges have great leeway and offer group charges under juvenile offender status and have very different standards of proof than adult courts. Family Court judges can find defendants guilty on practically no evidence other than hearsay and hand out sentences of probation with a record that will be expunged. A juvenile can basically be found guilty simply for having a "bad "attitude" or being a risk for being involved in future bad or dangerous behavior.

`
True enough. The laws governing minors is quite different than with adults. However, we are dealing with an "what if" fantasy here, so anyone with any cockamamie opinion or theory, however far from reality it exists, can claim to hold expert standing. This is like rocking in a rocking chair. It gives you something to do but doesn't get you anyplace.
`

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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


There is no such standard in this process, dope.

There's no standard whatsoever, douchebag. If there is one, it's "guilty until proven innocent." It's the standard of a witch trial.

Finger boy left out the Right Wing Mantra:

"Lock her Up!"

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

No, it boils down to this:

No one was trying to get a warrant or prosecute anyone, dope.

There are no such standards in this process.

There is one standard, Common Sense.

Which one has something to lose?

Kavanaugh a life time job; Ford, not a damn thing. In fact she is an example of a heroine, and will remain so for decades to come.

Like most of us here who do not support Trump&Co., and the current iteration of the Alt. Right, we too speak the truth; she too will continue to be called names, but her remarks cannot be refuted no matter how vile the attacks, nor the number of times they are echoed.

Name calling and pejorative will not shut us up, we put the people first, and it is clear that McConnell and Ryan as well as Trump put themselves ahead of everything, including the reputation of the Republican Party and traditional conservatism.

 

[dblack]

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.

But this is not a criminal hearing. This is a job interview. The question is Kavanaugh's character, not whether he committed a crime.

What a bullshit fucking excuse. This woman ACCUSED this man of a CRIME. If you want to jettison due process, be a fucking grown up and say so.

You don't seem to understand that there's a difference between an accusation and criminal charges. Due process only applies when facing criminal charges. There are no due process stipulations for random accusations.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

But this is not a criminal hearing. This is a job interview. The question is Kavanaugh's character, not whether he committed a crime.

What a bullshit fucking excuse. This woman ACCUSED this man of a CRIME. If you want to jettison due process, be a fucking grown up and say so.

You don't seem to understand that there's a difference between an accusation and criminal charges. Due process only applies when facing criminal charges. There are no due process stipulations for random accusations.

Due Process is a process not a Burden of Proof.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nope
But this is not a court room

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

Doesn’t matter. She made an accusation of large magnitude. She hasn’t field in Maryland, why? Probably because she has been told she will be sued for false accusations. This person is a lying sac. Anyone that backs her is stupid.

WRONG (don't you ever tire of being wrong?).

The Statue of Limitations expired in Maryland, any complaint to the Police Agency could not be acted upon.

You could (and should have) looked it up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

But this is not a criminal hearing. This is a job interview. The question is Kavanaugh's character, not whether he committed a crime.

What a bullshit fucking excuse. This woman ACCUSED this man of a CRIME. If you want to jettison due process, be a fucking grown up and say so.

If and when he's tried for that crime, he should have all the due process the Constitution affords. But that's not what's going on. Congress is trying to decide if he should be a Supreme Court Justice.

He cannot be tried for child abuse. Too many years have passed. Look up the SOL for child abuse in the State of Maryland.

However, he is being tried in the Court of Public Opinion, and judged by members of the Senate.

Only if credible evidence supports an allegation that Kavanaugh has lied under oath, or has attempted to obstruct justice by lying to the FBI, can he be prosecuted. More likely he would either resign from the Federal Court of Appeals or be impeached.

 

[dblack]

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.

But this is not a criminal hearing. This is a job interview. The question is Kavanaugh's character, not whether he committed a crime.

What a bullshit fucking excuse. This woman ACCUSED this man of a CRIME. If you want to jettison due process, be a fucking grown up and say so.

You don't seem to understand that there's a difference between an accusation and criminal charges. Due process only applies when facing criminal charges. There are no due process stipulations for random accusations.

Due Process is a process not a Burden of Proof.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

And?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

But this is not a criminal hearing. This is a job interview. The question is Kavanaugh's character, not whether he committed a crime.

What a bullshit fucking excuse. This woman ACCUSED this man of a CRIME. If you want to jettison due process, be a fucking grown up and say so.

You don't seem to understand that there's a difference between an accusation and criminal charges. Due process only applies when facing criminal charges. There are no due process stipulations for random accusations.

Due Process is a process not a Burden of Proof.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

And?

There is no "and"; Due Process requires every criminal accusation to be supported by facts, and signed under penalty of perjury.

 

[dave p]

Nope
But this is not a court room

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

Doesn’t matter. She made an accusation of large magnitude. She hasn’t field in Maryland, why? Probably because she has been told she will be sued for false accusations. This person is a lying sac. Anyone that backs her is stupid.

WRONG (don't you ever tire of being wrong?).

The Statue of Limitations expired in Maryland, any complaint to the Police Agency could not be acted upon.

You could (and should have) looked it up.

Maybe you don't read or don't comprehend. Maryland has stated, that if she would file, they would open an investigation.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

By itself, no. What the FBI may uncover this week to corroborate it, yes.

You'll be surprised what the FBI can go back to uncover after 30 years.

The prosecutor could not get a warrant with what she provided. She has nothing to corroborate her story, she can't remember when or where.

Since this is a "job interview" the FBI will look into it, however we don't know what they will find, if anything.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nope
But this is not a court room

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

Doesn’t matter. She made an accusation of large magnitude. She hasn’t field in Maryland, why? Probably because she has been told she will be sued for false accusations. This person is a lying sac. Anyone that backs her is stupid.

WRONG (don't you ever tire of being wrong?).

The Statue of Limitations expired in Maryland, any complaint to the Police Agency could not be acted upon.

You could (and should have) looked it up.

Maybe you don't read or don't comprehend. Maryland has stated, that if she would file, they would open an investigation.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

(z) A prosecution for a misdemeanor offense under § 3-308(c) or, if the victim was a minor at the time of the offense, § 3-308(b)(1) of the Criminal Law Article shall be instituted within 3 years after the offense was committed.

Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-106 | FindLaw

§3–307.
(a) A person may not:
(1) (i) engage in sexual contact with another without the consent of the other; and
(ii) 1. employ or display a dangerous weapon, or a physical object that the victim reasonably believes is a dangerous weapon;
2. suffocate, strangle, disfigure, or inflict serious physical injury on the victim or another in the course of committing the crime;
3. threaten, or place the victim in fear, that the victim, or an individual known to the victim, imminently will be subject to death, suffocation, strangulation, disfigurement, serious physical injury, or kidnapping; or
4. commit the crime while aided and abetted by another;

 

[dave p]

Nope
But this is not a court room

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

Doesn’t matter. She made an accusation of large magnitude. She hasn’t field in Maryland, why? Probably because she has been told she will be sued for false accusations. This person is a lying sac. Anyone that backs her is stupid.

WRONG (don't you ever tire of being wrong?).

The Statue of Limitations expired in Maryland, any complaint to the Police Agency could not be acted upon.

You could (and should have) looked it up.

Maybe you don't read or don't comprehend. Maryland has stated, that if she would file, they would open an investigation.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

(z) A prosecution for a misdemeanor offense under § 3-308(c) or, if the victim was a minor at the time of the offense, § 3-308(b)(1) of the Criminal Law Article shall be instituted within 3 years after the offense was committed.

Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-106 | FindLaw

§3–307.
(a) A person may not:
(1) (i) engage in sexual contact with another without the consent of the other; and
(ii) 1. employ or display a dangerous weapon, or a physical object that the victim reasonably believes is a dangerous weapon;
2. suffocate, strangle, disfigure, or inflict serious physical injury on the victim or another in the course of committing the crime;
3. threaten, or place the victim in fear, that the victim, or an individual known to the victim, imminently will be subject to death, suffocation, strangulation, disfigurement, serious physical injury, or kidnapping; or
4. commit the crime while aided and abetted by another;

Saturday September 29th. 2018 Montgomery county Police Chief J.Thomas Manger and Montgomery County States Attorney John McCarthy Said they would do a supplemental investigation. They stated that the victim must come forward and request such an investigation. " For example, in 1982 assault and attempted rape were both misdemeanors and subject to a 1 year statutes of limitations, however The Montgomery County Police Department and the Montgomery County States Attorney office stand ready to investigate any sexual assault allegation from any victim where the incident occurred in our jurisdiction".

 

[The Purge]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nope
But this is not a court room

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

Doesn’t matter. She made an accusation of large magnitude. She hasn’t field in Maryland, why? Probably because she has been told she will be sued for false accusations. This person is a lying sac. Anyone that backs her is stupid.

WRONG (don't you ever tire of being wrong?).

The Statue of Limitations expired in Maryland, any complaint to the Police Agency could not be acted upon.

You could (and should have) looked it up.

Maybe you don't read or don't comprehend. Maryland has stated, that if she would file, they would open an investigation.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

(z) A prosecution for a misdemeanor offense under § 3-308(c) or, if the victim was a minor at the time of the offense, § 3-308(b)(1) of the Criminal Law Article shall be instituted within 3 years after the offense was committed.

Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-106 | FindLaw

§3–307.
(a) A person may not:
(1) (i) engage in sexual contact with another without the consent of the other; and
(ii) 1. employ or display a dangerous weapon, or a physical object that the victim reasonably believes is a dangerous weapon;
2. suffocate, strangle, disfigure, or inflict serious physical injury on the victim or another in the course of committing the crime;
3. threaten, or place the victim in fear, that the victim, or an individual known to the victim, imminently will be subject to death, suffocation, strangulation, disfigurement, serious physical injury, or kidnapping; or
4. commit the crime while aided and abetted by another;

Saturday September 29th. 2018 Montgomery county Police Chief J.Thomas Manger and Montgomery County States Attorney John McCarthy Said they would do a supplemental investigation. They stated that the victim must come forward and request such an investigation. " For example, in 1982 assault and attempted rape were both misdemeanors and subject to a 1 year statutes of limitations, however The Montgomery County Police Department and the Montgomery County States Attorney office stand ready to investigate any sexual assault allegation from any victim where the incident occurred in our jurisdiction".

Goody good for them. That does not mean the trier of fact won't kick it back with prejudice, if the matter is brought before the court.

Now, I did not Shepardize the matter, I'll leave that to the lawyers, my cursory search on the Internet tells me and those who read it that the SOL apply.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

By itself, no. What the FBI may uncover this week to corroborate it, yes.

You'll be surprised what the FBI can go back to uncover after 30 years.

The prosecutor could not get a warrant with what she provided. She has nothing to corroborate her story, she can't remember when or where.

Since this is a "job interview" the FBI will look into it, however we don't know what they will find, if anything.

It is too early to speculate, and we don't know what the FBI was instructed to look into, since Trump has not been clear on what they can and cannot investigate.