Make Feinstein "Prove" She Didn't Leak The Letter

[ThisIsMe]

I think the staff leaked the letter with her knowledge. It was a highly unethical thing to do.

That would mean she told them to do it.
In essence she did it.

Alas, there's no evidence that Feinstein leaked the letter. Remember, Toro is citing his opinion. The OP is citing his imagination.

Feelings aren't facts, guys. Despite what the Echo Chamber might tell you.

Says the liberal supporting the good Doctor that has NO EVIDENCE.

Ford's testimony is evidence. As demonstrated as the Republicans fighting an FBI investigation before her testimony. And calling for one after.

Actually, Ford testimony is not evidence, and in fact would not be admissable in any court. The court would deem it to be conjecture because of the incomplete information.

If you read a little about rules of evidence, and some 1974 supreme court cases, it would show that accuser testimony can not be admissable as evidence because the accuser has motivation to lie. Also, any close friends of the accuser would also likely be thrown out, as they also would be deemed to have reason to lie.

Only evidence that is considered to be nonprejudicial can be admitted as evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I didn't imagine anything, petunia. I claimed she leaked the letter and according to her new set of standards she has to "prove" she didn't.

Just like I'm going to claim you don't have a brain. Now prove you do, libtardo.

Show us the evidence that she leaked the letter.

I know your ilk don't have much use for evidence......but if you want this latest piece of Echo Chamber flotsam to translate outside the little bubble you've created for yourself, you're gonna need a connection to reality.

I don't think either side gives a damn about evidence. Both parties are corrupt to the core, power has corrupted both.

I'm willing to accept the FBI's finding on the investigation and the evidence they find.

Are you?

You do understand moron that the FBI is only collecting evidence and will make NO DETERMINATION of the facts unless they find an obvious CRIME.. And so far, TWO have been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying...

The FBI will absolutely present their findings on the evidence they discover. And whether or not claims were substantiated by that evidence.

I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you?

You don't have a fucking clue what is going on do you... They are doing evidence collection NOT MAKING ASSESSMENTS... Grassley and the Committee will make the judgments... That is why Grassley has presented TWO, for lying to the committee, to the DOJ for prosecution...

You are dense like a rock..

 

[Skylar]

I think the staff leaked the letter with her knowledge. It was a highly unethical thing to do.

That would mean she told them to do it.
In essence she did it.

Alas, there's no evidence that Feinstein leaked the letter. Remember, Toro is citing his opinion. The OP is citing his imagination.

Feelings aren't facts, guys. Despite what the Echo Chamber might tell you.

Says the liberal supporting the good Doctor that has NO EVIDENCE.

Ford's testimony is evidence. As demonstrated as the Republicans fighting an FBI investigation before her testimony. And calling for one after.

Actually, Ford testimony is not evidence, and in fact would not be admissable in any court. The court would deem it to be conjecture because of the incomplete informatio

Obvious nonsense. Conjecture is supposition or surmise. She claims to be describing her actual experiences. Not supposition. No court would deem a first hand account of an actual attack that a person personally suffered as 'conjecture'. Especially from a witness as credible as Ford.

Whether her testimony alone would be suffecient to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is questionable. But your 'conjecture' claims demonstrate you have no idea what the term actually means.

If you read a little about rules of evidence, and some 1974 supreme court cases, it would show that accuser testimony can not be admissable as evidence because the accuser has motivation to lie.

Lets look at the caselaw together. As you've demonstrated by your laughably blunder with 'conjecture', your claims regarding the law are meaningless. Show the caselaw that mandates that her testimony be discarded.

Don't 'tell' us about it.

 

[Skylar]

Show us the evidence that she leaked the letter.

I know your ilk don't have much use for evidence......but if you want this latest piece of Echo Chamber flotsam to translate outside the little bubble you've created for yourself, you're gonna need a connection to reality.

I don't think either side gives a damn about evidence. Both parties are corrupt to the core, power has corrupted both.

I'm willing to accept the FBI's finding on the investigation and the evidence they find.

Are you?

You do understand moron that the FBI is only collecting evidence and will make NO DETERMINATION of the facts unless they find an obvious CRIME.. And so far, TWO have been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying...

The FBI will absolutely present their findings on the evidence they discover. And whether or not claims were substantiated by that evidence.

I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you?

You don't have a fucking clue what is going on do you... They are doing evidence collection NOT MAKING ASSESSMENTS... Grassley and the Committee will make the judgments... That is why Grassley has presented TWO, for lying to the committee, to the DOJ for prosecution...

You are dense like a rock..

You're literally contradicting yourself....insisting that the FBI will do no assessments while giving us a pair of example of the FBI doing assessments.

And on issues of factual veracity and credibility, no less.

The FBI report will *absolutely* include assessments of whether or not they found evidence to support certain claims, or whether they found evidence to contradict them. As it should.

So, for the third time....I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you? Your evasions are giving us a rather clear answer already. But I want to hear you say it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think the staff leaked the letter with her knowledge. It was a highly unethical thing to do.

That would mean she told them to do it.
In essence she did it.

Alas, there's no evidence that Feinstein leaked the letter. Remember, Toro is citing his opinion. The OP is citing his imagination.

Feelings aren't facts, guys. Despite what the Echo Chamber might tell you.

Says the liberal supporting the good Doctor that has NO EVIDENCE.

Ford's testimony is evidence. As demonstrated as the Republicans fighting an FBI investigation before her testimony. And calling for one after.

Actually, Ford testimony is not evidence, and in fact would not be admissable in any court. The court would deem it to be conjecture because of the incomplete information.

If you read a little about rules of evidence, and some 1974 supreme court cases, it would show that accuser testimony can not be admissable as evidence because the accuser has motivation to lie. Also, any close friends of the accuser would also likely be thrown out, as they also would be deemed to have reason to lie.

Only evidence that is considered to be nonprejudicial can be admitted as evidence.

Good Point...

Regressive memory therapy is not allowed as evidence without corroborating evidence. The process is so subjective and potentially made up memories can be inserted using it.. Coincidentally, what she has written books about doing to herself...

 

[Skylar]

That would mean she told them to do it.
In essence she did it.

Alas, there's no evidence that Feinstein leaked the letter. Remember, Toro is citing his opinion. The OP is citing his imagination.

Feelings aren't facts, guys. Despite what the Echo Chamber might tell you.

Says the liberal supporting the good Doctor that has NO EVIDENCE.

Ford's testimony is evidence. As demonstrated as the Republicans fighting an FBI investigation before her testimony. And calling for one after.

Actually, Ford testimony is not evidence, and in fact would not be admissable in any court. The court would deem it to be conjecture because of the incomplete information.

If you read a little about rules of evidence, and some 1974 supreme court cases, it would show that accuser testimony can not be admissable as evidence because the accuser has motivation to lie. Also, any close friends of the accuser would also likely be thrown out, as they also would be deemed to have reason to lie.

Only evidence that is considered to be nonprejudicial can be admitted as evidence.

Good Point...

Regressive memory therapy is very suspect and is not allowed in court

That would mean she told them to do it.
In essence she did it.

Alas, there's no evidence that Feinstein leaked the letter. Remember, Toro is citing his opinion. The OP is citing his imagination.

Feelings aren't facts, guys. Despite what the Echo Chamber might tell you.

Says the liberal supporting the good Doctor that has NO EVIDENCE.

Ford's testimony is evidence. As demonstrated as the Republicans fighting an FBI investigation before her testimony. And calling for one after.

Actually, Ford testimony is not evidence, and in fact would not be admissable in any court. The court would deem it to be conjecture because of the incomplete information.

If you read a little about rules of evidence, and some 1974 supreme court cases, it would show that accuser testimony can not be admissable as evidence because the accuser has motivation to lie. Also, any close friends of the accuser would also likely be thrown out, as they also would be deemed to have reason to lie.

Only evidence that is considered to be nonprejudicial can be admitted as evidence.

Regressive memory therapy is not allowed as evidence without corroborating evidence. The process is so subjective and potentially made up memories can be inserted using it.. Coincidentally, what she has written
books about doing to herself...

She hasn't claimed that account of the Kavanaugh attack are the product of 'regressive memory therapy'.

You're citing your imagination.

 

[Papageorgio]

I didn't imagine anything, petunia. I claimed she leaked the letter and according to her new set of standards she has to "prove" she didn't.

Just like I'm going to claim you don't have a brain. Now prove you do, libtardo.

Show us the evidence that she leaked the letter.

I know your ilk don't have much use for evidence......but if you want this latest piece of Echo Chamber flotsam to translate outside the little bubble you've created for yourself, you're gonna need a connection to reality.

I don't think either side gives a damn about evidence. Both parties are corrupt to the core, power has corrupted both.

I'm willing to accept the FBI's finding on the investigation and the evidence they find.

Are you?

You do understand moron that the FBI is only collecting evidence and will make NO DETERMINATION of the facts unless they find an obvious CRIME.. And so far, TWO have been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying...

The FBI will absolutely present their findings on the evidence they discover. And whether or not claims were substantiated by that evidence.

I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you?

I want a court of law to determine guilt or innocence, not an investigating bureau. Just as with Zimmerman, the Mike Brown case, just as with Benghazi, as with the Russia probe and now with Kavenaugh. I have never had an issue in that regard. Have you?

I am willing to accept a courts verdict, are you?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't think either side gives a damn about evidence. Both parties are corrupt to the core, power has corrupted both.

I'm willing to accept the FBI's finding on the investigation and the evidence they find.

Are you?

You do understand moron that the FBI is only collecting evidence and will make NO DETERMINATION of the facts unless they find an obvious CRIME.. And so far, TWO have been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying...

The FBI will absolutely present their findings on the evidence they discover. And whether or not claims were substantiated by that evidence.

I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you?

You don't have a fucking clue what is going on do you... They are doing evidence collection NOT MAKING ASSESSMENTS... Grassley and the Committee will make the judgments... That is why Grassley has presented TWO, for lying to the committee, to the DOJ for prosecution...

You are dense like a rock..

You're literally contradicting yourself....insisting that the FBI will do no assessments while giving us a pair of example of the FBI doing assessments.

And on issues of factual veracity and credibility, no less.

The FBI report will *absolutely* include assessments of whether or not they found evidence to support certain claims, or whether they found evidence to contradict them. As it should.

So, for the third time....I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you? Your evasions are giving us a rather clear answer already. But I want to hear you say it.

YOU ARE A MORON... And you don't have a fucking clue..

 

[Skylar]

Show us the evidence that she leaked the letter.

I know your ilk don't have much use for evidence......but if you want this latest piece of Echo Chamber flotsam to translate outside the little bubble you've created for yourself, you're gonna need a connection to reality.

I don't think either side gives a damn about evidence. Both parties are corrupt to the core, power has corrupted both.

I'm willing to accept the FBI's finding on the investigation and the evidence they find.

Are you?

You do understand moron that the FBI is only collecting evidence and will make NO DETERMINATION of the facts unless they find an obvious CRIME.. And so far, TWO have been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying...

The FBI will absolutely present their findings on the evidence they discover. And whether or not claims were substantiated by that evidence.

I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you?

I want a court of law to determine guilt or innocence, not an investigating bureau. Just as with Zimmerman, the Mike Brown case, just as with Benghazi, as with the Russia probe and now with Kavenaugh. I have never had an issue in that regard. Have you?

I am willing to accept a courts verdict, are you?

So, no. You're not willing to accept the FBI investigation results.

I am.

 

[Skylar]

I'm willing to accept the FBI's finding on the investigation and the evidence they find.

Are you?

You do understand moron that the FBI is only collecting evidence and will make NO DETERMINATION of the facts unless they find an obvious CRIME.. And so far, TWO have been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying...

The FBI will absolutely present their findings on the evidence they discover. And whether or not claims were substantiated by that evidence.

I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you?

You don't have a fucking clue what is going on do you... They are doing evidence collection NOT MAKING ASSESSMENTS... Grassley and the Committee will make the judgments... That is why Grassley has presented TWO, for lying to the committee, to the DOJ for prosecution...

You are dense like a rock..

You're literally contradicting yourself....insisting that the FBI will do no assessments while giving us a pair of example of the FBI doing assessments.

And on issues of factual veracity and credibility, no less.

The FBI report will *absolutely* include assessments of whether or not they found evidence to support certain claims, or whether they found evidence to contradict them. As it should.

So, for the third time....I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you? Your evasions are giving us a rather clear answer already. But I want to hear you say it.

YOU ARE A MORON... And you don't have a fucking clue..

And predictably your claims devolve into ad hominem attacks.

You just blinked.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't think either side gives a damn about evidence. Both parties are corrupt to the core, power has corrupted both.

I'm willing to accept the FBI's finding on the investigation and the evidence they find.

Are you?

You do understand moron that the FBI is only collecting evidence and will make NO DETERMINATION of the facts unless they find an obvious CRIME.. And so far, TWO have been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying...

The FBI will absolutely present their findings on the evidence they discover. And whether or not claims were substantiated by that evidence.

I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you?

I want a court of law to determine guilt or innocence, not an investigating bureau. Just as with Zimmerman, the Mike Brown case, just as with Benghazi, as with the Russia probe and now with Kavenaugh. I have never had an issue in that regard. Have you?

I am willing to accept a courts verdict, are you?

So, no. You're not willing to accept the FBI investigation results.

I am.

No, because it is a court of law determines guilt and innocence, since when does the investigating group determine guilt or innocence? So you don’t accept a courts verdict?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Now that this senile old hag has decided you have to prove your innocence in the court of public opinion she can take the witness stand and prove she didn't leak the Ford letter.

Where the hell is the Senate ethics committee and when will she be forced to testify in a public hearing?

And how can a valor thief like Blumenthal sit in judgement of Kavanaugh? We should demand to see all the sexual misconduct settlements made by Congress to cover up their crimes and none of them should be allowed on a committee where a sexual misconduct charge is being made.

Until we have total transparency of those sitting in judgement we will continue to have people like Cory the Porker using the system to launch political campaigns at the expense of others.

After all, Kavanaugh's decisions on the Supreme Court will be totally transparent as to the Constitutionality of issues before him.

Now get in the witness stand, Feinstein, we demand the same transparency from you as you're demanding of Kavanaugh.

I don't thin Sen, D would ever release the letter, to c over her own axx she would hand a letter to a staffer and tell her to don't let this letter to the press, wink wink. The staffer would then "take care" of the matter.

 

[Care4all]

I'm willing to accept the FBI's finding on the investigation and the evidence they find.

Are you?

You do understand moron that the FBI is only collecting evidence and will make NO DETERMINATION of the facts unless they find an obvious CRIME.. And so far, TWO have been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying...

The FBI will absolutely present their findings on the evidence they discover. And whether or not claims were substantiated by that evidence.

I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you?

I want a court of law to determine guilt or innocence, not an investigating bureau. Just as with Zimmerman, the Mike Brown case, just as with Benghazi, as with the Russia probe and now with Kavenaugh. I have never had an issue in that regard. Have you?

I am willing to accept a courts verdict, are you?

So, no. You're not willing to accept the FBI investigation results.

I am.

No, because it is a court of law determines guilt and innocence, since when does the investigating group determine guilt or innocence? So you don’t accept a courts verdict?

no one wants to send him to jail.... do you?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

So you've imagined she leaked the letter, imagined she doesn't care and then concluded that her behavior in your imagination is unethical.

Um......does Feinstein even need to exist for this circle jerk?

I didn't imagine anything, petunia. I claimed she leaked the letter and according to her new set of standards she has to "prove" she didn't.

Just like I'm going to claim you don't have a brain. Now prove you do, libtardo.

Show us the evidence that she leaked the letter.

I know your ilk don't have much use for evidence......but if you want this latest piece of Echo Chamber flotsam to translate outside the little bubble you've created for yourself, you're gonna need a connection to reality.

Her office had the letter. No copies were made. She is responsible for the security of the letter. It rest on her watch. I should add she paid a China Agent on her staff for 20 years...She is a good one to handle our Nations secrets.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

So you've imagined she leaked the letter, imagined she doesn't care and then concluded that her behavior in your imagination is unethical.

Um......does Feinstein even need to exist for this circle jerk?

I didn't imagine anything, petunia. I claimed she leaked the letter and according to her new set of standards she has to "prove" she didn't.

Just like I'm going to claim you don't have a brain. Now prove you do, libtardo.

I wonder if Skylar got her 25 cents for the post.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You do understand moron that the FBI is only collecting evidence and will make NO DETERMINATION of the facts unless they find an obvious CRIME.. And so far, TWO have been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying...

The FBI will absolutely present their findings on the evidence they discover. And whether or not claims were substantiated by that evidence.

I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you?

I want a court of law to determine guilt or innocence, not an investigating bureau. Just as with Zimmerman, the Mike Brown case, just as with Benghazi, as with the Russia probe and now with Kavenaugh. I have never had an issue in that regard. Have you?

I am willing to accept a courts verdict, are you?

So, no. You're not willing to accept the FBI investigation results.

I am.

No, because it is a court of law determines guilt and innocence, since when does the investigating group determine guilt or innocence? So you don’t accept a courts verdict?

no one wants to send him to jail.... do you?

Of course you dont. You could care less about the so called victim as long as you deny Kavanaugh the seat on the SC.
You disgust me.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That would mean she told them to do it.
In essence she did it.

Alas, there's no evidence that Feinstein leaked the letter. Remember, Toro is citing his opinion. The OP is citing his imagination.

Feelings aren't facts, guys. Despite what the Echo Chamber might tell you.

Says the liberal supporting the good Doctor that has NO EVIDENCE.

Ford's testimony is evidence. As demonstrated as the Republicans fighting an FBI investigation before her testimony. And calling for one after.

Actually, Ford testimony is not evidence, and in fact would not be admissable in any court. The court would deem it to be conjecture because of the incomplete informatio

Obvious nonsense. Conjecture is supposition or surmise. She claims to be describing her actual experiences. Not supposition. No court would deem a first hand account of an actual attack that a person personally suffered as 'conjecture'. Especially from a witness as credible as Ford.

Whether her testimony alone would be suffecient to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is questionable. But your 'conjecture' claims demonstrate you have no idea what the term actually means.

If you read a little about rules of evidence, and some 1974 supreme court cases, it would show that accuser testimony can not be admissable as evidence because the accuser has motivation to lie.

Lets look at the caselaw together. As you've demonstrated by your laughably blunder with 'conjecture', your claims regarding the law are meaningless. Show the caselaw that mandates that her testimony be discarded.

Don't 'tell' us about it.

I'm not claiming to be a lawyer or legal scholar. I was referencing the following article:

High Court Restricts Admissibility of Statements by Accusers

As far as conjecture, it would be conjecture because of the lack of information. Dr. Ford claims she cannot remember the facts. She cannot remember where or when. Had she more concrete information and detailed recollection, it would be different.

Conjecture:
an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

As far as evidence goes, her testimony cannot be evidence as evidence conveys details that are fact and proof. At this point, there is no proof, at best, her testimony does not meet the burden of proof. Also, since she has a stake in this proceeding, her own testimony cannot be "evidence". That would be like if I robbed a bank, and I told the court that I didn't rob the bank, well, obviously I would say that I didn't do it. Because my own testimony is prejudicial, it cannot be admitted as evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The FBI will absolutely present their findings on the evidence they discover. And whether or not claims were substantiated by that evidence.

I'm willing to accept their findings. Are you?

I want a court of law to determine guilt or innocence, not an investigating bureau. Just as with Zimmerman, the Mike Brown case, just as with Benghazi, as with the Russia probe and now with Kavenaugh. I have never had an issue in that regard. Have you?

I am willing to accept a courts verdict, are you?

So, no. You're not willing to accept the FBI investigation results.

I am.

No, because it is a court of law determines guilt and innocence, since when does the investigating group determine guilt or innocence? So you don’t accept a courts verdict?

no one wants to send him to jail.... do you?

Of course you dont. You could care less about the so called victim as long as you deny Kavanaugh the seat on the SC.
You disgust me.

None of them give a rats ass about due process or the truth... they lie to further the agenda...

 

[ThisIsMe]

Unfairly Prejudicial – Evidence that arouses the jury’s outrage without adding any material information is often excluded. For example, the picture of children around a victim’s body is often ruled as being unfairly prejudicial.

This would be an example of inadmissible evidence. She has no material information other than her own account, which even she says she doesn't have a clear recollection of, and she herself admitted to having been drinking at the party.

Dont get me wrong, kavanaugh must answer for his crimes if he is found guilty, but, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. If she comes forward with credible evidence, then we have a case, but because her testimony can be viewed as unfairly prejudicial, it cannot be admitted as evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

f she comes forward with credible evidence

That is precisely what she doesn't have! Not even one corroborating piece evidence..