Prosecutor memo to Judiciary Committee...

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by bb1961

She feel case would most like never win if court much less in front of Senate committee.
Jake Tapper concurs!!https://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2...ary-committee/

She comes across as little more than a Trump surrogate mouthpiece, so I do not put much credence either way in her comment.

The reality is I sincerely doubt that an FBI investigation will find out anything to change the minds of either side. Neither side made up their minds based upon facts, neither side cares about facts. It is all about "winning", and putting in a ideological zealot whether he is a choir boy or a predator.


There are so many things wrong with this entire sham:
--Both REPS and DEMS in Congress should have insisted that there was a decent vetting of the candidate prior to starting any hearings. Indications are it was a complete pencil whip exercise, where all that mattered was his ideology. Actual checking of his background was essentially skipped.

--Both REPS and DEMS should have insisted on release of far more of his papers prior to starting any hearing.

Without those two things they do not have the basis of legitimately deciding if he is fit and suitable or not--so in the absence of these things the entire "hearing" is a sham on both sides.


If the REPS wanted this to be legitimate they would put a gag in Graham's mouth--he is a self-caricature of a misogynist asshole. He has a FEW reasonable points, but no one can hear him over his macho insulting words.


If the DEMS want this to be legitimate, the Clinton psychopath clones Feinstein & Warren would have brought forth all these accusations as soon as the nomination was made. But that is not what they wanted--they wanted a hearing that would give them campaign ammunition more than they want a proper consideration of the best SC member.


A one week FBI investigation is better than none, but not by much. They can hardly get agents paperwork done in a week, two days into the five days they have, there are still arguments going on about who/what they can investigate, Trump has contradicted himself and looked typical Trump-buffoon like, and there is no assurance that witnesses can be contacted scheduled and interviewed in the few days allowed.

This is almost 100% certainty to result in an FBI report which will then be discredited as "rushed, sloppy, and incomplete" by whichever side doesn't like what it says.


But it WILL give more ammunition to Trump to say the FBI is incompetent, when in reality he and Congress tied their hands in a way to ensued a mediocre product.


Ah, the disgusting things politics have become.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by Old-T

She comes across as little more than a Trump surrogate mouthpiece, so I do not put much credence either way in her comment.

The reality is I sincerely doubt that an FBI investigation will find out anything to change the minds of either side. Neither side made up their minds based upon facts, neither side cares about facts. It is all about "winning", and putting in a ideological zealot whether he is a choir boy or a predator.


There are so many things wrong with this entire sham:
--Both REPS and DEMS in Congress should have insisted that there was a decent vetting of the candidate prior to starting any hearings. Indications are it was a complete pencil whip exercise, where all that mattered was his ideology. Actual checking of his background was essentially skipped.

--Both REPS and DEMS should have insisted on release of far more of his papers prior to starting any hearing.

Without those two things they do not have the basis of legitimately deciding if he is fit and suitable or not--so in the absence of these things the entire "hearing" is a sham on both sides.


If the REPS wanted this to be legitimate they would put a gag in Graham's mouth--he is a self-caricature of a misogynist asshole. He has a FEW reasonable points, but no one can hear him over his macho insulting words.


If the DEMS want this to be legitimate, the Clinton psychopath clones Feinstein & Warren would have brought forth all these accusations as soon as the nomination was made. But that is not what they wanted--they wanted a hearing that would give them campaign ammunition more than they want a proper consideration of the best SC member.


A one week FBI investigation is better than none, but not by much. They can hardly get agents paperwork done in a week, two days into the five days they have, there are still arguments going on about who/what they can investigate, Trump has contradicted himself and looked typical Trump-buffoon like, and there is no assurance that witnesses can be contacted scheduled and interviewed in the few days allowed.

This is almost 100% certainty to result in an FBI report which will then be discredited as "rushed, sloppy, and incomplete" by whichever side doesn't like what it says.


But it WILL give more ammunition to Trump to say the FBI is incompetent, when in reality he and Congress tied their hands in a way to ensued a mediocre product.


Ah, the disgusting things politics have become.

There has never been a circus like this in an SCOTUS nomination to the degree that this has become...has there ever been a nominee from the Democrats that has been treated this shamefully or with any disrespect at all...do tell!!

[Old-T]

Actually, I think a Dem nominee that never received a hearing was insulted and mistreated very seriously, maybe even more so since he was killed without any evidence or witnesses at all.

But whether K's treatment is appropriate--both parties have worked hard to ensure we don't have enough information to tell.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Actually, I think a Dem nominee that never received a hearing was insulted and mistreated very seriously, maybe even more so since he was killed without any evidence or witnesses at all.

But whether K's treatment is appropriate--both parties have worked hard to ensure we don't have enough information to tell.

Garland was merely payback for Robert Bork, and to a lesser extent, Harriet Miers..lol

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Actually, I think a Dem nominee that never received a hearing was insulted and mistreated very seriously, maybe even more so since he was killed without any evidence or witnesses at all.

But whether K's treatment is appropriate--both parties have worked hard to ensure we don't have enough information to tell.

The reality is that the day after Trump was elected, Garland enjoyed the same job and community activities that he had the day before Odumbo nominated him. Kavanaugh has already had to give up a teaching position at Harvard, the ability to coach and should he not be confirmed, his job on the D.C. court has been jeopardized by this dim-retard circus.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The reality is that the day after Trump was elected, Garland enjoyed the same job and community activities that he had the day before Odumbo nominated him. Kavanaugh has already had to give up a teaching position at Harvard, the ability to coach and should he not be confirmed, his job on the D.C. court has been jeopardized by this dim-retard circus.

Two different situations if I recall. Garland was not accused of sexual harassment--so I would not expect the same results for non-court results.

I do not know if he is guilty or incent, and unfortunately both sides are resisting getting the truth out there--if indeed it can be determined at this late date. Both sides have reached their conclusions based upon his party standing, not any facts that we have seen.

IF he was innocent, then it is unfortunate that he has lost his positions. IF he is guilty, I have little to no sympathy for him.

I am more concerned about the papers that have not been disclosed, and which no one seems to care about. Both sides are content to reach a conclusion in ignorance.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Two different situations if I recall. Garland was not accused of sexual harassment--so I would not expect the same results for non-court results.

I do not know if he is guilty or incent, and unfortunately both sides are resisting getting the truth out there--if indeed it can be determined at this late date. Both sides have reached their conclusions based upon his party standing, not any facts that we have seen.

IF he was innocent, then it is unfortunate that he has lost his positions. IF he is guilty, I have little to no sympathy for him.

I am more concerned about the papers that have not been disclosed, and which no one seems to care about. Both sides are content to reach a conclusion in ignorance.

Two different situations because the dim-retards fucking intentionally CHOSE to publicly slander and defame Kavanaugh over allegations that according to Senate rules should have been shared early on in the committee process and resolved behind closed doors. If proven true, Kananaugh would have been given the opportunity to voluntarily withdraw or Trump could have withdrawn his nomination without the public spectacle. According to Mitchell, Ford's allegations lack the substance to require either Kavanaugh or Trump to withdraw Kavanaugh from consideration.

And it remains, the Republicans CHOSE not to lynch Garland as the dim-retards have CHOSE to lynch Kavanaugh.

[gnadfly]

You're right but lets start first with President Obama.

[Old-T]

Two replies. Two comments that don't address whether K is innocent or guilty. Two posts about politics, not what is true or what K has said in papers that should be a major part of the hearings.

Neither side is doing their job, they are both just playing slimy politics.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Two different situations because the dim-retards fucking intentionally CHOSE to publicly slander and defame Kavanaugh over allegations that according to Senate rules should have been shared early on in the committee process and resolved behind closed doors. If proven true, Kananaugh would have been given the opportunity to voluntarily withdraw or Trump could have withdrawn his nomination without the public spectacle. According to Mitchell, Ford's allegations lack the substance to require either Kavanaugh or Trump to withdraw Kavanaugh from consideration.

And it remains, the Republicans CHOSE not to lynch Garland as the dim-retards have CHOSE to lynch Kavanaugh.

I don't think i've ever see the republicans even attempt to 'lynch' ANY DEM Nominee..

[mad469s]

Lets face it, in this case due to lack of evidence, Dr. Ford can't prove that it did happen, nor can Judge Kavanaugh prove it didn't happen. With that being said I'd like to see Kavanaugh get confirmed, and Dr. Ford if she did lie while under oath (its not looking good for her), she should be persecuted as a perjury case.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Two replies. Two comments that don't address whether K is innocent or guilty. Two posts about politics, not what is true or what K has said in papers that should be a major part of the hearings.

Neither side is doing their job, they are both just playing slimy politics.

In this country there is a legal precedent that one is presumed innocent until found guilty.

Ford's "ex-boyfriend's testimony is significant because he is yet another witness who denies or refutes an element of Ford's story. If Ford isn't lying, it means her ex-boyfriend is lying, Kavanaugh is lying, Mark Judge is lying, and two other witnesses are either lying or suffering selective amnesia."

The notion that Kavanaugh is guilty merely because Ford claims he is guilty is unmitigated bullshit.

Anyone who believes or argues that Kavanaugh must forfeit his career and ambitions because of hearsay is a true minion of Marxist doctrine as practiced by Lenin and Stalin.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser, and as Mitchell laid out in her memo, that proof is not there.

[Old-T]

I did not say he was guilty, nor did I say he should forget this career.

If you want to rant at my post, have the decency to rant about what I said, not your excursions.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I did not say he was guilty, nor did I say he should forget this career.

If you want to rant at my post, have the decency to rant about what I said, not your excursions.

It's your stated position that Kavanaugh's lynching with loss of employment and opportunity is merely "unfortunate" but "so be it". Mitchell said the proof is not there to justify keeping Kavanaugh off the bench. Mitchell's position is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and "so be it" doesn't cut the mustard in that regard. In fact, such a "so be it" position only rewards and encourages these miscreant motherfuckers to persist with their lies and slander, e.g., Harry Reid's slander and lies about Romney on the floor of the Senate.

[Austin Ellen]

Thank you IB. You would think anyone with half a brain knows this but apparently not. Young men and especially young black men should be very afraid now. #trump2020

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

In this country there is a legal precedent that one is presumed innocent until found guilty.

Ford's "ex-boyfriend's testimony is significant because he is yet another witness who denies or refutes an element of Ford's story. If Ford isn't lying, it means her ex-boyfriend is lying, Kavanaugh is lying, Mark Judge is lying, and two other witnesses are either lying or suffering selective amnesia."

The notion that Kavanaugh is guilty merely because Ford claims he is guilty is unmitigated bullshit.

Anyone who believes or argues that Kavanaugh must forfeit his career and ambitions because of hearsay is a true minion of Marxist doctrine as practiced by Lenin and Stalin.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser, and as Mitchell laid out in her memo, that proof is not there.