Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

The fact is that the allegations are baseless, and that is what I have stated was a fact. She could be mistaken, she could be doing it for politics, she could be doing it for attention, she could be completely correct. The one thing that we know is that there's no evidence to support her claim and in this country we don't assume that people are guilty with no evidence against them.

 

No, it's more than that, it's a general principle. If you approach something assuming that someone is guilty without any evidence suggesting that they are, that's nothing more than a witch hunt, and it's a morally reprehensible thing to do. I keep hearing people say that there should be an investigation....but there's nothing to investigate. There's no place or date of the alleged altercation, no one alleged to have been there says that it didn't happen and that there wasn't even a party like that to begin with, and it's a 30+ year old allegation.

Think about it this way, if Obama was running for president and then a politically active right winger comes forward and says that he attempted to rape her 30 years ago and everyone she says was there denies it....are you going to believe that his candidacy should be on hold till he could disprove the baseless allegations or are you going to suggest that baseless allegations are not enough? What about if a second politically active right winger came forward with a different baseless allegation against Obama that everyone denies? Would you have suggested that he withdraw his candidacy or would you have needed some kind of proof first?

 

It would depend if the active right winger passed a polygraph on the matter, discussed the attempted rape with multiple parties 5 years before he was running for the president. It would depend if the right winger wanted a top professional criminal investigative agency like the FBI to investigate. If she had all of those things and people who wanted to protect Obama were denying chances for more information to come out and trying to make sure the FBI didn't investigate.

 

You do know why those aren't admissible in court right? Also, that's not something we have access to, so it's just a claim without proof.

When you say that she discussed the issue with "multiple parties" is there any actual proof of that, or just friends of hers saying it's true now? What we do know is that the multiple times she brought up the story during couple's therapy she never mentioned Kavanaugh's name....you know, a situation where there would be some actual proof that the conversation happened.

Also the call for the FBI investigation is merely a delay tactic, you'd be fine with Obama withdrawing his candidacy indefinitely a few months before the election while the FBI investigated baseless allegations? Really? I don't believe you.

Also, you talk about an FBI investigation, but if the allegation had literally any credibility, she could easily get a criminal investigation going because what she is accusing him of is a felony with no statue of limitations. She can't get that investigation though because her claim is baseless.

I honestly don't get (other than this just being a "because politics" moment) why you are going out of your way to make excuses for her.

 

This isn't a trial and it isn't a court. Of course, the Republicans won't allow the polygraph expert who administered the test to testify or bring in evidence either. The friends who are saying she mentioned the attack to them could be cross-examined if only they were allowed to testify. They aren't. The Republicans prevented it.

If they feel it was a bluff, then calling her on it would have been smart.

I didn't vote for Obama in 2012. But Kavanaugh doesn't have the timeline requirement of an election. There is no deadline.

I just want more information instead of less. That's all I want. I would hope that's all anyone would want.

If Kavanaugh is somehow not confirmed they will put up another conservative nominee that will be confirmed. So it isn't about politics for me. I just would like to not have someone who is not vetted for this position thoroughly with these serious allegations.

 

so if Ford testifies what do you want me to apologize for?

No need to go all Brennan or Serena Williams. Learn to control your emotions.

 

LOL polygraphs aren't evidence, neither are randoms with no first hand knowledge of the accusation. They are going out of their way to just let her testify, if she wants more, she should pressure Maryland to start an investigation.....but they'll want some actual evidence that she can't provide.

He was vetted thoroughly for the position and while these allegations are serious, they aren't credible. If they were credible, then everything would be different.

 

My emotions are just fine. Learn to restrain your dishonesty.

 

your last comment was not remotely emotionally stable.

so what do you want me to apologize for if she testifies? still waiting.

 

As to these parts, that's not necessarily true, the reason the DNC pressured Ramirez into accusing Kavanaugh and the reason why they want to throw dozens of randoms to testify at the hearing is to drag this out as long as possible hoping that they can run the clock out on Kavanaugh and potentially win back the Senate before he's confirmed. It was the same reason why they wanted an FBI investigation, they were hoping they could extend it a few months and then potentially deny the confirmation altogether.

 

Why would you expect emotional stability from someone who made a living murdering and raping replicants in 1982? We have it on video, Deckard is a murderer and rapist.

 

This statement:

"You do realize this lady has already told her story to the public. Shes just refusing to do it under oath. Whatever stats and study Major is citing that show why women don't come forward is irrelevant because she has come forward. She's just not going to do it under oath."

She has said she is going to make a statement and answer questions before the committee Thursday, and there has been nothing to contradict that. The statement you made is simply untrue. You have nothing to base it on. If and when she testifies Thursday, you should apologize for pulling that nonsense out of your rear end. As for "emotions," you are hilarious. Hilarious and a troll, and you know perfectly well that you troll this forum.

 

It is too early to judge that they aren't credible. When Republicans won't let there be a subpoena for someone was named a witness/participant to the event in question, then you have to ask why? What are they hiding?

Law enforcement use polygraphs all the time. It helps them focus or not focus on suspects, witnesses, and cases. They don't use it in a trial obviously and this isn't a trial.

Being allowed to question a person named in the incident as being a witness and participant would be essential in any legitimate investigation. The Republicans aren't allowing that to happen. Until that does happen, then it is too early to say that her story has no credibility.

 

The Democrats aren't even favored to win back the Senate.

 

No, it's really not too early to judge credibility since that's based on if there is anything to corroborate her story....and there's not. You say why won't they allow a subpoena for someone who was named a witness, well they already have statements by those who were alleged to have been there and all of them said that they don't know of a party like that....so they have already provided everything they have to add.

They aren't reliable and they can't be used as evidence....and you are suggesting to use one as the sole evidence to support her claim....and not just any polygraph, one done by her people. Sorry that doesn't cut it.

This isn't a "legitimate investigation", there's no one that would bother with a "legitimate investigation" into such flimsy claims. Also, when it comes to credibility, it has nothing to do with trying to make a witness who says they don't remember anything look bad for political optics. Her claims having or not having credibility depends on the evidence to support her claim and there's literally none.

It's very close, and if they can keep this in the news for a few more weeks, maybe that helps them. If the Republicans can't get Kavanaugh confirmed, that absolutely swings things in the favor of the Democrats for the midterms.

 

Looks like we finally have a name of the woman the GOP hired to ask the questions

 

Interesting. This case is on deck for the OCT/NOV term. Maybe related to why Trump would want the GOP to ram through Kavanaugh's nomination.

A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates

 

That's an interesting theory, but would you expect the SCOTUS to rule against the principle of double jeopardy if not for Kavanaugh on the bench?

 

The second accuser of Kavanaugh, Deborah Ramirez is refusing to talk with Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee investigators tried to contact her lawyer to set up her testimony, and were told no, she had already made her statement to the New Yorker, and that if they wanted her statement, they could read it in the New Yorker.

The Democrats may not know it yet, but they have smeared themselves far worse than they have smeared Kavanaugh in this disgusting episode.