If the Kavanaugh accusations are true...

[redleghunter]

The Bible has a saying about being aware of ravening wolves in sheep's clothing.

I never considered Feinstein to be such but ok.

 

[redleghunter]

Because it's heinous?

If Kavanaugh were black, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

Tell that to Clarence Thomas.

 

[Go Braves]

I never considered Feinstein to be such but ok.

Neither have I & certainly wasn't referring to her. But you already knew that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Investigate the allegations as part of the background check on Kavanaugh.

I directed White House nominations. Of course the FBI can check Kavanaugh again.


All President Trump needs to do is ask for the bureau to continue its background investigation.

Oh baloney, the FBI has already done a background check and found nothing. These allegations stand or fall on their own merits. This is all they got, I say baloney.

 

[Go Braves]

Oh baloney, the FBI has already done a background check and found nothing. These allegations stand or fall on their own merits. This is all they got, I say baloney.

Well, it's not baloney. But I'll tell you what, I'd rather have a baloney sandwich than eat up the bullcrap Trump has served up about this. He's made the most truly ignorant & inane comments about this & I'm glad folks who possess an actual clue about FBI investigations have called him out on it, as in the article I gave to you.

The FBI has reopened investigations when new information has come to light. Trump of course has a history of not caring about integrity but other folks involved in this ought to show their integrity, push for the investigation. If the FBI determines there's no merit, then Kavanaugh can proceed with integrity. This has to do with the integrity of the Supreme Court of the country.

 

[Tree of Life]

Because it's heinous?

If Kavanaugh were black, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

I think it's more like "if Kavanaugh were liberal, we wouldn't be having this debate".

 

[Speedwell]

I think it's more like "if Kavanaugh were liberal, we wouldn't be having this debate".

But we would be having it--it just would be about something else, like maybe he smoked weed at a party when he was high school.

 

[Ringo84]

I'm not going to be trapped by the choices in this poll. Regardless of whether I'm Democrat, Republican or indifferent, if Kavanaugh can't stand up to the scrutiny of an investigation, he shouldn't be confirmed. I will wait to see what a hearing and an investigation turn up.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

Well, it's not baloney. But I'll tell you what, I'd rather have a baloney sandwich than eat up the bullcrap Trump has served up about this. He's made the most truly ignorant & inane comments about this & I'm glad folks who possess an actual clue about FBI investigations have called him out on it, as in the article I gave to you.

The FBI has reopened investigations when new information has come to light. Trump of course has a history of not caring about integrity but other folks involved in this ought to show their integrity, push for the investigation. If the FBI determines there's no merit, then Kavanaugh can proceed with integrity. This has to do with the integrity of the Supreme Court of the country.

Sometimes we have to have faith in the system of justice.

A blind dog may not see the kitchen table but can smell the cooking. If you get my drift.

Meaning things just so happen to work out for the right.

 

[redleghunter]

But we would be having it--it just would be about something else, like maybe he smoked weed at a party when he was high school.

Dude that is so 80s. It is quite evident everyone in DC is smoking something.

Which reminds me of a saying we have around these parts....a three legged dog hopping on a fishing pier can be dangerous.

 

[Allandavid]

If he is guilty of this then he should not confirmed by the Senate. However, one thing about this bothers me--the last I heard Ford was demanding that the committee agree to not to have Kavanaugh present during her testimony. Our Constitution requires that a defendant be given the opportunity to face his accuser. Granted that this is not a criminal case, but shouldn't that same standard apply here?

Not necessarily. According to the reports about her therapist sessions, she has experienced ongoing trauma over the attack. She surely has some right to be protected in that regard...?

And yes, it’s not a criminal case...

 

[redleghunter]

Not necessarily. According to the reports about her therapist sessions, she has experienced ongoing trauma over the attack. She surely has some right to be protected in that regard...?

And yes, it’s not a criminal case...

No 2000 years of Western jurisprudence demands the accused has a right to face their accuser. And the accused always testifies after the accused presents their allegations.

 

[Allandavid]

Depends on what he did. If he raped her then no he shouldn’t be on the court. All I’ve heard is he is accused of ‘sexual assault’ or ‘attempting to force himself on her’ which could mean anything.

Then you haven’t “heard” much...

She gives a detailed account of what Kavanaugh allegedly did to her. It would constitute attempted rape...

Maybe all he did was attempt to put his arm around her, that’s all it would take for a 5th wave feminist to cry sexual assault. But if he did a serious sexual crime then Trump should appoint someone else.

Ah, searching for the Todd Akin “legitimate rape” scenario, are we...?

If he didn’t do anything, should his accuser be allowed to keep her job? Pretty serious accusations, and this drunken party girl lifestyle that was embraced by her Alma mater is quite damaging to her credibility. This whole thing just stinks of more leftist fabrication to me.

Nice smearing...you must be proud...

 

[redleghunter]

Then you haven’t “heard” much...

She gives a detailed account of what Kavanaugh allegedly did to her. It would constitute attempted rape...



Ah, searching for the Todd Akin “legitimate rape” scenario, are we...?



Nice smearing...you must be proud...

Does the detailed account include the actual year and month of the alleged assault?

 

[Allandavid]

No 2000 years of Western jurisprudence demands the accused has a right to face their accuser. And the accused always testifies after the accused presents their allegations.

In a court of law. Again, this is a hearing to determine suitability for appointment, not a criminal case...jurisprudence need not apply...

 

[Allandavid]

Does the detailed account include the actual year and month of the alleged assault?

Not that I’m aware...why should that matter? The question was about the nature of the assault, not its date and location...

I can vividly remember being beaten up by a couple of bullies when I was a kid. I couldn’t tell you the day that it happened..can’t even remember exactly how old I was...8, 9 maybe. But I can recall like it was yesterday who the guys were and exactly the damage they did to my face...

 

[redleghunter]

In a court of law. Again, this is a hearing to determine suitability for appointment, not a criminal case...jurisprudence need not apply...

So says you. Everyone regardless of setting had a right to face their accusers and hear the allegations against them before responding.

 

[Ringo84]

Those who argue about "process" are usually not on the winning side of an issue.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

Not that I’m aware...why should that matter? The question was about the nature of the assault, not its date and location.

Total failure there. If she gave a detailed account she should at least remember the year. I can see forgetting an address after 35 years (or so) and an exact day.

Even in my investigation days an “on or about date” which included month and year was required. If not it was tossed out of evidence by objection which I agreed with. I also did not allow hearsay entered into the record of the proceedings. Yes it was a rape case.

 

[redleghunter]

Those who argue about "process" are usually not on the winning side of an issue.
Ringo

Well our society revolves around jurisprudence and has since the Roman Empire. It is what kept mob justice a la guilty until proven innocent out of our founding.

Many a woman was burned at the stake in Europe by false testimony and hearsay putting the woman in a position to prove innocence instead of the accusers presenting evidence.

That’s why we have a process and it is just.