Kavanaugh Hearing

if you are accused of sexual assault...you wouldn't be able to get even a magistrate judgeship

 

I really hope we can get to a place where, if you're going to wait 36 years to accuse and take down an otherwise very noble and reputable public figure, you need to leave your feelings at the door. Make your accusation, but be ready to corroborate it with almost any means necessary. Because even the accuser, if being honest with herself, should understand why people would be skeptical given that scenario.

 

After that hearing, I wouldn't hire Brett Kavanaugh to mow my lawn. (In fact, I would tell him to get off my lawn.)

 

right...so know we're to believe he can be an impartial arbiter of justice..hahaha

 

Only if formal charges were filed, correct?

 

If the Washington Post has seen them, which they claim they did, then those notes need to be turned over to the FBI. If they are relevant to the investigation, you don’t get to decide what the FBI gets to see and what they do not based on whether it might not be comfortable to the accuser.

 

Wowwwwww you really showed us. You wouldn't even let BK on your turf. Man, thanks for that riveting debate. I hope we get a much better fight out of Miss State tonight or it won't be worth watching.

 

not true...you will hear from the 3rd within 72 hrs and witnesses to corroborate her claims...said Avenatti Saturday 11 am

 

What makes you thank he would want to mow your yard.

 

Totally agree. The entire MO has been to force Kavanaugh into various logistical and thus legal disadvantages, whilst demanding protections that would make any decent district attorney laugh out loud.

 

not sure...perhaps

 

I mean the ABA and many other prestigious legal groups said he could based on his judicial record, but you are probably smarter than them.

 

You're the one who brought up job interviews. What's to debate?

 

Oh, boy. Where to begin with such fundamental misunderstandings?

Hearsay witnesses - We’re not talking about witnesses to the actions of the three alleged people in the room. We’re talking about identifying people that ran in those social circles that potentially can state there was or wasn’t such a party, a party where all were present , maybe someone saw all three enter the room together, etc.

The point isn’t to use the book or yearbook to prove anything directly but to identify potential witnesses from the social circles at that time. Claiming it’s unnecessaily broad is likely more a function of your partisan view than any failure to understand how an investigation works. Having lead criminal investigations and personally conducted in-house investigations I can state with certainty that our investigative agencies would be severely hampered operating under your extreme view on the breadth of an investigation. Would you contact everyone in the yearbook? Absolutely not. But it sure provides a great starting point.

 

The investigation is about creditable plus it is limited existing allegations

 

So her lawyer said she will come forward probably practicing her story for the next 3 days. Avenatti's first clients accusation sounded like the ravings of someone having an untreated schizophrenic break.

 

Eh, that would be a very important detail to include in your previous post and I think we both know the answer to my question.

 

When you become a United States Senator, get back to me?

 

Lucky her I guess. Right?