Constitutionality and the days of due process.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TrueBrit

It should have been kept from the public until it was investigated and findings presented.

In in context I agree with that sentiment. Why expose someone to all the public scrutiny until the whole thing was investigated. But that is the problem here as I understood it. There was little to no time to investigate this man prior to the ''rush'' to confirm him.

The democrat senators from the get go were calling for more time to look into Mr. K. They were pleading for more information regarding his time in the White House and other things that they wanted to have brought forth regarding Mr. K's political leanings, yet the Rs wanted to rush it through without allowing time to do so. The Rs were rushing the process with the appearance of trying to cover things up and not allowing fuller exposure to the American public as to the type of man he was and is.

So the Ds brought this sex thing out and made it public because the R senators who were in control of the oversight were refusing to consider the others sides requests for more time and fuller disclosure. The goal of it all from the beginning was to have more time to investigate this man and it took the sexual abuse that women have suffered at the hands of men for ages to at least give them one more week to investigate.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

There was no rush. They had the letter a month before revealing it. She was in contact with the Post since July. What rush are you referring to, it's fake news never happened.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

There was no rush. They had the letter a month before revealing it. She was in contact with the Post since July. What rush are you referring to, it's fake news never happened.

Maybe Terry can ignore the fact they had lots of time to turn it in and were using the woman as their metaphorical sacrifice.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Boadicea

She shouldn't be forced, but don't ask for an investigation and then refuse to provide evidence you say backs up your claim.

Of course! And that refusal will necessarily be weighed accordingly by all appropriate parties -- including the court of public opinion.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You're so full of sh*t dude.

Just stop.

a reply to: Boadicea

Put simply, there isn't much that will be gained from it. They'll interview people and, in theory at least, if somebody they interview is later determined to have lied then they could be charged.

But the allegations aren't a federal crime, so it won't be a criminal investigation. It'll be a supplemental report attached to the most recent background investigation, and in that report the FBI will in no way, shape, or form determine "yes Kavanaugh attempted to rape Ford" or "no Kavanaugh did not attempt to rape Ford." It will be nothing more than "we talked to person A, they said this. We talked to person B, they said that. We talked to person C and they said this." and so on.

Nothing will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the supplemental, nor will BK be entirely cleared by the supplemental.

a reply to: Boadicea

CNN will never air it so her supporters will never know.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

He's had 6! Background investigation!

6!

They already know everything there is to know about him.

When I had my background investigation they found out about some kid I got paid to beat up when I was like 14 years old.

He's been investigated Six times and this never came up. Because it's BS.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: 5en5ei

I am absolutely saying however that he should meet a higher standard than any regular citizen...

...Its one rule for regular folk, as it should be, and another for those seeking power over them, which is entirely right, ...

No, what you've actually done is argue for a lower standard, not a higher one.

If all it takes are unsubstantiated allegations to derail people from consideration of public service, the only standard you've managed to achieve is chaos. One that will be sure to dissuade exceptional and competent people from serving in such positions. Who in their right mind would subject themselves to such a ridiculous process?

The truth is the left has utterly abandoned the rule of law, which is designed to protect ALL people, regardless of the circumstances.

In the present situation, this is how the entire ordeal would have been handled if we didn't have such lawless nutcases in congress and the MSM.

1) An accuser brings an allegation,
2) the committee addresses it in closed session and confidentially, pursuing all necessary means of investigation, and
3) only after completion of such investigation, make the findings publicly known.

Then its up to the votes...and notwithstanding the outcome, NOTHING prevents further investigation, and if warranted, actual prosecution in a court of law.

THAT is due process. Not the circus we are witnessing or that you are advocating for.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

What rush to confirm him? - it's one of the longest confirmation processes there has been.
The only rush was the last minute uncorroborated accusation.
It should never have been an influence on the process.
If Dr Ford wants to bring a case she can still do so and it should treated separately.
There is no middle ground here - and by providing one to make people FEEL better all that has been achieved is a very very dangerous precedent that will be used time and time again to influence politics.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well, I believe your accuser and you should lose your job and be put on a register.
Most of all you should be kept away from children.

See how that works?

If you don't believe in the presumption of innocence for ALL then you are an authoritarian wannabe - and god help us all if degenerates who think that way ultimately rule over us all.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Thank you!!! It's very much appreciated. I've been having a devil of a time understanding why this is such a good thing... and methinks many people are going to be disappointed when they understand. It's been way too hyped up.

One more question... I read something this morning about charging Kavanaugh with perjury, since he swore he remembered no parties such as Ford described, but his calender showed a party with some of the same people ford named. I've wondered since the start if this isn't just a perjury trap, so reading that made me wonder again. Do you think that's possible in these circumstances?

a reply to: Boadicea

I'd have to see what they're referring to. I don't recall him saying anything about not going to parties or gatherings of small groups, just that he didn't attend the one Ford has claimed the incident happened at.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Boadicea

I'd have to see what they're referring to. I don't recall him saying anything about not going to parties or gatherings of small groups, just that he didn't attend the one Ford has claimed the incident happened at.

that is my understanding as well, and I have not heard of any perjury talk, so would be interested to see what statement they would be hanging their hat on, so to speak.........

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The dems said they did not want to expose this woman. The rush was not in bringing her story forth but rather the Rs rush to confirm without allowing for the redacted and limited information that they were allowed to consider before the conformation vote. You didn't miss all of that D whining did you?

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, he never went to the party she talked about.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The dems said they did not want to expose this woman. The rush was not in bringing her story forth but rather the Rs rush to confirm without allowing for the redacted and limited information that they were allowed to consider before the conformation vote. You didn't miss all of that D whining did you?

yeah, well, they say they didnt want to expose her......but someone did, by leaking her story and name. I really hope we find out who did.......

also of note on the leak of her identity, who has benefited so far from her name becoming public and forcing a hearing? surely this would be a consideration in looking into a leak......

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

There was no rush. They sat on this a month waiting until it was time to vote to intentionally cause a problem.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

There was no rush. They had the letter a month before revealing it. She was in contact with the Post since July. What rush are you referring to, it's fake news never happened.

Maybe Terry can ignore the fact they had lots of time to turn it in and were using the woman as their metaphorical sacrifice.

Maybe so except I am not ignoring that fact. They did have time to use that information prior to when they did. They stated that they waited so long hoping to not have to bring it forth because they didn't want to jeopardize this woman's reputation. That all they wanted in the first place was time to look into him more fully which the Rs were not going to allow.

It is easy for me to see that , sure, this is a delaying tactic, as clear as the nose on my face and should not be ignored any more than the original rush to confirm on the part of the Rs should be ignored by Mr. K's defenders.

a reply to: watchitburn

Investigations by who? Those who wanted him to be confirmed? Were those investigations bipartisan? Were they balanced between those who wanted him confirmed and those who did not? I don't know who did those six investigations, do you?