Discussion in 'GC Hall of Fame' started by ursidman, Sep 4, 2018.
Yo Brant--Kegger at the Pike house!! We'll bring the chicks!
Keep em coming...
As I said earlier in this thread, there is no presumption of innocence outside of the court of law, and there is no due process for judicial nominees outside of what the Senate gives them. That's how Merrick Garland got no process whatsoever. People have been throwing around those terms either to mislead people or because they don't understand them that well.
The proper thing for Difi to do with that letter was share it with Grassley as soon as she got it. The JC could have had the FBI look into very quietly before all the hearings started. And believe it or not, I honestly think Kavanaugh’s nomination would have been pulled. He wasn’t Trump’s first choice and McConnell wanted Thaper. Republicans were also very worried about his paper trail from 10 years on the DC circuit and six years in the Bush White House. He was the establishment pick where the right had other folks higher on the list.
As far as being a credible allegation, I would disagree since nothing that Dr. Ford provided could be disproven. There was no way for Kavanaugh to prove his innocence without normal details like where, when, and what time. If that information is not provided, it is not a credible allegation, as it robs the accused of a change to show they were not at the time and place the accuser provided. If one person mentioned as being there claimed they remembered it, I would have been fine pulling the nomination, but not one did.
So how does a dying declaration fit into a background check? This isn’t an investigation and no one is dead. The only people the FBI want to talk to are people who were named by the accusers of being present. No one who has been named as being present has corroborated the accusers’ accounts. And as you as so apt to point out, this isn’t a court of law or a criminal case, so no FBI investigation, just a background check.
Can you at least admit that partsain on both sides have a incredible large incentive to lie when it comes to these allegations?
It's quite simple how it fits in. You claimed that a person can't be a witness unless they saw the event. That's incorrect. You also claimed that secondhand information is irrelevant. That's also incorrect. A dying declaration is an example of both of those things being admissible when hearsay is actually barred. Hearsay is not barred here.
As with anything, it depends. You'll need to be more specific about what you're asking. Feinstein, for example, has a large incentive to be dishonest. Yes, that's true.
This makes absolutely no sense. The FBI would want to talk to anyone with potentially relevant information, which would include people who interacted with possible eye witnesses.
Yep. That's how an investigation goes. You talk to every person with relevant information. Don McGahn, the man responsible for Kavanaugh's nomination and Kavanaugh's friend, didn't want there to be any chance the FBI could corroborate her account. That's why he limited the investigation and didn't allow the FBI to talk to anyone who would could corroborate Ramirez or Ford.
Out of all the qualified jurists, couldn't Trump have found one a little less rape-y? Birds of a creepy feather, I guess.
What can possibly be less "rape-y" than 0% "rape-y?"