(September 26, 2018 at 6:17 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(September 26, 2018 at 6:12 pm)alpha male Wrote: Some have given statements to the committee. Sorry for assuming that you knew some of the basic facts of the situation.

I know Ford testified today. Has Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's alleged accomplice?

The previous written statements count, as noted previously. If you still don't get it:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/...naugh.html

Quote: The people she did name -- Kavanaugh and his classmates Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth -- have denied under penalty of felony knowing anything about the alleged episode.

Let's see if they pass a polygraph test. Then we can have a discussion.

(September 26, 2018 at 5:21 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(September 25, 2018 at 10:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: They have pushed back the vote for this 11th hour accusation a number of times now. How is accelerating the vote?  Also, isn’t it guilt that needs to be demonstrated?

Accusations. And again, this is not a court of law, fitness for the position is the question before congress. If it were a court of law, Senator McConnell's indication that he is determined to vote yes on the confirmation would result in a mistrial, because in a real trial, the jury is supposed to be impartial and wait until all the evidence is in before reaching their decision.

Your correct, this is a not a trial, it is a Senate investigation.   And I completely agree with your last line here.   It's also why I think that innocent until proven guilty still applies.   That the evidence needs to be considered, and the claims corroborated, before declaring a man guilty.

Also note from the link I gave above:

Quote:The proceedings may be upended by late-breaking developments: In a statement released Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their "first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his [sic] complaint." They conducted a second interview the next day. 

On Wednesday, Republicans said in the statement, they received a "more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford." GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.

(September 27, 2018 at 7:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 26, 2018 at 5:21 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Accusations. And again, this is not a court of law, fitness for the position is the question before congress. If it were a court of law, Senator McConnell's indication that he is determined to vote yes on the confirmation would result in a mistrial, because in a real trial, the jury is supposed to be impartial and wait until all the evidence is in before reaching their decision.

Your correct, this is a not a trial, it is a Senate investigation.   And I completely agree with your last line here.   It's also why I think that innocent until proven guilty still applies.   That the evidence needs to be considered, and the claims corroborated, before declaring a man guilty.

Sigh. He doesn't have to be proven or declared guilty. It's a factor to consider when it's time to vote whether the man is fit to be on the Supreme Court, and one side doesn't want a thorough investigation; even though if the charges were false, an investigation would very likely demonstrate that. He doesn't have to be proven (or declared) guilty unless he's charged and it goes to an actual court.

Here's the difference an FBI investigation makes: currently the vote will be almost entirely along party lines. If the FBI investigation tends to exonerate Kavanaugh, a few moderate Democrats may vote to confirm the nomination. If the FBI investigation tends to support the accusations, a few moderate Republican may vote not to confirm. Since the Republicans already have the votes they need to confirm, an investigation can only harm Kavanaugh's chances of confirmation, and for the most part, the Republicans don't seem to have a problem with putting a possible sexual abuser on the Court as long as they believe he will vote the way they want him to.

If the Democrats were in the majority, it would be equally reprehensible for them to do the same. There should be an FBI investigation of the allegations before the vote, no matter which party is in power. Identifying potential disqualifications is what these hearings are for.

---

(September 27, 2018 at 6:21 am)alpha male Wrote:

(September 26, 2018 at 6:17 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I know Ford testified today. Has Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's alleged accomplice?

The previous written statements count, as noted previously. If you still don't get it:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/...naugh.html

Quote: The people she did name -- Kavanaugh and his classmates Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth -- have denied under penalty of felony knowing anything about the alleged episode.

Thanks for correcting my outdated impression, AM.

I dropped out of this thread for awhile, but, of course, the list of his accusers is growing:

And Then There Were Three...or Four...or Five

(September 27, 2018 at 9:20 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: if the charges were false, an investigation would very likely demonstrate that.

How would the investigation demonstrate that?

(September 27, 2018 at 9:48 am)alpha male Wrote:

(September 27, 2018 at 9:20 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: if the charges were false, an investigation would very likely demonstrate that.

How would the investigation demonstrate that?

(September 27, 2018 at 9:40 am)Jehanne Wrote: I dropped out of this thread for awhile, but, of course, the list of his accusers is growing:

And Then There Were Three...or Four...or Five

Three...didn't see Kavanaugh do anything.

Four...completely anonymous.

Five...looks like this was completely made up and since retracted.

Poor Alpha, Kavanaughs dick keeps making it harder and harder not to be a dick.