Constitutionality and the days of due process.

nvm....formatting issue.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: watchitburn

I don't know who did those six investigations, do you?

I was under the impression the background checks, all 6 of them, were done by the FBI. If I am wrong here, let me know.......

a reply to: Shamrock6

Fair enough... I don't remember where I found the article I read this morning, but it was referring to this: Is Brett Kavanaugh's Calendar Corroborating Evidence for Christine Blasey Ford's Sexual Assault Allegations?

And this is basically what Kavanaugh allegedly lied about:

First, Ford alleged that the attack took place at a small gathering at someone's house that summer, and identified Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth as being in attendance. Kavanaugh's own calendar entry from July 1 shows that he went to a type of gathering that had been described by Ford, and was accompanied by two of the men she said were key witnesses to what really happened that night. 

There's more at the link of course, but that's the gist of it.

I find it very weak... Or grasping at straws. Hence my question about a perjury trap.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

I don't know. But which FBI, the FBI that some stand behind or the other FBI that many hate as Trump does? This all seems to me to be floating on water now a days. I'm doing all I can to stay afloat with some semblance of my own sanity as the ''good guys'' and the 'bad guy's change their black and white hats almost hourly in our culture.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Most FBI agents are fine it's leadership.

originally posted by: Saiker
In the early days of our great country lynching was commonplace so much so that it became an epidemic for many years. While most associate lynching with ropes and death, but there are public shaming in the town squares. This week the biggest crime done was the public shaming of a woman and a man for political gain. Where is the justice in this when a mans life and that of his family be destroyed in the court of public opinion based on the words of one woman who did not come forth but was ousted by our representatives and then put before the world to pass judgment all based on words and a performance by herself and the aligned political opportunist.

When will you the American people say something? We stood by when they demonized an entire race of people because of being white, We stood by when they demonized an entire sex, we stood by when they demonized an entire religion. What will you do when they come for you? The court of public opinion, as well as the judicial courts, are wrought with false accusations against so many innocent people where due process is a joke. Where DA's in the name of political gain force the accused to plead guilty for a lesser crime threatening to throw the book at them if they don't. The average American has seen this process first hand in traffic stops and with the IRS where one is not afforded the presumption of innocence.

Order needs to be restored to the judicial wing the legislative wing, and the executive wings of our government they have mocked the constitution and flaunted our rights in the name of political gain.

In November when you vote, be sure to vote for we the people.

Thank you for the idea to start a new thread addressing our accepted procedures, even in general regarding the methodology...and no matter the country.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

I don't know. But which FBI, the FBI that some stand behind or the other FBI that many hate as Trump does? This all seems to me to be floating on water now a days. I'm doing all I can to stay afloat with some semblance of my own sanity as the ''good guys'' and the 'bad guy's change their black and white hats almost hourly in our culture.

I understand your point. the FBI being accused of being biased as heck, and not to be trusted and all that. but still, the Dems said FBI investigation what seemed like 500 times the other day. If I did a drinking game every time I heard FBI that day, I would be dead.

whether you or I or anyone else trusts the FBI or not is not relevant at this point. What is relevant, is that they (Dems) were/are calling for an investigation by the same organization that did 6 background checks on the guy already, and not to long ago either, and that had already declined to investigate this........but some think NOW they will find something, because reasons I suppose.....who knows how this ends up.....it has been a circus

a reply to: Boadicea

If that's what they're hanging their hats on, I'd say it's a pretty big reach. The problem is that when Ford needs to be specific, she's vague. When she is specific, it doesn't match.

The only way that I can see them getting him on a perjury charge is if they found absolute irrefutable proof that he and Ford were at the same place at the same time on the same day and that it was a party. Whatever they think they have right now certainly wouldn't be enough.

a reply to: eletheia

My hand is up! My late teens, early 20's, were an absolute blast! good and bad....no regrets.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The only way that I can see them getting him on a perjury charge is if they found absolute irrefutable proof that he and Ford were at the same place at the same time on the same day and that it was a party. Whatever they think they have right now certainly wouldn't be enough.

Thank you -- again

That makes perfect sense and answers many questions for me!

originally posted by: watchitburn
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.

Ditto. In my case it was a high school acquaintance that was busted later in life as a big time drug seller. I knew him when he was 15-18 only because we were in the same shop class together. His "network" contacted me asking why, blah, blah, blah....

That was only the first background check for me. And, I am currently going through number 3, so far, nothing going back to grade school AFAIK. Although, someone today where my wife works got a call from the feds about her. She asked me about that when she got home. I had to explain it since this is her first go-round with this stuff.

So, yeah, after 6 of them, I don't see where anything new will be uncovered. Unless one of the "witnesses" recants their denial during questioning. At which point they would be openly charged with a felony for making a false statement to congress.

Quite unlikely I am sure.

a reply to: TrueBrit

actually you came out sounding the moron if you dont like his opinion dont sweat it

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

.it has been a circus

Circus is right how I see it also and not just this specific act. What surprises me the most is just how many can not yet see it for the ineptitude of leadership from both sides of that imaginary isle. All those quote unquote leaders pandering to their bases and few if any of them really capable of spanning that gulf of political differences to find compromises that can work for us all.

There seems to be this notion from both sides that what we need is perfection of our ideals, the fantasy of ''our'' way is the only way. I see it from hard liners from either end.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Tomayto, tomahto

originally posted by: TrueBrit
there is a difference between assuming innocence unless guilt is proven, and being in denial about the possibility of guilt at all.

You left out something pretty important. Being in denial about the possibility of innocence at all.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Saiker
Those who seek high office, seek power, and those who seek power MUST be as damned close to perfect as they can be, morally, ethically, and unassailable from any standpoint involving their conduct, at any time of their life, whether that be college or otherwise.

No one would be in office if this were the way of things. Find me 100 people who are above reproach, and cannot be coerced, blackmailed or otherwise forced into something. Don't forget...those in power have families as well.

This is the insidious downside of perfection. Perfection is unattainable and unsustainable. What's perfect today is unacceptable tomorrow, therefore, by definition, it could not have been perfect.

Also, twist context the right way and anyone can be viewed as the worst possible human. Lawyers are paid to be experts at twisting context.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Saiker

Excuse me.

You seem to be ignoring something pretty important. First of all, there is a difference between assuming innocence unless guilt is proven, and being in denial about the possibility of guilt at all. Second, you have to consider the difference between Joe Public, and those who seek high office. Those who seek high office, seek power, and those who seek power MUST be as damned close to perfect as they can be, morally, ethically, and unassailable from any standpoint involving their conduct, at any time of their life, whether that be college or otherwise. Because these people are not seeking to be Joe Public, they are seeking control over the fate of large numbers of other human beings, and you cannot give positions like that to people who have a bad bone in their body, or even a single bone, leave alone any kind of a skeleton in their closet.

You think it is bad that Kavanaugh is having this investigation done on him? [SNIP] its a damned sight better than him being confirmed and then it turning out later that actually, yes, he has been a serial pervert and got away with it Scott free for years, AND STILL BE SAT ON THE SUPREME COURT!

Honestly, what kind of dullard wants to take that kind of risk? It beggars belief!

Its bad when you consider the timing, Feinstein sitting on the letter, throwing the woman under the bus for political gain..

What beggars belief (!!!!11!1!), is that anyone is still ok with this after that display.