kavanaugh

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Statute of limitations is long gone, this is not a court of law, there is way more at stake here than one man's life.
Sorry that is the way politics works, it's not pretty or nice.
I said last week they should have gracefully yanked him, and put in a woman.

i keep hearing that in MD there is no statute of limitations on this accusation?

the maryland police posted something, they didn’t say the statute was up, they said something to the effect that if she asked, they’d investigate.

you’re right that politics isn’t pretty or nice. but it doesn’t need to be this ugly, this regularly. i know this because i’m old enough to remember when it wasn’t.

you did say to put in the woman. trump will not yank him, nor should he, with just an accusation. if that’s enough, who will ever get confirmed again? an accusation is not evidence, not even close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i keep hearing that in MD there is no statute of limitations on this accusation?

the maryland police posted something, they didn’t say the statute was up, they said something to the effect that if she asked, they’d investigate.

you’re right that politics isn’t pretty or nice. but it doesn’t need to be this ugly, this regularly. i know this because i’m old enough to remember when it wasn’t.

you did say to put in the woman. trump will not yank him, nor should he, with just an accusation. if that’s enough, who will ever get confirmed again? an accusation is not evidence, not even close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're correct there is no statute of limitation on that and that means they don't have to do it today or tomorrow. They might be being nice about it and giving him a chance to bow out, rather than put either one of them thru a trial. None of us can do more than guess.
"Investigators in Montgomery County have apparently spoken with either a woman or her attorney about allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh that date back to his senior year of high school.
Investigators have apparently spoken to multiple witnesses about the allegations.
A formal complaint has not been filed.
“Without a complaint, they cannot conduct a further investigation,” said Karem. “That’s the fulcrum.”
In Maryland, there is no statute of limitations for rape and attempted rape.
The county police and the Montgomery County prosecuting attorney’s office have said they would conduct an investigation into the case, if a complaint is filed."

It's always been this ugly, you just never saw it.
I've known some old politicians and had that discussion.
It was done in backrooms, out of sight and the newscycle was a week, not minutes. Nobody had email, they talked and left no trace.

[Jim in CT]

Spence, it’s bad for the senate to bring in an expert sexual crimes prosecutor who is a female, to question both Ford and Kavanaugh? i’d think you and Ford would love that move. i doubt she wants to get questioned by a bunch of old white guys, right? why not bring in an expert who knows how to best get to the truth in these situations?

It can’t be that neither you nor Ford is interested in the truth, but rather in smear, can it?

that would explain why she hasn’t asked the Md police to investigate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, it’s bad for the senate to bring in an expert sexual crimes prosecutor who is a female, to question both Ford and Kavanaugh?

I've not seen anything that says the attorney is going to question both people. Regardless, you'd do this because you hope to destroy the witness, not get to the facts.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've not seen anything that says the attorney is going to question both people. Regardless, you'd do this because you hope to destroy the witness, not get to the facts.

i have seen multiple reports that the attorney would question both. she’s a prosecutor, not a defense expert. you’d only run from this, if you feared the truth. kind of like opposing drug tests.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i have seen multiple reports that the attorney would question both. she’s a prosecutor, not a defense expert. you’d only run from this, if you feared the truth. kind of like opposing drug tests.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why wouldn't the Senators question her themselves? I'm sure they have attorney's behind the scene writing the questions.

What are they afraid of?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Why wouldn't the Senators question her themselves?
What are they afraid of?

so evil democraps can't whine that she's being bullied.....

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1151866] Spence, it’s bad for the senate to bring in an expert sexual crimes prosecutor who is a female, to question both Ford and Kavanaugh?

Originally Posted by spence

Regardless, you'd do this because you hope to destroy the witness, not get to the facts.

"Rachel Mitchell, a veteran prosecutor from Arizona whose “life mission” has been to investigate sex crimes. Mitchell’s boss, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, praised called her a “professional, fair, objective prosecutor” who has a “caring heart” for victims.The people of America are well served with her involvement in this process,” he said.

Mitchell — a graduate of the Arizona State University law school — has worked as a prosecutor since 1993 and spent 12 years running the bureau in the division responsible for the prosecution of sex-related felonies, including adult sexual assault.

Cindi Nannetti, her former supervisor and co-counsel on high-profile cases, said: “Rachel doesn’t seek attention as a lawyer. She has excellent judgment. She demands thorough investigation by police officers. Her bottom line is justice.

“She’s super smart. I just don’t think she’ll be bullied by anyone. She just doesn’t look at anything politically.”

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=scottw;1152076]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, it’s bad for the senate to bring in an expert sexual crimes prosecutor who is a female, to question both Ford and Kavanaugh?





"Rachel Mitchell, a veteran prosecutor from Arizona whose “life mission” has been to investigate sex crimes. Mitchell’s boss, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, praised called her a “professional, fair, objective prosecutor” who has a “caring heart” for victims.The people of America are well served with her involvement in this process,” he said.

Mitchell — a graduate of the Arizona State University law school — has worked as a prosecutor since 1993 and spent 12 years running the bureau in the division responsible for the prosecution of sex-related felonies, including adult sexual assault.

Cindi Nannetti, her former supervisor and co-counsel on high-profile cases, said: “Rachel doesn’t seek attention as a lawyer. She has excellent judgment. She demands thorough investigation by police officers. Her bottom line is justice.

“She’s super smart. I just don’t think she’ll be bullied by anyone. She just doesn’t look at anything politically.”

Sounds familiar, pretty typical laudatory quote

“Robert Mueller is the perfect choice,” Jeffries said. “Most important is his integrity. For Bob, integrity is not merely a policy or a practice; it’s character. He is incapable of dishonesty or dissembling. Additionally, he has the skill and experience to be effective. His appointment has been universally applauded, as it should be.”

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1152077]

Originally Posted by scottw

Sounds familiar, pretty typical laudatory quote

”

no...it sounds like exactly the opposite of what spence attempted to imply

[Pete F.]

Of the 163 citizens nominated to the Supreme Court by presidents since the start of the Republic, only 125 were confirmed, 7 declined.
It’s not the end of the USA if he doesn’t get confirmed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Of the 163 citizens nominated to the Supreme Court by presidents since the start of the Republic, only 125 were confirmed, 7 declined.
It’s not the end of the USA if he doesn’t get confirmed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if unsubstantiated allegations are enough to disqualify someone, it will mean no one gets confirmed.

If there is nothing beyond allegations and hearsay, he's probably going to get confirmed. I would say definite, but they might get 2 defections from Collins, Murkowski, and Flake. Also possible Pence breaks the tie.

[Jim in CT]

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence does

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess they just released video footage of him actually in line, I think that’s him at the front

https://youtu.be/hshbq4_OySI
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

Federal judicial nominees undergo a rigorous FBI background check

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Federal judicial nominees undergo a rigorous FBI background check

Number 4
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

Number 4
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you bother?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

What's the point of investigating what is already known. Isn't it the point of an investigation to find out that which is not known?

[scottw]

interesting....


"The Judiciary Committee sent Thomas’s nomination to the full Senate on a vote of seven-to-seven. In mid-October, on the eve of the Senate’s final vote on Thomas, his confirmation looked like a sure thing.

Meanwhile, as the chances of defeating the Thomas nomination grew smaller, both the press and the groups working against him grew ever more vigorous in their search for material to use against him. Employees at the EEOC reported getting repeated phone calls from journalists and Thomas opponents explicitly asking for “dirt.” On Sunday, October 6, after the Senate Judiciary Committee had voted to send the Thomas nomination to the Senate, Newsday and National Public Radio reported that for a month the committee had had in its possession an affidavit from a woman named Anita Hill making charges of sexual harassment.

Thomas supporters protested the introduction of a new charge against him, after so many other accusations had been leveled and failed, on the very eve of the confirmation vote. Thomas opponents said that because not much was known about the charges, the vote should be postponed and Hill’s story given a more thorough airing.

But the opponents said a great deal more as well. They claimed that the Senate, by its treatment of Hill, had already demonstrated men’s outrageous indifference to the welfare of women and the fundamental incapacity of male elected officials to give proper political representation to their female constituents. If the Senators went ahead with their floor vote on Thomas as scheduled, they would compound the insult.

The anger of Thomas’s critics drove out respect for procedural traditions and niceties. The Judiciary Committee had considered Hill’s charges privately, in agreement with Hill’s expressed wishes; but someone on some Senate committee staff decided that he or she was morally justified in overriding these rules of confidentiality and leaking Hill’s affidavit, either directly to the press or to an intermediary, and subjecting both Hill and Thomas to a public airing of the issue.

After the leak, Thomas’s supporters said that because he was to be effectively put on trial, he should be given the presumption of innocence: Hill should have to come up with some solid corroboration of her claim. Thomas’s opponents dismissed this idea, explaining that since sexual harassment often took place in private, an absence of corroborating evidence was only to be expected. Asking for the conventional presumption of innocence under this circumstance would be nothing other than a fancy version of “blaming the victim.”

The opponents evidently calculated that by bathing the whole affair in the light of publicity, they could undo the Judiciary Committee’s verdict. And indeed, at first they seemed to succeed. But in the end, they succeeded too well. They forced a public event that featured Hill and Thomas facing off against each other directly and individually. They provided Hill with a phalanx of lawyers to match Thomas’s White House handlers. They created, in other words, a forum that strongly resembled a criminal trial."

[wdmso]

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What's the point of investigating what is already known. Isn't it the point of an investigation to find out that which is not known?

Right, it's just an exercise to confirm what's already known, they don't ask any questions about the person's past.

[wdmso]

What do Kavanaugh and bill Bill Cosby ? have in common

no one believed the women who accused him... at 1st

[PaulS]

What vile accusations these women have made against Kavanagh. If they made the same type of accusations about me and I had the ability to have the FBI investigate I'd be screaming for them to investigate. Lie detectors all around for the accused and accuser. Anyone who lies would be guilty of perjury. I wonder why that hasn't happened?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Train gang
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

this is comical....


In a statement released Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their "first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his [sic] complaint." They conducted a second interview the next day.

On Wednesday, Republicans said in the statement, they received a "more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford." GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.


Ford has previously said there is "zero chance" she would have confused Kavanaugh for anyone else.

In response, an aide to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee reportedly unloaded on Senate Republicans: "Republicans are flailing," the aide said, according to NBC News.

"They are desperately trying to muddy the waters. ... Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her. Democrats were never informed of these assertions in interviews, in violation of Senate rules."

The aide, before again calling for an FBI probe into Ford's accusations, added, "This is shameful and the height of irresponsibility."

[scottw]

this is hilarious....

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is hilarious....

Glad to see you think it’s hillarious to mock 2 victims of sexual assault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Glad to see you think it’s hillarious to mock 2 victims of sexual assault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

democrats are doing a fine job of mocking and delegitimizing all actual victims of sexual assault by turing it into a political weapon....again

this guy Avenatti is the perfect presidential candidate for the dems in 2020