Rapist SCOTUS judge Kavanaugh not off the hook yet, FBI to renew investigation

PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

Justice sometimes means offenders go free. That appears to be the case here.
Click to expand...

The very essence of justice is that a person who has not been proven guilty and no evidence has been presented against them should go free.

You have no more evidence than I do whether this crime occurred or not. You just don't like his politics and are looking for excuses.

This entire thread is based on the lie that the FBI is going to "renew" the investigation.
 
evince said:
she told people about it at the time


pretty hard to imagine she planned this to take Kav down


there were others with claims too


hell his buddie wrote a book about their antics
Click to expand...

The investigation manipulated by Trump was a joke but I was referring to his previous lies to Congress on a variety of issues. Brat "Pickled Liver" Kavanaugh came up through the entitled elite pipeline so his character never mattered to the corrupt GOP.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
The very essence of justice is that a person who has not been proven guilty and no evidence has been presented against them should go free.

You have no more evidence than I do whether this crime occurred or not. You just don't like his politics and are looking for excuses.

This entire thread is based on the lie that the FBI is going to "renew" the investigation.
Click to expand...

It does not appear that the FBI is restarting the investigation. All we have is the OP link. I was unable to find anything else about it. But perhaps since it is a weekend, we will get more detail in the coming week's news.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

It appeared to be part of a pattern. We should have heard from all the accusers. The process was rushed, and that's a shame considering how long a SCOTUS judge sits.
Click to expand...

That is why in a criminal case any past convictions or charges cannot be revealed. It automatically makes the jury lean toward the view that "if he did it once..." which is no evidence he committed this crime.

I once saw a defense attorney who was choosing the jury for his client. The defendant was charged with auto burglary and that is all the potential jurors knew. He asked the jury pool "if you had to vote right now (before any evidence was presented) how would you vote? Several jurors said they would vote guilty because he would not be on trial if he had done nothing wrong.

The defense attorney eliminated those jurors and made the point to the others than since no evidence had been presented and the defendant had not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he was automatically not guilty.

You don't want women to go through the stress of a sexual assault trial yet you want a man convicted without the prosecutor having to prove he committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not justice. The Constitution guarantees you get to confront your accuser. Sentencing a man to prison is more stressful than having to testify you were groped.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,



It does not appear that the FBI is restarting the investigation. All we have is the OP link. I was unable to find anything else about it. But perhaps since it is a weekend, we will get more detail in the coming week's news.
Click to expand...

It was simply a letter from two House members. That means nothing.
 
PoliTalker said:
'Nothing' is a nebulous term in that context.
Click to expand...

All that means is that the FBI is not going to renew an investigation simply because they got a letter from two House members. Agencies don't even respond to congressional requests with subpoenas. I question if those two members seriously want to pursue the issue.
 
Flash said:
Right. So what would be the point of continuing an FBI investigation?

He could be charged with assault with intent to rape which was a felony in 1982 with no statute of limitations. Why don't the women come forward and file a complaint? Is it because they have no evidence?
Click to expand...
It would have made sense during his confirmation. Of course, it didn't matter much when Thomas was before the Senate either. One would think that we've evolved since then.

Any real investigation would simply serve to educate the masses that there's a rapist sitting on the bench.

Doesn't matter all that much. There are already corporate whores, which do more damage.
 
Althea said:
It would have made sense during his confirmation. Of course, it didn't matter much when Thomas was before the Senate either. One would think that we've evolved since then.

Any real investigation would simply serve to educate the masses that there's a rapist sitting on the bench.

Doesn't matter all that much. There are already corporate whores, which do more damage.
Click to expand...

Not during his confirmation but before the hearings ever began. To do that the women would have had to come forth and make formal accusations and file a complaint. Unless they are willing to do their part they can't expect justice to be served.

But you do not want justice since you are already convinced he committed a crime even the victim did not accuse him of. You do not want a real investigation when you say it would have "served to educate the masses" he is a rapist. The only masses who would have believed that are those who believe 30 year-old accusations with no evidence and a victim unwilling to bring accusations that would have begun a real police investigation.

This was not about whether we believe Ford or Kavanaugh. It is about the left believing Ford before she ever testified because they opposed Kavanaugh and the right saying Ford lied because they want Kavanaugh. We could have predicted in advance all the liberals on JPP would be convinced Kav committed the act and all the conservatives thought Ford was lying. That has nothing to do with the truth but their partisanship.

Clarence Thomas committed no crimes. He just made crude comments. Unless no other top officials or Supreme Court justices ever made such comments he was otherwise well qualified. The question was not whether Anita Hill was telling the truth but whether those comments disqualified him from Supreme Court Justice.

It is like Joe Biden--not whether he made women uncomfortable with his touching but whether that disqualifies him for president. We will probably have some additional women come forward making such claims about some of the other Democratic candidates to put them all on an "equal" basis.
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
Not during his confirmation but before the hearings ever began. To do that the women would have had to come forth and make formal accusations and file a complaint. Unless they are willing to do their part they can't expect justice to be served.

But you do not want justice since you are already convinced he committed a crime even the victim did not accuse him of. You do not want a real investigation when you say it would have "served to educate the masses" he is a rapist. The only masses who would have believed that are those who believe 30 year-old accusations with no evidence and a victim unwilling to bring accusations that would have begun a real police.

This was not about whether we believe Ford or Kavanaugh. It is about the left believing Ford before she ever testified because they opposed Kavanaugh and the right saying Ford lied because they want Kavanaugh. We could have predicted in advance all the liberals on JPP would be convinced Kav committed the act and all the conservatives thought Ford was lying. That has nothing to do with the truth but their partisanship.

Clarence Thomas committed no crimes. He just made crude comments. Unless no other top officials or Supreme Court justices ever made such comments he was otherwise well qualified. The question was not whether Anita Hill was telling the truth but whether those comments disqualified him from Supreme Court Justice.

It is like Joe Biden--not whether he made women uncomfortable with his touching but whether that disqualifies him for president. We will probably have some additional women come forward making such claims about some of the other Democratic candidates to put them all on an "equal" basis.
Click to expand...
You are in a thread referencing a real investigation this time. Said investigation would finally hear the other witnesses who can verify that Kavanaugh had a propensity for getting drunk, and then violent towards women.

Why is it that you only mention the claims by Ford, in a thread that infers we will be hearing from a number of victims?

Corroboration, as it were.
 
Althea said:
You didn't watch the hearings?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was poor preparation on the part of the Democrats. They could have arranged to have these women testify early in the planning. Instead, they find all these witnesses at the last minute and try to extend the hearings. It sounds like they were just trying to stretch out the process.
 
yeap he lied under oath and its provable


the republicans just ignored it and passed him through



he will be removed
 
Flash said:
Yes, it was poor preparation on the part of the Democrats. They could have arranged to have these women testify early in the planning. Instead, they find all these witnesses at the last minute and try to extend the hearings. It sounds like they were just trying to stretch out the process.
Click to expand...
Last minute? Stretch out the process? McTurtle kept the seat open for a year. What was the rush?
 
Flash said:
The very essence of justice is that a person who has not been proven guilty and no evidence has been presented against them should go free.

You have no more evidence than I do whether this crime occurred or not. You just don't like his politics and are looking for excuses.

This entire thread is based on the lie that the FBI is going to "renew" the investigation.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Flash, indeed.

There were no corroborating witnesses.

Innocent until proven guilty, the bedrock of American jurisprudence.
 
Althea said:
Last minute? Stretch out the process? McTurtle kept the seat open for a year. What was the rush?
Click to expand...

Once the hearings began they suddenly found women who needed to be investigated after all the witnesses had already been arranged and scheduled. They even agreed to a "special prosecutor" for the case. Why didn't they schedule these witnesses earlier? Democrats had obviously done their opposition research. I don't think it was poor planning on their part as much as attempting to drag it out to make the Democratic supporters think they were actually doing something.

Hearings are a waste of time where Democrats and Republicans make partisan speeches written by the staff telling us stuff we already knew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top