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

[toobfreak]

Mitchell’s opinion could sway fence-sitting senators

Let's face facts: We have a number of fence-sitting RINOs with the fence fully inserted up their ass. They are ALWAYS a question and ALWAYS a problem, and the GOP's problem these past several years is that they didn't have enough seats to disregard them, they pretty much need almost every single GOP vote to get by. So if the Repubs bungle this Kananaugh thing, you don't need to be mad at the Dems, they are just doing what they always do, you need to look at the fact that in EVERY CRITICAL VOTE, there are always 2-5 key RINOs like McCain, Collins, Murkowski, Flake, etc., that can take the vote or kill it by themselves and are almost ALWAYS hold outs in getting their vote.

 

[dblack]

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.

OK. I agree. Do you have a point? You seem to be just restating what I posted.

 

[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.

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.

But not too early for the left to already convict and sentence him. What if the investigation is inconclusive? You would still say he is guilty, the right would claim he is not guilty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Mitchell’s opinion could sway fence-sitting senators

Let's face facts: We have a number of fence-sitting RINOs with the fence fully inserted up their ass. They are ALWAYS a question and ALWAYS a problem, and the GOP's problem these past several years is that they didn't have enough seats to disregard them, they pretty much need almost every single GOP vote to get by. So if the Repubs bungle this Kananaugh thing, you don't need to be mad at the Dems, they are just doing what they always do, you need to look at the fact that in EVERY CRITICAL VOTE, there are always 2-5 key RINOs like McCain, Collins, Murkowski, Flake, etc., that can take the vote or kill it by themselves and are almost ALWAYS hold outs in getting their vote.

They are the Republicans, the one's you support are the RINO's and CINO's, that is not your Daddy's Republican and not your Daddy's Conservative.

They are Authoritarians, and Trump is a despot, i.e. a megalomaniac authoritarian.

 

[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.

But not too early for the left to already convict and sentence him. What if the investigation is inconclusive? You would still say he is guilty, the right would claim he is not guilty.

Kavanaugh proved all by himself that he is unfit to be a member of the Supreme Court. His temperament, his biases and his admitted excessive alcohol consumption are three strikes.

 

[Borillar]

Nope
But this is not a court room

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

That would be based on his stellar job performance. Not on a high school yearbook.

Many others with stellar resumes who are not accused rapists

Or dry drunks with anger management issues.

 

[toobfreak]

They are Authoritarians, and Trump is a despot, i.e. a megalomaniac authoritarian.

Hey Dry Snatcher,

If the Republicans were the "Authoritarians" you CLAIM, and Trump the "despot" you CLAIM, then the GOP would be getting its way on everything and Kavanaugh would have been confirmed weeks ago! Instead, it is your Demonrats who are the ones as usual playing all of the authoritarian roles.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

But not too early for the left to already convict and sentence him. What if the investigation is inconclusive? You would still say he is guilty, the right would claim he is not guilty.

Kavanaugh proved all by himself that he is unfit to be a member of the Supreme Court. His temperament, his biases and his admitted excessive alcohol consumption are three strikes.

WHAT "admitted excessive alcohol consumption," you CRACKPOT? You mean, shame of shames, how dare a guy go out in your college youth and actually have a few beers? The HORROR!


LET'S GO THROUGH THE SENATE and expel every single Democrat that ever attended a party, drank a beer, had a good time and got a little drunk in college!

BILL CLINTON: Avowed DRUNK who used to invite underage girls to his governor's mansion in Arkansas to have cocaine and sex parties with him and his brother Roger. Concealed medical records to hide his sinus reconstruction. LOVED BY THE LEFT.

BARRY HUSSEIN OBAMA: Choom smoker at Cambridge. LOVED BY THE LEFT.

Indeed, Kavanaugh proved all by himself that he is totally fit and qualified to be a member of the Supreme Court. His humanity, sensitivity, honesty, openness, candor all make him a wonderful unparalleled choice.

Arrrrrgh! Brett drank a beer! Brett drank a beer! Disqualified! The man is a bum!

 

[jc456]

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.

well first off, he was a juvenile at the time of the supposed incident. Since he didn't actually rape her, or even take her clothes off, I'm not sure what the charge for a juvenile could be. I'd say, there isn't anything there that wouldn't fall into a first time offense thingy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They are Authoritarians, and Trump is a despot, i.e. a megalomaniac authoritarian.

Hey Dry Snatcher,

If the Republicans were the "Authoritarians" you CLAIM, and Trump the "despot" you CLAIM, then the GOP would be getting its way on everything and Kavanaugh would have been confirmed weeks ago! Instead, it is your Demonrats who are the ones as usual playing all of the authoritarian roles.

Thanks for sharing. Why do you always defend Republicans, clearly you are a card carrying member of the Ostrich Party.

 

[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.

well first off, he was a juvenile at the time of the supposed incident. Since he didn't actually rape her, or even take her clothes off, I'm not sure what the charge for a juvenile could be. I'd say, there isn't anything there that wouldn't fall into a first time offense thingy.

False Imprisonment, Child Molestation, sexual Battery, to name a few.

 

[jc456]

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.

well first off, he was a juvenile at the time of the supposed incident. Since he didn't actually rape her, or even take her clothes off, I'm not sure what the charge for a juvenile could be. I'd say, there isn't anything there that wouldn't fall into a first time offense thingy.

False Imprisonment, Child Molestation, sexual Battery, to name a few.

a child cannot be charged with child molestation bubba. sexual battery from a child, nope, false imprisonment she got out on her own. hmmmmm still nothing.

 

[Avatar4321]

If they have a jury of full progressive partisans who rabidly hate all things trump and republican and will ignore the evidence, then maybe.

Otherwise no chance in hell

 

[Avatar4321]

If they have a jury of full progressive partisans who rabidly hate all things trump and republican and will ignore the evidence, then maybe.

Otherwise no chance in hell

This is assuming it would go to a jury. I don’t know if juvenile courts get juries in MD

 

[jc456]

If they have a jury of full progressive partisans who rabidly hate all things trump and republican and will ignore the evidence, then maybe.

Otherwise no chance in hell

This is assuming it would go to a jury. I don’t know if juvenile courts get juries in MD

that's exactly right.

 

[jc456]

I would love to see her testify in court so real questions can be asked, like:
how many times were you with kavanaugh?
how did you get home nine miles away from where ever? and
how did you escape the supposed rape hold and just walk out of a room with two 17 year old bois?

pretty please.

 

[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.

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.

But not too early for the left to already convict and sentence him. What if the investigation is inconclusive? You would still say he is guilty, the right would claim he is not guilty.

Kavanaugh proved all by himself that he is unfit to be a member of the Supreme Court. His temperament, his biases and his admitted excessive alcohol consumption are three strikes.

You decided long before he testified. So, it really dilutes your opinion, I don’t listen to partisan hacks. Ginsberg has biases, you want her off the Supreme Court? What about Sotomayor, she is extremely bias, yet she is okay. I’d take you more seriously if you just said you didn’t like him because Trump names him, he is a conservative, at least you’d be honest, instead of the BS you are trying to sell.

 

[toobfreak]

They are Authoritarians, and Trump is a despot, i.e. a megalomaniac authoritarian.

Hey Dry Snatcher,

If the Republicans were the "Authoritarians" you CLAIM, and Trump the "despot" you CLAIM, then the GOP would be getting its way on everything and Kavanaugh would have been confirmed weeks ago! Instead, it is your Demonrats who are the ones as usual playing all of the authoritarian roles.

Thanks for sharing. Why do you always defend Republicans, clearly you are a card carrying member of the Ostrich Party.

That's the problem. I DON'T always defend Republicans, or Trump for that matter. There's a lot to criticize about both. The problem is that you only read a few of my posts then assume you know the rest and that just because I point out how rotten the democrats are, that I'm automatically doing it to support the republicans.

The Democrats stand alone and freely all by themselves as lying scum. They'd still be that way even without republicans.

 

[Skylar]

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, probably not.

But it would certainly warrant an investigation. Which is what we're getting.

 

[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.

By itself, probably not.

But it would certainly warrant an investigation. Which is what we're getting.

Why since he has been investigated 6 times already?


.