Kavanaugh Confirmation

#4,476
#4,476
volinbham said:
What's the rush to have the FBI get involved when the accuser hasn't even made a statement to the Committee? If she gives credible enough testimony an FBI investigation could be ordered.

What's the rush? Why delay hearing from her?
Click to expand...
Why rush her testimony? Why rush a vote? Why not subpoena witnesses to come before the committee? There is no deadline other than the one McConnell set. There is so much more the committee could do but are not willing to.

Wait til the porn lawyer's client comes out before the hearing. I expect more of the same screeching about her account.
 
#4,479
#4,479
evillawyer said:
No, it's closer to a job interview. There are no rules of procedure, there are no rules of evidence, there are no findings of fact or law. The only similarity to a trial is that those offering testimony are under oath.
Click to expand...

Just for funsies how about we actually get to a point where there there actually IS any credible evidence before we start worrying about the rest of it. Right now we're damn little better off than having someone claim there's been a murder yet there's no body, a crime scene or even a missing person.
 
#4,480
#4,480
evillawyer said:
No, it's closer to a job interview. There are no rules of procedure, there are no rules of evidence, there are no findings of fact or law. The only similarity to a trial is that those offering testimony are under oath.
Click to expand...

Disagree. There are rules of procedure (Senate rules and processes for which the committee decides how to proceed). Likewise there are rules of evidence (Senate rules).

In what job interview would you publicly air allegations against the applicant? In what job interview would the people against the applicant publicly attack the applicant? In what job interview would those against the applicant leak information to the press to encourage stories attacking the character of the applicant? These are all common tactics in trials.

If an organization decided to not hire someone because they found an allegation they would be in heap-big trouble if they publicly aired it and used to for fund raising efforts.
 
#4,481
#4,481
hndog609 said:
Just for funsies how about we actually get to a point where there there actually IS any credible evidence before we start worrying about the rest of it. Right now we're damn little better off than having someone claim there's been a murder yet there's no body, a crime scene or even a missing person.
Click to expand...

And people who were supposedly there (4 under oath) have said - I didn't see anything like that.
 
#4,482
#4,482
Mick said:
Why rush her testimony? Why rush a vote? Why not subpoena witnesses to come before the committee? There is no deadline other than the one McConnell set. There is so much more the committee could do but are not willing to.

Wait til the porn lawyer's client comes out before the hearing. I expect more of the same screeching about her account.
Click to expand...

Why not get a special prosecutor to spend the next two years going through his yearbooks and check for Russians while he's at it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and 1972 Grad
#4,484
#4,484
Mick said:
Why rush her testimony? Why rush a vote? Why not subpoena witnesses to come before the committee? There is no deadline other than the one McConnell set. There is so much more the committee could do but are not willing to.

Wait til the porn lawyer's client comes out before the hearing. I expect more of the same screeching about her account.
Click to expand...

Again, the accuser has not given any testimony to the Committee. She has not given any testimony to any law enforcement agencies. It is the natural first step in the process.

Without a deadline the accuser would never come forward so there would be nothing to investigate and you have an endless delay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and T-TownVol
#4,486
#4,486
If the goal is to just delay, then the Dems/Ford will wait as long as possible until a vote may be scheduled. Then and only then will things proceed. And then there will be more roadblocks, demands, delays until they have no other other choice but to allow things to proceed to the next step after that.

In the meantime they're hoping that someone comes forward with something verifiable.
 
#4,487
#4,487
Mick said:
I want to see it. You know transparency. You don't feel that way and by your statement you prove that is the true narrative.
Click to expand...
what does you seeing it have anything to do with it? again an awfully high standard being held here.
 
#4,488
#4,488
Mick said:
You scared?
Click to expand...
No you moonbats are. Thus the delay. SCOTUS convenes next week. Whomever the appointee is needs to participate in arguments in order to vote. Thus the longer you moonbats delay seating the next Justice the longer you propagate the chance of a 4-4 tie and throw the decision back down to the circuits you’ve overloaded with activist liberal judges.

THAT is the entire tactic here. Delay delay delay. Suck it. You moonbats lost the election. Here come the consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, txbo, volfanjustin and 1 other person
#4,489
#4,489
NorthDallas40 said:
No you moonbats are. This the delay. SCOTUS convenes next week. Whomever the appointee is needs to participate in arguments in order to vote. Thus the longer you moonbats delay seating the next Justice the longer you propagate the chance of a 4-4 tie and throw the decision back down to the circuits you’ve overloaded with activist liberal judges.

THAT is the entire tactic here. Delay delay delay. Suck it. You moonbats lost the election. Here come the consequences.
Click to expand...

You're a grumpy one recently. Did someone steal your lunch money?
 
#4,492
#4,492
evillawyer said:
You're a grumpy one recently. Did someone steal your lunch money?
Click to expand...
I’m sick of this whole damn fiasco. Get it the hell over with.

Edit: BTW you totally ignored my statement. And you know it’s right. I haven’t looked at the calendar to see if you guys have any big cases coming up. That might be worth doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#4,494
#4,494
volinbham said:
Disagree. There are rules of procedure (Senate rules and processes for which the committee decides how to proceed). Likewise there are rules of evidence (Senate rules).

In what job interview would you publicly air allegations against the applicant? In what job interview would the people against the applicant publicly attack the applicant? In what job interview would those against the applicant leak information to the press to encourage stories attacking the character of the applicant? These are all common tactics in trials.

If an organization decided to not hire someone because they found an allegation they would be in heap-big trouble if they publicly aired it and used to for fund raising efforts.
Click to expand...
I was going to say something along the same lines. I have been told if ever asked about past employees to only confirm that they worked at the office over the given time. Do not give any opinion on their work/personality anything subjective at all. even in off the record type situations.
 
#4,495
#4,495
Franklin Pierce said:
Michael Avenatti Locks Account After Admitting Kavanaugh Accuser Might Not Come Forward

Attorney Michael Avenatti said his client might now not come forward against Brett Kavanaugh, and then locked his Twitter public profile from view.
Click to expand...
😂😂😂 truly shocking. Creepy porn lawyer shooting blanks again.
 
#4,496
#4,496
volfanjustin said:
not at all, just tired of the thugs on your side
Click to expand...

Thug Life!


la-1537212129-2y91yg7vhy-snap-image
 
#4,497
#4,497
Franklin Pierce said:
Michael Avenatti Locks Account After Admitting Kavanaugh Accuser Might Not Come Forward

Attorney Michael Avenatti said his client might now not come forward against Brett Kavanaugh, and then locked his Twitter public profile from view.
Click to expand...

Who among us did not see THAT one coming. The accusations are all that matter to the ignorant masses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#4,499
#4,499
LouderVol said:
I was going to say something along the same lines. I have been told if ever asked about past employees to only confirm that they worked at the office over the given time. Do not give any opinion on their work/personality anything subjective at all. even in off the record type situations.
Click to expand...
That’s been common practice for large companies for quite some time. At least a decade where I work.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top