Kavanaugh Hearing

The FBI couldn't charge her for lying to the Senate, it would be up to the Senate. But of course you're right, there would be no perjury charges. How could they charge her for lying at the hearing and not charge him? That would look really good.

 

If the FBI determines that Judge worked at the same Safeway that Ford alleges she saw him at, it would definitely give her increased credibility. Why would she remember a chance encounter with Judge in 1982 at that store unless she had reason to?

 

Look up the definition of "evidence." Sworn testimony is evidence. It is proof. You may demand more proof, but that doesn't change the fact that it is proof.

 

That is proof as well.

 

And the DNA gathered using a rape kit that PROVED they were together, versus her just saying he raped her, doesn’t add EVIDENCE to her story? Not to mention the TPD botching of the case affected the outcome. And the fact that when she was in a classroom with Jameis, she was so bothered by him that she left as soon as she got his name, instead of walking up to him, shooting the breeze, and asking for his autograph doesn’t mean anything, right? She had a ton more evidence that a rape occurred then Ford did that she attended a party with Kavanaugh.

Ford doesn’t have ANY EVIDENCE putting her and Kavanaugh at the same fricking party. Her coroborating witnesses don’t even remember the two being at a party together. It is a piss-poor analogy because the Jameis accuser has EVIDENCE that something happened, while Ford has nothing but her word.

But don’t address the point pontificate instead. And the fact that Ford’s three named witnesses remember nothing about the party and she carried on a normal conversation with one of her attackers means nothing, right?

 

Well, I'm sure that kind of thing is why some people don't want an FBI investigation.

 

So, when does the left start picketing Safeway for hiring sexual-assaulter-accessories?

 

Yep, he could be risking his re-election chances.

 

Funny that you ignore that Kinsman changed her story multiple times and that her final account of the events is contradicted by physical evidence. @mutz87 is right.

 

So, if some liberal nutcase (oooops sorry, that's a redundancy) swears under oath, in open court, that they are the President of the United States, then according to your position, it is proof that they are the President of the United States, and therefore they are the President of the United States. Gotcha.

 

Now that's a funny guy right there.

 

Actually, it makes for a great juxtaposition, rather than any suggestion of hypocrisy.

Begin with context--what has Kav's reputation been like over the last 3+ decades?

FSU's?

I could pretty much end my analysis right there...

(...and just forget for the moment JW's vic ran that same night to police, and submitted to a rape kit, laid out the when, where, how and who in excruciating detail, that was corroborated by extrinsic evidence.... while the other remained conspicuously quiet, until Kav's name was put into play in 2012, when Ginsberg was flirting with death (and then, only to a therapist, to 'document' it--though she conveniently left out Kav's name, as it proved unnecessary...clearly this ambush has been in the works for quite a while--and btw, she's had 6 years to shore her story up--know why she didn't? Why she didn't bother so much as to triangulate a specific part of a decade? B/c it's bs, and to narrow it down to a meaningful time frame, would expose her story to being debunked...anyway....I'll just leave it at the context of FSU v. Kav, over the last 3 decades, though I could go into so much more detail...).

 

Of course people can lie under oath. But they take an oath not to and that oath is to compel honest testimony otherwise they will be open to criminal perjury charges. No one, however, has argued the strawman you state.

But lawyer is exactly right, it is *proof* which is his saying it is evidence. And under the rules of evidence it is actually treated equal to other forms of evidence such as direct or tangible evidence and circumstantial evidence. In any of these instances, people, i.e. juries can give whatever weight they deem fit to that evidence in whether there is reasonable doubt. And there are no doubt rape cases that have no direct evidence of the rape occurring, such as dna, video or audio, or vaginal contusions that might be indicative of rape, but rather might rely only on testimony, or on testimony & circumstantial evidence. L

 

Tell that to my wife of 11 years. Dated her for 5 years before that through college. Assumptions make an ass of “u” and “me”.

I have had some incidents with my wife’s sister, and she can be a psycho crazy manipulator. Which is why I stay the hell away from her. Everyone knows the saying a woman scorned. They were asking for motivation, well revenge is a powerful motivator.

Would like to think evidence matters in these cases, but not anymore. Allegations is all you need.

 

It is evidence. You determine if it's sufficient proof for you. The trier of fact's job is to make credibility assessments. Are you a lawyer?

 

How about passing a polygraph test? It might not be admissible in court, but I think it's kind of impressive.

 

you cannot do a credible investigation, organize it and report it in a week

 

Revenge for what?

 

Wasn't trying to suggest hypocrisy per se, more at some inconsistency in standards, recognizing of course there are key differences.

Have you addressed why women don't come forward or is it all just politically motivated...without any evidence of the same that it is?

 

How many times has your wife accused you of sexually assaulting her? I'm guessing zero. See, you have nothing to fear, Mike Pence.