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

[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, probably not.

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

Why since he has been investigated 6 times already?


.

Your posts are echoes, don't you ever think for yourself?

Ask yourself if these six background checks, which cannot be called investigations, were thorough?

I supervised a unit of deputies who did background checks for prospective hires as sworn law enforcement employees.

The checks were comprehensive in terms of prior court records, civil and criminal; credit checks and field contacts with LE Agencies in every city/town and county in which they had resided; reference letters to non relatives provided by the candidate; driving records, school records and military records if applicable; past work history, medical records and a complete Psyc. work up, which included two interviews with a psychologists along with three common psychological tests.

All of these were not done until the candidate had passed a written test, and been interviewed by three management employees from three separate LE Agencies.

If the candidate passed all of the above they were then interviewed by sworn managers in our agency, and if successful given a conditional offer of employment.

S/he was assigned a field training officer and placed on probation for one year, at anytime during that period s/he can be terminated, with no appeal recourse.

That's a background check, if any candidate for the job expressed the anger and partisan political opinions as did Kavanaugh, the candidate would go no further, and be thanked for their application and only told they did not meet the necessary MQ's for permanent employment.

 

[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.

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.

Bull-Lunacy ^^^

To wit:

647.6.
(a) (1) Every person who annoys or molests any child under 18 years of age shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

(2) Every person who, motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children, engages in conduct with an adult whom he or she believes to be a child under 18 years of age, which conduct, if directed toward a child under 18 years of age, would be a violation of this section, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) Every person who violates this section after having entered, without consent, an inhabited dwelling house, or trailer coach as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, or the inhabited portion of any other building, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, and by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000).

(c) (1) Every person who violates this section shall be punished upon the second and each subsequent conviction by imprisonment in the state prison.

(2) Every person who violates this section after a previous felony conviction under Section 261, 264.1, 269, 285, 286, 288a, 288.5, or 289, any of which involved a minor under 16 years of age, or a previous felony conviction under this section, a conviction under Section 288, or a felony conviction under Section 311.4 involving a minor under 14 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.

The misdemeanor offense of false imprisonment under California Penal Code Section 237(a) PC requires a prosecutor to establish the following elements: The defendant intentionally and unlawfully restrained, detained or confined another person.

Do some research and then apologize to the readers for your ignorance, or if you knew better, your lie.

 

[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.

Bull-Lunacy ^^^

To wit:

647.6.
(a) (1) Every person who annoys or molests any child under 18 years of age shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

(2) Every person who, motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children, engages in conduct with an adult whom he or she believes to be a child under 18 years of age, which conduct, if directed toward a child under 18 years of age, would be a violation of this section, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) Every person who violates this section after having entered, without consent, an inhabited dwelling house, or trailer coach as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, or the inhabited portion of any other building, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, and by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000).

(c) (1) Every person who violates this section shall be punished upon the second and each subsequent conviction by imprisonment in the state prison.

(2) Every person who violates this section after a previous felony conviction under Section 261, 264.1, 269, 285, 286, 288a, 288.5, or 289, any of which involved a minor under 16 years of age, or a previous felony conviction under this section, a conviction under Section 288, or a felony conviction under Section 311.4 involving a minor under 14 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.

The misdemeanor offense of false imprisonment under California Penal Code Section 237(a) PC requires a prosecutor to establish the following elements: The defendant intentionally and unlawfully restrained, detained or confined another person.

Do some research and then apologize to the readers for your ignorance, or if you knew better, your lie.

well son, juvenile is different than adult. and you should look that up. cause nothing you just posted states anything about the abuser being a child. Why aren't school kids arrested for fighting?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

You completely ignore McConnell's nonfeasance, and yet call me a hack. Your hypocrisy on steroids is showing.

Everyone has biases, a judge and especially a Justice of the Supreme Court must put them aside.

Kavanaugh's testimony and the rage in which he attacked the Clinton's and all Democrats is sufficient cause for all thinking people who love our country to hope he is rejected by the Senate, and impeached from the Court of Appeals.

Do you know that the Supreme Court is the only Court in our nation to NOT have a Code of Ethics?

Do you know if Kavanaugh was selected by Trump, only if he had promised to be loyal to The President? Neither do I, but given Trump's past record, it is possible.

The attacks on Dr. Ford, BTW, are unconscionable. Those who do so are not only hacks, they put their ideology before our country and can never be called or accepted as patriots.

 

[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?


.

Your posts are echoes, don't you ever think for yourself?

Ask yourself if these six background checks, which cannot be called investigations, were thorough?

I supervised a unit of deputies who did background checks for prospective hires as sworn law enforcement employees.

The checks were comprehensive in terms of prior court records, civil and criminal; credit checks and field contacts with LE Agencies in every city/town and county in which they had resided; reference letters to non relatives provided by the candidate; driving records, school records and military records if applicable; past work history, medical records and a complete Psyc. work up, which included two interviews with a psychologists along with three common psychological tests.

All of these were not done until the candidate had passed a written test, and been interviewed by three management employees from three separate LE Agencies.

If the candidate passed all of the above they were then interviewed by sworn managers in our agency, and if successful given a conditional offer of employment.

S/he was assigned a field training officer and placed on probation for one year, at anytime during that period s/he can be terminated, with no appeal recourse.

That's a background check, if any candidate for the job expressed the anger and partisan political opinions as did Kavanaugh, the candidate would go no further, and be thanked for their application and only told they did not meet the necessary MQ's for permanent employment.

So those 6 investigations by the FBI where not investigations for judicial jobs now? What the fuck where they Einstein ?

They are only investigations when democrats get involved by playing dirty politics?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

You completely ignore McConnell's nonfeasance, and yet call me a hack. Your hypocrisy on steroids is showing.

Everyone has biases, a judge and especially a Justice of the Supreme Court must put them aside.

Kavanaugh's testimony and the rage in which he attacked the Clinton's and all Democrats is sufficient cause for all thinking people who love our country to hope he is rejected by the Senate, and impeached from the Court of Appeals.

Do you know that the Supreme Court is the only Court in our nation to NOT have a Code of Ethics?

Do you know if Kavanaugh was selected by Trump, only if he had promised to be loyal to The President? Neither do I, but given Trump's past record, it is possible.

The attacks on Dr. Ford, BTW, are unconscionable. Those who do so are not only hacks, they put their ideology before our country and can never be called or accepted as patriots.

Get the fuck out of here the attacks on kavanaugh was a slime patrol by the left and Diane ..

 

[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.

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.

Bull-Lunacy ^^^

To wit:

647.6.
(a) (1) Every person who annoys or molests any child under 18 years of age shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

(2) Every person who, motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children, engages in conduct with an adult whom he or she believes to be a child under 18 years of age, which conduct, if directed toward a child under 18 years of age, would be a violation of this section, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) Every person who violates this section after having entered, without consent, an inhabited dwelling house, or trailer coach as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, or the inhabited portion of any other building, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, and by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000).

(c) (1) Every person who violates this section shall be punished upon the second and each subsequent conviction by imprisonment in the state prison.

(2) Every person who violates this section after a previous felony conviction under Section 261, 264.1, 269, 285, 286, 288a, 288.5, or 289, any of which involved a minor under 16 years of age, or a previous felony conviction under this section, a conviction under Section 288, or a felony conviction under Section 311.4 involving a minor under 14 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.

The misdemeanor offense of false imprisonment under California Penal Code Section 237(a) PC requires a prosecutor to establish the following elements: The defendant intentionally and unlawfully restrained, detained or confined another person.

Do some research and then apologize to the readers for your ignorance, or if you knew better, your lie.

well son, juvenile is different than adult. and you should look that up. cause nothing you just posted states anything about the abuser being a child. Why aren't school kids arrested for fighting?

"ANY PERSON" was highlighted by me, to make clear that a 17 year old can be held accountable. In fact a 14 yo can be held accountable even if the child victim is 17.

In fact, a 17 yo can be tried as an adult, we've seen children as young as 13 tried as an adult. They cannot be held in an adult jail, and if convicted cannot be placed in an adult prison until they turn 18.

You have no idea how ignorant you truly are. Or, if you do, you are a damn liar.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

You completely ignore McConnell's nonfeasance, and yet call me a hack. Your hypocrisy on steroids is showing.

Everyone has biases, a judge and especially a Justice of the Supreme Court must put them aside.

Kavanaugh's testimony and the rage in which he attacked the Clinton's and all Democrats is sufficient cause for all thinking people who love our country to hope he is rejected by the Senate, and impeached from the Court of Appeals.

Do you know that the Supreme Court is the only Court in our nation to NOT have a Code of Ethics?

Do you know if Kavanaugh was selected by Trump, only if he had promised to be loyal to The President? Neither do I, but given Trump's past record, it is possible.

The attacks on Dr. Ford, BTW, are unconscionable. Those who do so are not only hacks, they put their ideology before our country and can never be called or accepted as patriots.

Get the fuck out of here the attacks on kavanaugh was a slime patrol by the left and Diane ..

So you've been told. To bad you lack the ability to think for yourself. Sad.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

You completely ignore McConnell's nonfeasance, and yet call me a hack. Your hypocrisy on steroids is showing.

Everyone has biases, a judge and especially a Justice of the Supreme Court must put them aside.

Kavanaugh's testimony and the rage in which he attacked the Clinton's and all Democrats is sufficient cause for all thinking people who love our country to hope he is rejected by the Senate, and impeached from the Court of Appeals.

Do you know that the Supreme Court is the only Court in our nation to NOT have a Code of Ethics?

Do you know if Kavanaugh was selected by Trump, only if he had promised to be loyal to The President? Neither do I, but given Trump's past record, it is possible.

The attacks on Dr. Ford, BTW, are unconscionable. Those who do so are not only hacks, they put their ideology before our country and can never be called or accepted as patriots.

You want to hold McConnell to a higher standard than Reid?

I didn't see any rage from Kavanaugh, of course you would see it differently then I because we both have a different bias.

I have never attacked Ford, she needs to be heard and we need to check and see if her allegations are true or not, that said, Kavanaugh is not guilty of anything and needs to be treated as such.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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

This sounds more and more like the Democrats paying back Republicans for the inaction on Garland.

 

[dblack]

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

This sounds more and more like the Democrats paying back Republicans for the inaction on Garland.

Basically, yeah.

 

[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

This sounds more and more like the Democrats paying back Republicans for the inaction on Garland.

Basically, yeah.

Except the left have no power that is not granted to them by the GOP.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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

This sounds more and more like the Democrats paying back Republicans for the inaction on Garland.

Basically, yeah.

Except the left have no power that is not granted to them by the GOP.

You certainly have a gift for stating the obvious.

 

[sartre play]

The answer is NO. but we are not talking about( well I am not) talking about putting any one in jail. the bottom line, is the man worthy of a life time seat on our highest court, have we let our party over country ruin our view of all things political. I say yes.