Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are several who do believe that is attacking the victim. I'd say it's about split though.
There's those who think she is either lying and/or completely mistaken - I personally fall into this camp and if that's me attacking the alleged victim so be it. I do not find her story remotely credible. There's those who just want more evidence and they are quite a large number. But I will happily eat crow if she is able to provide evidence.
Few people who are assaulted can provide evidence. That is the problem with this type of crime and why it is seldom reported. The perp just gets away with it.
Asking for an FBI investigation makes me a leftist?
BTW, it IS the FBI's jurisdiction to do a background check on SCOTUS nominees. It's federal jurisdiction.
Constitution 101.
I think she should testify first before determining if such an action is warranted or not yet. After all, Congress should not allow a simple accusation to be enough to derail a confirmation hearing. However, if she presents evidence it is more than that, then I would support such an action. Based on my current understanding, her accusation is all we have at this juncture. That simply is not enough to derail a vote. Otherwise, it would be used ad nauseum in the future to derail politically untimely votes.
Oh good. Now we're into the phase of blaming him for not speaking out on other's actions. No idea and why should he? He didn't do it. Why should he be responsible for someoneelse's actions?
Because it wasn't some random nutjob that was responsible for the fraud. It was a close friend and associate of Kavanaugh's. Some people might get the idea that Kavanaugh knew of and approved of this attempt to frame an innocent man.
Asking for an FBI investigation makes me a leftist?
BTW, it IS the FBI's jurisdiction to do a background check on SCOTUS nominees. It's federal jurisdiction.
Constitution 101.
The harm is that you are advocating the weaponization of the FBI and the DOJ to harass the political adversaries of the Democrat left, without authority under federal law, and without ANY evidence at all whatsoever.
The harm is that you want to charge the FBI to engage in an investigation to hunt down and find evidence, where currently there is literally none. That is an abuse of due process under the law, of the FBI's legal mandate.
It is also political harassment of the worst kind, of the sort that Hitler and the Nazis used to engage in, and of the sort that the current day Marxist Chinese, and also the Russians, still do. This is what you are advocating here.
Anyone actually moving to implement these recommendations should certainly be arrested and investigated themselves for abusing their power in this illegal way. Also, the people advocating this sort of unconstitutional harassment of their political opponents need to constantly be called out for their support of these unconstitutional, uncivil and thoroughly despicable, politically-oriented behaviors.
Few people who are assaulted can provide evidence. That is the problem with this type of crime and why it is seldom reported. The perp just gets away with it.
You're just making that up. Evidence, especially evidence collected immediately after the assault, is still evidence. As are basic facts such as when and where the assault occurred. These are all used to build a case. Sometimes there is not enough evidence to successfully prosecute but the absence of prosecution does not mean the absence of evidence and in some cases, it also is not enough to corroborate the accuser. In this case, there's absence of evidence is the most glaring I've seen and it's a complete misnomer to say "few people can provide evidence." That's just such an erroneous statement.
...fortunately (for Kavanaugh) he's not being tried for a crime. He is interviewing for a JOB. The requirements are a bit difference in terms of what would be considered "allowable".
So... I can tell your employer that you're a serial rapist, provide no proof of such whatsoever, and calmly sit back and expect you to be fired from your job because requirements are a bit different in terms of what would be considered "allowable?" Nice way for corporate ladder climbers to eliminate their rivals, don't you think?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
