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

[Skylar]

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...

Due Process? This is a job interview.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

If there are no statute of limitations in the state of Maryland like many on here have claimed and there is evidence that he attempted rape, why in then why wouldn’t you prosecute? He needs to pay for his crime wouldn’t he?

 

[Gracie]

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.

No no...YOU show US that she didn't. See, the way YOU have it is....someone is guilty until proven innocent.
Your ilk doesn't have much common sense, do ya?

 

[Skylar]

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.

What meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish.

First off, adding any 'material information' *to what*? If we're talking about a woman's claim that she was sexually assaulted, her description of the attack is immediately relevant and thoroughly admissible. Your claim that her first person account of being attacked would be 'predudicial' is meaningless gibber jabber. If such were the case, no woman would ever be able to testify at the trial of her own rapist.

Second, if we're talking about 'material information' to Kavanaugh's nomination, then we pull outself out of the realm of criminal proceedings entirely, making any reference to them useless and imapplicable. The comfirmation process is a job interview, not a criminal proceeding. The criteria that are relevant to a comfirmation process are whatever the Senators decide they are.

Kavanaugh lying under oath would be immediately relevant to his suitability to hold a life long office per many of those Senators. Actions at 17 might not be particularly indicative of his personality and suitability today....but lying about them under oath most certainly would be. As many Senators have expressed.

 

[Skylar]

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?

If there are no statute of limitations in the state of Maryland like many on here have claimed and there is evidence that he attempted rape, why in then why wouldn’t you prosecute? He needs to pay for his crime wouldn’t he?

She wasn't raped. It was attempted rape, a misdemenor in 1982. Misdemenors have a one year statute of limitations in Maryland.

The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982, and that would be the relevant legal standard.

As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

Why Maryland police aren’t investigating the Kavanaugh allegations

They changed the law in 1996 to make attempted rape a felony. But the laws at the time the crime was commited would have to be applied.

 

[Papageorgio]

Kavanaugh needs to bow out, hire an attorney and file slander charges against Ford if he is innocent, then he needs to sue her for several million.

The Senate then needs to investigate who leaked the Ford story and go after them and if it was a Congressman or Congresswoman they need to remove them from the Senate for violating ethics.

If Kavanaugh is guilty, they need to prosecute and send him to jail.

Time for Trump to nominate another conservative to replace Kennedy.

 

[Skylar]

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.

No no...YOU show US that she didn't. See, the way YOU have it is....someone is guilty until proven innocent.
Your ilk doesn't have much common sense, do ya?

The way I have it, a witness that testifies under oath can form a valid foundation of an investigation.

Who is your witness that Feinstein leaked the letter?

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

If there are no statute of limitations in the state of Maryland like many on here have claimed and there is evidence that he attempted rape, why in then why wouldn’t you prosecute? He needs to pay for his crime wouldn’t he?

She wasn't raped. It was attempted rape, a misdemenor in 1982. Misdemenors have a one year statute of limitations in Maryland.

The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982, and that would be the relevant legal standard.

As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

Why Maryland police aren’t investigating the Kavanaugh allegations

They changed the law in 1996 to make attempted rape a felony. But the laws at the time the crime was commited would have to be applied.

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?

If there are no statute of limitations in the state of Maryland like many on here have claimed and there is evidence that he attempted rape, why in then why wouldn’t you prosecute? He needs to pay for his crime wouldn’t he?

She wasn't raped. It was attempted rape, a misdemenor in 1982. Misdemenors have a one year statute of limitations in Maryland.

The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982, and that would be the relevant legal standard.

As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

Why Maryland police aren’t investigating the Kavanaugh allegations

They changed the law in 1996 to make attempted rape a felony. But the laws at the time the crime was commited would have to be applied.

I wrote attempted rape.

 

[Skylar]

Kavanaugh needs to bow out, hire an attorney and file slander charges against Ford if he is innocent, then he needs to sue her for several million.

The Senate then needs to investigate who leaked the Ford story and go after them and if it was a Congressman or Congresswoman they need to remove them from the Senate for violating ethics.

If Kavanaugh is guilty, they need to prosecute and send him to jail.

Time for Trump to nominate another conservative to replace Kennedy.

Not a chance. Kavanaugh never wanted the FBI investigation. He refused to call for the investigation, and per members of the Senate panel was the only person who didn't want it.

Ford has been practically begging for an FBI investigation from the start. The last thing Kavanaugh wants is this brought back into the public eye, for people to dig deeper into his past.

If his nomination fails, Kavanaugh will slink away and be glad he still has his federal judgeship.

 

[Skylar]

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?

If there are no statute of limitations in the state of Maryland like many on here have claimed and there is evidence that he attempted rape, why in then why wouldn’t you prosecute? He needs to pay for his crime wouldn’t he?

She wasn't raped. It was attempted rape, a misdemenor in 1982. Misdemenors have a one year statute of limitations in Maryland.

The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982, and that would be the relevant legal standard.

As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

Why Maryland police aren’t investigating the Kavanaugh allegations

They changed the law in 1996 to make attempted rape a felony. But the laws at the time the crime was commited would have to be applied.

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?

If there are no statute of limitations in the state of Maryland like many on here have claimed and there is evidence that he attempted rape, why in then why wouldn’t you prosecute? He needs to pay for his crime wouldn’t he?

She wasn't raped. It was attempted rape, a misdemenor in 1982. Misdemenors have a one year statute of limitations in Maryland.

The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982, and that would be the relevant legal standard.

As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

Why Maryland police aren’t investigating the Kavanaugh allegations

They changed the law in 1996 to make attempted rape a felony. But the laws at the time the crime was commited would have to be applied.

I wrote attempted rape.

So did I. It being attempted rape, and attempted rape being a misdemenor in 1982 is what applies the Statute of Limitations.

She had until the summer of 1983 to levy charges.

 

[Papageorgio]

Kavanaugh needs to bow out, hire an attorney and file slander charges against Ford if he is innocent, then he needs to sue her for several million.

The Senate then needs to investigate who leaked the Ford story and go after them and if it was a Congressman or Congresswoman they need to remove them from the Senate for violating ethics.

If Kavanaugh is guilty, they need to prosecute and send him to jail.

Time for Trump to nominate another conservative to replace Kennedy.

Not a chance. Kavanaugh never wanted the FBI investigation. He refused to call for the investigation, and per members of the Senate panel was the only person who didn't want it.

Ford has been practically begging for an FBI investigation from the start. The last thing Kavanaugh wants is this brought back into the public eye, for people to dig deeper into his past.

If his nomination fails, Kavanaugh will slink away and be glad he still has his federal judgeship.

I never said he called for an investigation. I said he should, not that he will. And you’d let him continue to be a federal judge? How dumb is that statement! You take the cake, you claim that he attempted rape, he committed perjury, he is a drunk, he is bias and then say he can still be a federal judge? Lol! That is just unbelievable! The extreme left and extreme right in this country are unreal and absurd.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

If there are no statute of limitations in the state of Maryland like many on here have claimed and there is evidence that he attempted rape, why in then why wouldn’t you prosecute? He needs to pay for his crime wouldn’t he?

She wasn't raped. It was attempted rape, a misdemenor in 1982. Misdemenors have a one year statute of limitations in Maryland.

The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982, and that would be the relevant legal standard.

As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

Why Maryland police aren’t investigating the Kavanaugh allegations

They changed the law in 1996 to make attempted rape a felony. But the laws at the time the crime was commited would have to be applied.

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?

If there are no statute of limitations in the state of Maryland like many on here have claimed and there is evidence that he attempted rape, why in then why wouldn’t you prosecute? He needs to pay for his crime wouldn’t he?

She wasn't raped. It was attempted rape, a misdemenor in 1982. Misdemenors have a one year statute of limitations in Maryland.

The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982, and that would be the relevant legal standard.

As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

Why Maryland police aren’t investigating the Kavanaugh allegations

They changed the law in 1996 to make attempted rape a felony. But the laws at the time the crime was commited would have to be applied.

I wrote attempted rape.

So did I. It being attempted rape, and attempted rape being a misdemenor in 1982 is what applies the Statute of Limitations.

She had until the summer of 1983 to levy charges.

Okay, whatever.

 

[Skylar]

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

Here is the heart of the case you cited.....

"The Justices ruled, 5 to 4, that if the prosecution seeks to use such testimony to counter evidence that the accuser had a reason to lie, the court can admit only those statements made before the motive to lie arose."

Which has nothing to do with the Ford case.

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.

And here's Black's Law dictionary, far more relevant to legal discussions.

Conjecture:

A slight degree of credence, arising from evidence too weak or too remote to cause belief. Weed v. Scolield, 73 Conn. 670, 49 Atl. 22. Supposition or surmise. The idea of a fact, suggested by another fact; as a possible cause, concomitant, or result Burrill, Circ. Ev. 27.

Here eye witness testimony is neither supposition nor surmise. But a first hand account of her own experience. Her testimony was *very* credible and would be admissible in any court of law.

She testified to very specific details, identified her attacked, gave a detailed description of how they assaulted her, what they tried to do, how she escaped. None of which meets any standard of 'conjecture'.

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.

Again, blithering pseudo-legal nonsense. By that standard, no victim could *ever* testify about their own attack. And yet they almost always do.

A woman who said she was raped by a stranger in 2009 testified Tuesday about how she was dragged into a pickup, raped, forced to perform oral sex and dropped off in a Kettering neighborhood.

Why Maryland police aren’t investigating the Kavanaugh allegations

Per your clearly confused standards of the admissibility of evidence, that would be inadmissible. Yet it wasn't. Its not that the court didn't understand what evidence was admissiible. Its that you don't.

The victim in the rape trial of former Orlando police officer Roderick Johnson took the stand Tuesday.

Victim testifies in rape trial of former OPD cop (Part 2)

And each example....

Alleged victim testifies in rape trial of former UT football players

Alleged victim testifies in rape trial of former UT football players

Demonstrates that your understanding of what is admissible evidence is woefully wrong. Not only is that testimony admissible, its a first hand, eye witness account. Considered one of the most powerful, relevant testimony that can be offered.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

What meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish.

First off, adding any 'material information' *to what*? If we're talking about a woman's claim that she was sexually assaulted, her description of the attack is immediately relevant and thoroughly admissible. Your claim that her first person account of being attacked would be 'predudicial' is meaningless gibber jabber. If such were the case, no woman would ever be able to testify at the trial of her own rapist.

Second, if we're talking about 'material information' to Kavanaugh's nomination, then we pull outself out of the realm of criminal proceedings entirely, making any reference to them useless and imapplicable. The comfirmation process is a job interview, not a criminal proceeding. The criteria that are relevant to a comfirmation process are whatever the Senators decide they are.

Kavanaugh lying under oath would be immediately relevant to his suitability to hold a life long office per many of those Senators. Actions at 17 might not be particularly indicative of his personality and suitability today....but lying about them under oath most certainly would be. As many Senators have expressed.

You have no clue.. Keep spinning moron...

Some of us have investigated and taken these cases to trial and you don't have even one iota of a clue..

 

[Votto]

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

That's usually how it is done. Let your underlings do the dirty work, that way if it is discovered you simply throw them to the dogs.

 

[Skylar]

Kavanaugh needs to bow out, hire an attorney and file slander charges against Ford if he is innocent, then he needs to sue her for several million.

The Senate then needs to investigate who leaked the Ford story and go after them and if it was a Congressman or Congresswoman they need to remove them from the Senate for violating ethics.

If Kavanaugh is guilty, they need to prosecute and send him to jail.

Time for Trump to nominate another conservative to replace Kennedy.

Not a chance. Kavanaugh never wanted the FBI investigation. He refused to call for the investigation, and per members of the Senate panel was the only person who didn't want it.

Ford has been practically begging for an FBI investigation from the start. The last thing Kavanaugh wants is this brought back into the public eye, for people to dig deeper into his past.

If his nomination fails, Kavanaugh will slink away and be glad he still has his federal judgeship.

I never said he called for an investigation.

I never claimed you said he called for investigation.

I said that Kavanaugh didn't call for one. That per members of the Senate Panel, Kavanaugh didn't want one. Kavanaugh doesn't want this investigated. He doesn't want people digging into his life.

If he were to bring a suit, its all in the public eye again. And his life goes back under a microscope. Kavanaugh doesn't want his past looked into. Which is why he would never file such a suit. As his past would be combed through for months or years.

And you’d let him continue to be a federal judge? How dumb is that statement! You take the cake, you claim that he attempted rape, he committed perjury, he is a drunk, he is bias and then say he can still be a federal judge?

Wow. You're quite awful at reading. I never said he 'can' or that he 'should'. Or that I'd 'let' him. I told you what I thought he would do. Try again, this time reading for comprehension.

"If his nomination fails, Kavanaugh will slink away and be glad he still has his federal judgeship"

He'd have to be impeached. I doubt that he would be. Whether he should after lying under oath, probably. I don't think it will happen though.

Lol! That is just unbelievable! The extreme left and extreme right in this country are unreal and absurd.

Or......you're just awful at reading and are pummeling a strawman.

 

[Votto]

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.

Dims control government.

That is why you will never see an FBI investigation of any of them that turns up anything.

Either that, or they are all innocent angels.

You be the judge.

 

[Papageorgio]

Kavanaugh needs to bow out, hire an attorney and file slander charges against Ford if he is innocent, then he needs to sue her for several million.

The Senate then needs to investigate who leaked the Ford story and go after them and if it was a Congressman or Congresswoman they need to remove them from the Senate for violating ethics.

If Kavanaugh is guilty, they need to prosecute and send him to jail.

Time for Trump to nominate another conservative to replace Kennedy.

Not a chance. Kavanaugh never wanted the FBI investigation. He refused to call for the investigation, and per members of the Senate panel was the only person who didn't want it.

Ford has been practically begging for an FBI investigation from the start. The last thing Kavanaugh wants is this brought back into the public eye, for people to dig deeper into his past.

If his nomination fails, Kavanaugh will slink away and be glad he still has his federal judgeship.

I never said he called for an investigation.

I never claimed you said he called for investigation.

I said that Kavanaugh didn't call for one. That per members of the Senate Panel, Kavanaugh didn't want one. Kavanaugh doesn't want this investigated. He doesn't want people digging into his life.

If he were to bring a suit, its all in the public eye again. And his life goes back under a microscope. Kavanaugh doesn't want his past looked into. Which is why he would never file such a suit. As his past would be combed through for months or years.

And you’d let him continue to be a federal judge? How dumb is that statement! You take the cake, you claim that he attempted rape, he committed perjury, he is a drunk, he is bias and then say he can still be a federal judge?

Wow. You're quite awful at reading. I never said he 'can' or that he 'should'. Or that I'd 'let' him. I told you what I thought he would do. Try again, this time reading for comprehension.

"If his nomination fails, Kavanaugh will slink away and be glad he still has his federal judgeship"

He'd have to be impeached. I doubt that he would be. Whether he should after lying under oath, probably. I don't think it will happen though.

Lol! That is just unbelievable! The extreme left and extreme right in this country are unreal and absurd.

Or......you're just awful at reading and are pummeling a strawman.

However you want to spin it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

What meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish.

First off, adding any 'material information' *to what*? If we're talking about a woman's claim that she was sexually assaulted, her description of the attack is immediately relevant and thoroughly admissible. Your claim that her first person account of being attacked would be 'predudicial' is meaningless gibber jabber. If such were the case, no woman would ever be able to testify at the trial of her own rapist.

Second, if we're talking about 'material information' to Kavanaugh's nomination, then we pull outself out of the realm of criminal proceedings entirely, making any reference to them useless and imapplicable. The comfirmation process is a job interview, not a criminal proceeding. The criteria that are relevant to a comfirmation process are whatever the Senators decide they are.

Kavanaugh lying under oath would be immediately relevant to his suitability to hold a life long office per many of those Senators. Actions at 17 might not be particularly indicative of his personality and suitability today....but lying about them under oath most certainly would be. As many Senators have expressed.

You have no clue.. Keep spinning moron...

Some of us have investigated and taken these cases to trial and you don't have even one iota of a clue..

Laughing.....said the soul that just replied with empty ad hominem's rather than a reasoned, rational retort. And still hasn't figured out that this isn't a criminal proceeding. But a job interview.

If you could have contradicted anything I said factually, you would have. Instead, you offered us emojis.

Try again.

"What meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish.

First off, adding any 'material information' *to what*? If we're talking about a woman's claim that she was sexually assaulted, her description of the attack is immediately relevant and thoroughly admissible. Your claim that her first person account of being attacked would be 'predudicial' is meaningless gibber jabber. If such were the case, no woman would ever be able to testify at the trial of her own rapist.

Second, if we're talking about 'material information' to Kavanaugh's nomination, then we pull outself out of the realm of criminal proceedings entirely, making any reference to them useless and imapplicable. The comfirmation process is a job interview, not a criminal proceeding. The criteria that are relevant to a comfirmation process are whatever the Senators decide they are.

Kavanaugh lying under oath would be immediately relevant to his suitability to hold a life long office per many of those Senators. Actions at 17 might not be particularly indicative of his personality and suitability today....but lying about them under oath most certainly would be. As many Senators have expressed."

 

[Skylar]

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.

Dims control government.

That is why you will never see an FBI investigation of any of them that turns up anything.

Either that, or they are all innocent angels.

You be the judge.

Or......you're offering us yet another batshit conspiracy as an excuse for your lack of evidence.

I'm still waiting for *anyone* to offer us a witness that Feinstein leaked the letter.

I won't hold my breath.