The American Bar Association

[OKSTATE1]

Well, the way you obtain evidence is through an investigation. So then do support a further investigation?

Not going to get the evidence you need 35 years old. Like trying to solve the assasination of Kennedy decades later.

All 3 the of the people she named as witnesses under penalty of a felony did not uphold Ford’s version.

I have no idea what the happened 35 years ago.

If the Dems wanted the truth they would not have not hidden this for months and would have participated in the Senate Committee’s investigation, which they did not. They are just stalling.

This is going to argued in circle forever, but the Dems played nasty politics on this and they over played their hand.

We heard very clearly from the Dems this morning about their political fears, not their fears really on BK, but their political fears fueled by TDS.

Time to vote. All the talking is meaningless now, just more stalling and political hatred.

 

[OKSTATE1]

This isn’t a court of law. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t exist here.

It’s purely a choice of a handful of Republicans. No more no less.

I fill my bong with your tears, self professed proponent of assasinating Trump. Hope you go to the psych ward over BK being nominated, you earned it.

 

[CowboyJD]

Do we even know if this occurred in Maryland? Are we sure it wasn't across the border in Virginia? How about Penn? Per her own testimony, she can't recall where the assault actually happened.

You notably ignored the part of my quote that statute of limitations apply only to criminal prosecutions and not job interviews.

Are you suggesting that if the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution have passed, it shouldn’t be considered at all when deciding upon a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS?

Because it kind of sounds like you are.

 

[my_2cents]

This isn’t a court of law. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t exist here.

It’s purely a choice of a handful of Republicans. No more no less.

So essentially you want evidence but you won't support the means to gather that evidence, correct?

I agree with you btw about evidence. We need to see more. That is why I support a further investigation and why the above letter was written. And such an investigation could help Kavanaugh!

Without it and just rushing this nomination through reflects bad on both Republicans and the process.

 

[Alpha Poke]

And again, you have to investigate to obtain such evidence.

So do you support a further full investigation?

Glad you finally got around to pointing that out.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

I fill my bong with your tears, self professed proponent of assasinating Trump. Hope you go to the psych ward over BK being nominated, you earned it.

Well since I haven’t been committed involuntarily, I guess I would have to go myself lol...you gonna pay for it?

I think all traitors should be executed. Publicly.

 

[my_2cents]

Not going to get the evidence you need 35 years old.

Depends on what type of evidence you are talking about. A further investigation could easily confirm or deny numerous aspects of these allegations. The principals are still alive and the information would not be hard to obtain.

Time to vote.

Exactly. You want more evidence but you refuse to support a process to gather such evidence. Just vote. Rush it through.

It is clear what you and other Republicans really want. Regardless of whether women were sexually assaulted or not.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Depends on what type of evidence you are talking about. A further investigation could easily confirm or deny numerous aspects of these allegations. The principals are still alive and the information would not be hard to obtain.



Exactly. You want more evidence but you refuse to support a process to gather such evidence. Just vote. Rush it through.

It is clear what you and other Republicans really want.

We want Dems to play fair, which is impossible.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Well since I haven’t been committed involuntarily, I guess I would have to go myself lol...you gonna pay for it?

I think all traitors should be executed. Publicly.

You are such a lying POS, you clearly made it clear you are wanted him assasinated.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

You are such a lying POS, you clearly made it clear you are wanted him assasinated.

I want all traitors assassinated.

 

[my_2cents]

We want Dems to play fair, which is impossible.

Then call for a full and fair investigation! Again, though, you don't really want a fair process. You want a process that benefits one party over the other.

btw, did Republicans play fair with Judge Garland?

 

[OKSTATE1]

Then call for a full and fair investigation! Again, though, you don't really want a fair process.

btw, did Republicans play fair with Judge Garland?

I think we had a full and fair nvestigation. Dems did not participate in it, if one of the 3 so called witnesses Ford pegged had said it happened under penalty of felony then you would have cause to pehaps bring in the FBI.

Sorry, you do not like this candidate or any other candidate Trump puts forward.

You lost, lose with dignity.

Rejoice in the fact that the #metoo movement has not yet moved the assumption of guilt to a 35 year old accusation with no evidence.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I want all traitors assassinated.

Reported to the FBI.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Reported to the FBI.

Good lol

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

I think we had a full and fair nvestigation. Dems did not participate in it, if one of the 3 so called witnesses Ford pegged had said it happened under penalty of felony then you would have cause to pehaps bring in the FBI.

Sorry, you do not like this candidate or any other candidate Trump puts forward.

You lost, lose with dignity.

Rejoice in the fact that the #metoo movement has not yet moved the assumption of guilt to a 35 year old accusation with no evidence.

Republicans refused a subpoena for Mark Judge

 

[my_2cents]

You lost, lose with dignity.

Again, you prove my point. It is only about winning and losing to you, a fair process be damned. The thing is, no one is winning in any of this right now, including the Republican Party.

Remember this conversation on future election nights when you are watching the Republican Party lose.

 

[Medic007]

So all she has to do is file a police report, and you will then all of a sudden believe these accusations could be true?

Sigh. You're literally a wordier version of Toon.

The allegation has already been investigated as it pertains to Kananaugh's background. She says it happened. He says it didn't. People she specifically named as being there said that it didn't happen. They were both credible at the hearing. I believe she was sexually assaulted at some point in the past, but there's nothing to corroborate that Kavanaugh was involved. Now it's time to vote and move on.

If she wants additional investigations of the incident, she should file a police report. If Democrats want additional, they should encourage her to file a police report. Continuing to babble about more "complete and full investigation" is nothing more than a political play to stall the process and provide a narrative for their base.

Feinstein sat on Ford's allegation for 6 weeks. This whole thing could have been investigated and handled confidentially had Feinstein acted responsibly when she received the allegation. Her Congressional colleagues and her supporters should demand better from her. Her actions are worthy of an ethics investigation in my book.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Again, you prove my point. It is only about winning and losing to you, a fair process be damned. The thing is, no one is winning in any of this right now, including the Republican Party.

Remember this conversation on future election nights when you are watching the Republican Party lose.

I have watched the Rep party lose a bunch, have voted Dem in the past. I did not need safe rooms, puppy dogs, time off from school or work, or went and rioted when the candidate I voted for lost.

 

[my_2cents]

I believe she was sexually assaulted at some point in the past, but there's nothing to corroborate that Kavanaugh was involved.

And I'll ask again, what would it take for you to believe Ford could be telling the truth about it being Kavanaugh?

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

People she specifically named as being there said that it didn't happen.

Republicans refused a Mark Judge subpoena.

 

[aix_xpert]

You notably ignored the part of my quote that statute of limitations apply only to criminal prosecutions and not job interviews.

Are you suggesting that if the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution have passed, it shouldn’t be considered at all when deciding upon a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS?

Because it kind of sounds like you are.

No, I'm arguing that asking the FBI to do investigations (which by definition imply criminal activity, otherwise why is the FBI involved) on items that have long exceeded any reasonable statute of limitiation is inappropriate.

 

[OKSTATE1]

My2cents, were you for BK after the original non hearings? Or before? Let’s just cut to the chase here.

 

[Medic007]

Republicans refused a Mark Judge subpoena.

And? Mark Judge isn't the Supreme Court nominee.

 

[my_2cents]

My2cents, were you for BK after the original non hearings? Or before? Let’s just cut to the chase here.

After the original non hearings?

 

[OKSTATE1]

After the original non hearings?

LOL. Dodge an answer, we know why.

 

[aix_xpert]

Republicans refused a subpoena for Mark Judge

This is good. This would have become an attack on him for his known alcoholism in his past as he continued to deny these unverifiable attacks. But if you want to impress me, then in addition to requesting to subpoena Mr. Judge, why don't you call for a subpoena of the 'friend' who attended the party with the accuser? She knows who it was (otherwise she wouldn't have made the statement, 'she wouldn't have been aware of the assualt'), yet has been very careful in avoiding her name coming out in public.

 

[CowboyJD]

No, I'm arguing that asking the FBI to do investigations (which by definition imply criminal activity, otherwise why is the FBI involved) on items that have long exceeded any reasonable statute of limitiation is inappropriate.

Then you don’t understand everything the FBI actually does.

FBI does background investigations of potential appointees at the request of the President as well.

 

[my_2cents]

LOL. Dodge an answer, we know why.

What do you mean by non hearings?

If you are asking whether I support the Kavanaugh nomination apart from the sexual assault accusations, no I do not. And no, I didn't support his nomination before the sexual assault accusations.

 

[CowboyJD]

And? Mark Judge isn't the Supreme Court nominee.

But he may be a source of evidence and relevant information.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I guess this is like cutting the baby in half. Pass him out of committee, delay the floor vote (assuming leadership allows it) while the FBI does some type of investigation (not sure what that consists of), get the results, then have a floor vote.

 

[Medic007]

But he may be a source of evidence and relevant information.

Maybe if he wanted to deviate from the statement he already provided, but that isn't likely.

Why not subpoena everyone that Ford and Kavanaugh went to high school with as well? Find everyone who knew anything about either of them to target for further questioning. Maybe they could find someone else who remembers the incident or there'll be a bunch of people who have no knowledge of such an incident occurring.

 

[Pokeabear]

Maybe if he wanted to deviate from the statement he already provided, but that isn't likely.

Why not subpoena everyone that Ford and Kavanaugh went to high school with as well? Find everyone who knew anything about either of them to target for further questioning. Maybe they could find someone else who remembers the incident or there'll be a bunch of people who have no knowledge of such an incident occurring.

They had interviewed at least 23 people in Anita Hills case in 3 days. It can be done.

 

[OK State Fan]

I might be wrong but shouldn't an investigation be done by the local PD where the crime was committed. If they don't want to then they can refer it to the FBI but it would be a local jurisdiction. Also, while MD has no current statute of limitations for sexual assault it did previously and that time has passed. The SCOTUS upheld it could not be retroactively enforced. At least that is what I read on CNN...so it has to be right. Sorry to interrupt.

 

[Pokeabear]

I might be wrong but shouldn't an investigation be done by the local PD where the crime was committed. If they don't want to then they can refer it to the FBI but it would be a local jurisdiction. Also, while MD has no current statute of limitations for sexual assault it did previously and that time has passed. The SCOTUS upheld it could not be retroactively enforced. At least that is what I read on CNN...so it has to be right. Sorry to interrupt.

Since there is no statute of limitations, why wouldn’t you wait for the FBI to do their job and then take the information gathered and decide if you want to proceed to a criminal referral to the local prosecutors in Maryland?

 

[Medic007]

They had interviewed at least 23 people in Anita Hills case in 3 days. It can be done.

Sounds good to me. How many Democrats do you think will (a)apologize profusely and eat crow and (b)support Kavanaugh if he's totally exonerated by a "full and fair" investigation? None? Noneteen? Twenty none? Nonety none?

 

[Medic007]

They had interviewed at least 23 people in Anita Hills case in 3 days. It can be done.

What if they FBI says "yeah, we talked to the same people that had already been talked to and there's no change to the status of this he said/she said? Will that suffice to end the Democrats whining?

 

[Pokeabear]

Sounds good to me. How many Democrats do you think will (a)apologize profusely and eat crow and (b)support Kavanaugh if he's totally exonerated by a "full and fair" investigation? None? Noneteen? Twenty none? Nonety none?

We’re they not allowed to disagree with his jurisprudence before the allegations? The man was a political operative. The Judiciary is supposed to be as near anti political as possible. Not this tribal shit show.

 

[Medic007]

We’re they not allowed to disagree with his jurisprudence before the allegations?

Of course they were. I'm only highlighting that there's nothing that will change in Team D's votes or rhetoric even if he's squeaky clean.

The man was a political operative.

Oooooo, conspiracy. Tell me more.

The Judiciary is supposed to be as near anti political as possible. Not this tribal shit show.

I know you didn't type this with a straight face.

 

[Pokeabear]

Of course they were. I'm only highlighting that there's nothing that will change in Team D's votes or rhetoric even if he's squeaky clean.
So if the problem is his jurispruden why would his being innocent or not of sexual assault change their original opinions?

Oooooo, conspiracy. Tell me more.
Watch his confirmation hearings in full. He received stolen emails from the Democratic Senate during his time working in the Bush Whitehouse and then lied about it to the Senate. He is a political operative like it or not. I don’t.

I know you didn't type this with a straight face.
But I did.

 

[Medic007]

So if the problem is his jurispruden why would his being innocent or not of sexual assault change their original opinions?

It won't. And it won't change their rhetoric regarding the allegations. That's my point. Put it to an up/down vote. He gets confirmed or he doesn't. Requests for more "investigation" is just more stall tactic. The Dems put their entire hand on the table before this ever started.

Watch his confirmation hearings in full. He received stolen emails from the Democratic Senate during his time working in the Bush Whitehouse and then lied about it to the Senate. He is a political operative like it or not. I don’t.

Kinda sounds like Democrat talking points. Sorry. If he committed perjury he should be charged with perjury. Has he been charged?

But I did.

Well that gives me a good chuckle. Why do you think Presidents nominate judges that share their political ideology? You think those choices are coincidental?