Reply With Quote
i don't see you crying for ellison's victim or bill's rape victims. we know, it's because you want a W for the Blue team, amirite?
This isn't a trial.
This is a hearing in the senate to determine fitness for the Supreme Court.
Seems like a credible allegation of a felony within the statute of limitations of the state where it occurred is enough information to make that call.
Not really a challenging ethical problem.
i don't see you crying for ellison's victim or bill's rape victims. we know, it's because you want a W for the Blue team, amirite?
Here is what no one has asked:
Why didn't Kavanaugh report the crime? Why didn't he wake up the next day, call his accomplice and say, "dude, we ed up, I feel horrible. That poor girl must be terrified. Let us do the right thing and report this and apologize and hope it is not too late"
I might be pulling for THAT guy to be a SC Justice.
And you want to rely on an allegation where the girl can't say how she got to where she was, can't say who owned the house, can't say where she went, and doesn't know when it happened. Those are basic questions that any D.A. would ask a girl that wants to press charges. If she can't answer those now, then when can she answer them? If she answered those questions and provided information that could be fact checked and reviewed, then I'm all for an in depth investigation. But she hasn't done that. She's only alleged enough facts to create a he said/she said scenario.
Shut up.
upset because you're a hypocrite and got called out? yeah and because you're a ing re too.
Then why isn't the Maryland police's investigating it? They don't need her permission.
It's not in a trial court, but he is very much on trial. And if you are going to destroy anyone's reputation with that kind of an allegation, you better be able to say where it happened, when it happened, who owned the home, how you got there, and what you did when you left before you go to the media and make that accusation. And if you can't explain basic elements of your story, then it shouldn't be given credence until you can. She's being invited to fill in the gaps and has evaded and now says she'll go if she testifies last so Kavanaugh can't respond to her allegations.
No - those are questions that the professionals in the FBI are good at tracking down. They start with just a crumb of info and build a case and eventually all those questions are answered - or are revealed to be false information from a lying witness. Then you can call her a liar and exonerate the alleged rapist.
Or not.
Why are you so afraid of an investigation, lawyer?
Wouldn't you fight for your client to be treated fairly under the law?
Because Ford went to Diane Feinstein instead of the police to report a crime.
it's all just kabuki by the left. the left is dead and these ed up tactics are all they have left.
it's funny how you're dodging such a question. i must had hit the nail on the head.
it's funny watching you far left losers squirm.
What? I'm not afraid of an investigation, but give some details to investigate. That's the problem as I've said all along. You think the FBI have to figure out who owned the house, where it was, how she got there, who was there, and where she went when she left without asking her? What are they going to go back in a time machine? The only one that can answer those questions is Ford. She's decided to insert herself in this process since July. Why has she not answered these basic questions?
Obviously, you have never dealt with a victim of sexual assault or rape have you?
They sometimes only reveal a couple of things, Sometimes they are afraid to tell anyone. Sometimes they have to be gently coaxed into a testimony. This is why the FBI is successful - they send the appropriate people to investigate thoroughly and competently.
You keep saying - there isn't enough this, enough that - but this is exactly how cases begin - with very little.
No crime is gift-wrapped and tied with a big bow.
No matter - after this sham hearing - she will go to the Montgomery County,Maryland PD and file her criminal complaint. Then a SC Justice will be put through the ringer again.
If she hasn't remembered after 35 years a little "gentle coaxing" won't recover her memory.
On the other hand, a little politically expedient "gentle coaching" appears to have been going on.
You don't think the FBI knows how to investigate? You don't think every FBI case begins with almost nothing to go on - and becomes a provable criminal case. I'm sorry but I sure hope when someone hires you - they bring 100% of a winnable case for you - because you obviously will not be able to help anyone who doesn't have a 100% bulletproof winnable case with every piece of evidence neatly wrapped and packaged for you, counselor!
koriwhat, a right wing millennial, lambasting people for their lack of political accountability in 1996 when he wasn't old enough to drive a ing car, aaaaaaaaaand lying about it to sound impartial. ing lol.
You have been watching way too much TV.
Further, it is fully possible for the guy to, in fact, be guilty, and there still not be enough evidence to convict in a court.
The two are not mutually exclusive possibilities. "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent".
For this, we just need enough information to make a call for a lifetime judicial appointment. A credible allegation of a felony would appear to cross that bar.
Why can't this person you believe provide these answers? Duh it's the first few questions the FBI will ask. And when she can't answer them, there goes your investigation. Your willingness to ignore obvious questions that need to be answered to ascertain guilt is beyond reason unless you don't really care and this is all about stopping the confirmation. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But I'm out. Got to work now.
That is true, but there isn't enough evidence to even bring a charge against him. I doubt the Maryland police would even take up the investigation if the accuser can't even say where she was or when it happened, let alone the other questions I've consistently raised.
As opposed to politically expedient villanizing of a traumatized victim of a physical attack, who is brave enough to endure death threats to speak the truth as she sees it?
Not remembering every single detail of a trauma after 35 years is something that truthful people do, and is fully consistant with someone telling the truth.
Sorry, you can pretend otherwise because "republican white guy", I guess.
Ok if a Republican did it., right asshole?
And that is where police are wrong. You haven't raised , other than lies, flawed arguments, and unproven assumptions.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
