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.
If there isn’t objective evidence tying someone to a violent assault, forget it.
Enough is enough.
Ok, so let's set you up as the determiner of who is telling the truth and who is not. What criteria would you use ? You evidently have some method for weeding out the true victims from the liars, please tell us what it is.
OK lets talk about this. If you think someone should not be convicted if there is reasonable doubt as to whether they are guilty I AGREE. But that standard does not apply at all to determining if they get a job.
NOR does it apply if its used to determine if there should be a investigation. Thats just utter nonsense.
Think this through, if there is no physical evidence then the argument being made here is that we should never EVER charge a rapist as long as 1. they used a condom, and 2. no one directly witnessed it. Because by your standard, and the argument being made-we should not investigate it. And thats a vast miscarriage of justice.
But that seems to be the goal here, a surrender of whats right or wrong for political expediency.
By the standard of the Republicans here, Bill Clinton would make a fine supreme court justice.
Bingo. We should never ever charge anyone with rape absent cooberating evidence and/or witnesses.
Ok, so let's set you up as the determiner of who is telling the truth and who is not. What criteria would you use ? You evidently have some method for weeding out the true victims from the liars, please tell us what it is.
The best answer to your query is to research our legal system, our courts, and our laws. Identify the one underlying principle that makes the whole thing tick.
What evidence did boys have when they came out decades later against priests who assaulted them.
Lot's of corroborating evidence and eventual admissions, in many cases, once investigated. And in some cases, actual records. There certainly wasn't the equivalent of the FBI coming out and saying, "We can't find anything, folks."
Lot's of corroborating evidence and eventual admissions, in many cases, once investigated. And in some cases, actual records. There certainly wasn't the equivalent of the FBI coming out and saying, "We can't find anything, folks."
You spelled out the major difference between the two cases. In the instance of the boy/priest thing, it WAS INVESTIGATED. In the case of Dr Ford's allegations, it was a quick walk through by the FBI, who was given strict limitations by Trump. Anyone who thinks a good investigation can happen in 4 days has rocks in their head.
This whole sham was simply an attempt to say "Well, we had the FBI investigate, and they found nothing !"
Strange that the FBI didn't even interview the two mail players, Ford and Kavanaugh.
You spelled out the major difference between the two cases. In the instance of the boy/priest thing, it WAS INVESTIGATED. In the case of Dr Ford's allegations, it was a quick walk through by the FBI, who was given strict limitations by Trump. Anyone who thinks a good investigation can happen in 4 days has rocks in their head.
This whole sham was simply an attempt to say "Well, we had the FBI investigate, and they found nothing !"
Strange that the FBI didn't even interview the two mail players, Ford and Kavanaugh.
Ford and kav testified under oath, and were asked if they had anything to add. Kav also had 6 in depth fbi investigations done prior to the most recent. But you knew that, and are just a resist trump liberal spewing your cnn talking points.
If the dems wanted a more in depth investigation, they would have hone to the senate committee chairmen when they received the letter. Not hung onto it until night before confirmation.
The other evidence that it was a set up is ford wiping her social data clean the day after giving letter to feinstein. I believe they used the time between then and turning over the letter to do that. And then not turning over pschiatrist notes or polygraph video and notes. Ford was a lying resist trumper that felt she was doing her part to resist.
Ford and kav testified under oath, and were asked if they had anything to add. Kav also had 6 in depth fbi investigations done prior to the most recent. But you knew that, and are just a resist trump liberal spewing your cnn talking points.
If the dems wanted a more in depth investigation, they would have hone to the senate committee chairmen when they received the letter. Not hung onto it until night before confirmation.
The other evidence that it was a set up is ford wiping her social data clean the day after giving letter to feinstein. I believe they used the time between then and turning over the letter to do that. And then not turning over pschiatrist notes or polygraph video and notes. Ford was a lying resist trumper that felt she was doing her part to resist.
Oh yeah, Kavanaugh was soooooo forthcoming in that interview. This is a man who wants to judge others, and his behavior on that stand was deplorable. He was combative, evasive , and condescending .
Let's face it, Trump is going to get to appoint some person to this court, but this one is as bad as they come.
Underwear with my rapist's DNA wasn't enough evidence. The pregnancy that resulted from the rape wasn't enough evidence.
So what *is* enough evidence?
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.
