***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

Frylock is back to defend bigots and rapist, while telling everyone how seriously he takes the issue. Oh, and course, to say a ton of nonsense no lawyer would say.

Ignore the buffoonery

Actually, I am back defending constitutional due process. I would assume that you understand how important that is for people that look like us.

 

[blastercombo]

How could be a pedo when him and the girls were both just kids?

“The girls never fought back. They also waited so long? Who does that?”

 

[RustyShackleford]

Damn can't blame Flake here...They look like they were threatening to revoke his white privilege right on the spot

They finna call Mother Dearest and have his BBQ invite revoked. Flake gonna be out in the cold with Uncle Zackery and the neighborhood black family they will inevitably , and routinely, call the police on.

No raisin filled potato salad for Jeffry

 

[RustyShackleford]

Actually, I am back defending constitutional due process. I would assume that you understand how important that is for people that look like us.

**** off for pulling the race card to defend a bunch of white supremacists.

You didn't give a damn when Garland was denied hearings.

Troll

 

[IATT]

Frylock is back to defend bigots and rapist, while telling everyone how seriously he takes the issue. Oh, and course, to say a ton of nonsense no lawyer would say.

Ignore the buffoonery

Maybe he's the lawyere....

 

[RIP sleazyy]

Flake looks like he's trying to remember a time before he became a corrupt politician.

Mental safe space

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

Can someone more knowledgeable than me answer this for me? Exactly what would the FBI investigate in this situation that we haven't already heard. It doesn't seem like they could come to a definitive "yes" or "no" on if this occurred.

Also, would the investigation include the other sexual assault accusations as well or would it just be about Ford's?

 

[lightweight champion]

I think your analogy regarding search warrants is a bit flawed because Senate confirmations are bound by different rules and expectations.

It’s generally far from illegal to be (overtly) racist or write racist things on the internet but the Senate generally sees that as disqualifying. Jeff Sessions failed to get a federal judge position during the Reagan administration over allegations of racism, including testimony from his former deputy who was a black man.
Senators didn’t pass his nomination due to those allegations, which are obviously not illegal.

Sexual assault and rape cases are particularly tricky because a very significant number of them go unreported entirely or surface many years later.
In some cases beyond the statute of limitations. The catholic church is a great example.

Dr. Ford’s case is passed the statute of limitations if I recall correctly but I have to verify.
Applying the same legal standard as a criminal trial to any Senate confirmation would do more harm than good in my view. If there is a statute of limitation, that person would be untouchable even if he did it. If it’s a he said/she said case, that person would also be untouchable even if he did it.

That’s why credibility is most important in my view, not so much fulfilling the burden of proof standard of a criminal court trial.

I think the point of an FBI investigation would be not to draw conclusions but to get other witnesses under penalty of perjury and corroborate or refute testimony. Then the Senate can make a more informed decision on credibility.

Under penalty of felony for lying to Congress is near useless when the number of convictions for lying to Congress is almost non-existant.
Even the arguably most significant case, a Reagan administration official associated with Iran/Contra, had his convictions overturned.

In the case of Mark Judge for example, the questioning was conducted by Grassley’s chief counsel Mike Davis, who previously tweeted (and deleted) "Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh. #ConfirmKavanaugh," before hearing Dr. Ford's testimony. That’s not a good look.
If Mark Judge would say the same under penalty of perjury to an impartial FBI interview it would provide significantly more credibility.

There are no statute of limitations for rape in Maryland

https://www.revelist.com/feminism/statute-of-limitations-rape/4429

 

[dwalk31]

I think your analogy regarding search warrants is a bit flawed because Senate confirmations are bound by different rules and expectations.

It’s generally far from illegal to be (overtly) racist or write racist things on the internet but the Senate generally sees that as disqualifying. Jeff Sessions failed to get a federal judge position during the Reagan administration over allegations of racism, including testimony from his former deputy who was a black man.
Senators didn’t pass his nomination due to those allegations, which are obviously not illegal.

Sexual assault and rape cases are particularly tricky because a very significant number of them go unreported entirely or surface many years later.
In some cases beyond the statute of limitations. The catholic church is a great example.

Dr. Ford’s case is passed the statute of limitations if I recall correctly but I have to verify.
Applying the same legal standard as a criminal trial to any Senate confirmation would do more harm than good in my view. If there is a statute of limitation, that person would be untouchable even if he did it. If it’s a he said/she said case, that person would also be untouchable even if he did it.

That’s why credibility is most important in my view, not so much fulfilling the burden of proof standard of a criminal court trial.

I think the point of an FBI investigation would be not to draw conclusions but to get other witnesses under penalty of perjury and corroborate or refute testimony. Then the Senate can make a more informed decision on credibility.

Under penalty of felony for lying to Congress is near useless when the number of convictions for lying to Congress is almost non-existant.
Even the arguably most significant case, a Reagan administration official associated with Iran/Contra, had his convictions overturned.

In the case of Mark Judge for example, the questioning was conducted by Grassley’s chief counsel Mike Davis, who previously tweeted (and deleted) "Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh. #ConfirmKavanaugh," before hearing Dr. Ford's testimony. That’s not a good look.
If Mark Judge would say the same under penalty of perjury to an impartial FBI interview it would provide significantly more credibility.

Again, this is an example of misinformation.

1. Sessions never denied making the racist remarks. Here, Kav vehemently denies these accusations.
2. This case is arguably not beyond the statute of limitations if it is charged as felonious attempted rape. So it could be pursued criminally.
3. The statements given by Mark Judge and Dr. Ford's friend were given under penalty of felony already

But in terms of Senators pre-determining guilt, many of the Senators on the Democratic side said they "Believe her" prior to an FBI investigation. And some have said, they still won't vote for him even after.

The truth is that sexual assault is a very serious accusation. There is potential damage for both the accuser and the accused. The better practice would have been for this to be remain confidential. As Dr. Ford requested. It "leaked."

 

[dwalk31]

Can someone more knowledgeable than me answer this for me? Exactly what would the FBI investigate in this situation that we haven't already heard. It doesn't seem like they could come to a definitive "yes" or "no" on if this occurred.

Also, would the investigation include the other sexual assault accusations as well or would it just be about Ford's?

Apparently they said "all credible accusations." I imagine that includes more than Dr. Ford's, but not the gang rape accusations by Michael Avenatti.

 

[Wargames]

Apparently they said "all credible accusations." I imagine that includes more than Dr. Ford's, but not the gang rape accusations by Michael Avenatti.

No so far it looks like it's all three accusations.

 

[chao7]

Apparently they said "all credible accusations." I imagine that includes more than Dr. Ford's, but not the gang rape accusations by Michael Avenatti.

Nice attempt to associate Avenatti with these accusations, as many on Fox have tried to do. Try looking up the woman. I dare you to question her credibility.

 

[dwalk31]

No so far it looks like it's all three accusations.

Edit:
Oh ok, my bad.

 

[lightweight champion]

Exactly, they don't make conclusions... that was my point. I think you misunderstand how the process works. The FBI will take statements. No prosecutor would ever think of prosecuting this. Statements have already been taken. In a week, we will probably be in the same spot as it relates to these facts. It is a he said/she said. The alleged eyewitness said that he hasn't even seen Kav do the behavior described. And all of the other witnesses said they don't remember anything like this happening. This is from 35 years ago. Unless their memory magically changes in a week we are in the same spot. The fact that millions of women are sexually assaulted, does not make this accusation true as it relates to Kav. Nor does the fact the he drank or blacked out drinking. And the fact that he had a goofy calendar and tons of women who support him doesn't mean that he did not do it. But we simply don't know. And the burden is on the accuser.

If you think we’re going to be in the same spot next week then why was Rachel Mitchell removed from questioning?

 

[dwalk31]

If you think we’re going to be in the same spot next week then why was Rachel Mitchell removed from questioning?

She did all the questioning of the accuser. Which I imagine was the purpose. To help the optics. Also, I did not think she was that effective, but I also don't know what her goal was aside from optics. It is essentially a lose/lose. You must respect the accuser and the accused in these situations. Not much more to be done.

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

Apparently they said "all credible accusations." I imagine that includes more than Dr. Ford's, but not the gang rape accusations by Michael Avenatti.

I said MORE knowledgeable than me. Not sure why you replied

 

[lightweight champion]

If her only job was to probe the accuser then why was she allowed to begin a probe of Kavanaugh?

 

[dwalk31]

Nice attempt to associate Avenatti with these accusations, as many on Fox have tried to do. Try looking up the woman. I dare you to question her credibility.

Attempt to associate? He is, in fact, Julie Swetnick's attorney. That is certainly association. But I am not implying anything negative about Avenatti. I am simply saying that her allegations, that he watched multiple gang rape parties, are not corroborated by anyone--to this point.

 

[dwalk31]

I said MORE knowledgeable than me. Not sure why you replied

You got me!

 

[dwalk31]

If her only job was to probe the accuser then why was she allowed to begin a probe of Kavanaugh?

I don't think that was her only job. But I, admittedly, don't know what her job was outside of optics of questioning Dr. Ford. It is a political process. The partisan senators are better at advancing partisan arguments than she is.

 

[lightweight champion]

I don't think that was her only job. But I, admittedly, don't know what her job was outside of optics of questioning Dr. Ford. It is a political process. The partisan senators are better at advancing partisan arguments than she is.

So you admit then that republicans care not about justice and how unfit Kavanaugh is to be SCOTUS?

 

[dwalk31]

**** off for pulling the race card to defend a bunch of white supremacists.

You didn't give a damn when Garland was denied hearings.

Troll

Due process matters, period. And you should be the first defender of it. I have discussed the issue with mass incarceration and other issues as it relates to our justice system. You can't pick and choose when due process matters.

And what are you talking about as it relates to Garland? Did I miss something? I wasn't even active in this thread during that time.

At least you admit that this is sour grapes. And that most of this delay is a result of Dems being apoplectic at how McConnell treated Garland.

 

[dwalk31]

So you admit then that republicans care not about justice and how unfit Kavanaugh is to be SCOTUS?

I think that Dems and Repubs care about the balance of the Court being in their favor. I think that the goal, for Dems at least, is to delay this until after the elections. So they can block Kav and get a moderate or liberal on the bench. I think the goal for Repubs is to push it forward as quickly as possible to avoid the result of the elections.

"Justice" whatever that means to you, won't be obtained by this Senate process. No charges have been filed. Kav is currently sitting on the second highest court in America. This process is quite obviously political. On both sides. At least Rusty is willing to concede that part.

 

[Belgium]

Again, this is an example of misinformation.

1. Sessions never denied making the racist remarks. Here, Kav vehemently denies these accusations.
2. This case is arguably not beyond the statute of limitations if it is charged as felonious attempted rape. So it could be pursued criminally.
3. The statements given by Mark Judge and Dr. Ford's friend were given under penalty of felony already

But in terms of Senators pre-determining guilt, many of the Senators on the Democratic side said they "Believe her" prior to an FBI investigation. And some have said, they still won't vote for him even after.

The truth is that sexual assault is a very serious accusation. There is potential damage for both the accuser and the accused. The better practice would have been for this to be remain confidential. As Dr. Ford requested. It "leaked."

2.
Technically there are 2 options where the statute of limitations doesn't apply any longer. It would be either felony attempted rape or attempted 2nd degree sexual offense.
The removal of the statute of limitations in Maryland on those specific charges however do not retroactively apply to Kavanaugh.
In 1982 however, criminal attempted rape and non-consensual touching over clothing had a 1 year statute of limitations in Maryland. The statute of limitations on those specific charges in Maryland were later altered but they can't retroactively apply to Kavanaugh based on Dr. Ford's timeline. She did not report her case to local authorities by that time.

There's also other factors Kavanaugh's age (17) at the time, as well as zero physical evidence. The exact 'crime scene' is also uncertain. Dr. Ford does not recall the exact address.


3. *Under penalty of felony for lying to Congress, a crime that by 2007 had resulted in a grand total of 6 convictions, the most noteable one resulting in an overturned conviction.
Let me put it this way, if a close Clinton ally in the Senate questioned Hillary as a witness about something under the penalty of felony for lying to Congress, do you think that would be taken seriously? That would be a bad look, especially since lying to Congress is virtually never enforced even though it is a felony with a potential 5 year sentence.
Whereas an impartial FBI investigator personally questioning her under the penalty of perjury carries much more credibility.

 

[dwalk31]

2.
Technically there are 2 options where the statute of limitations doesn't apply any longer. It would be either felony attempted rape or attempted 2nd degree sexual offense.
The removal of the statute of limitations in Maryland on those specific charges however do not retroactively apply to Kavanaugh.
In 1982 however, criminal attempted rape and non-consensual touching over clothing had a 1 year statute of limitations in Maryland. The statute of limitations in Maryland were later altered but they can't retroactively apply to Kavanaugh based on Dr. Ford's timeline. She did not report her case to local authorities by that time.

Your argument is valid. But I don't think that issue has actually been determined. It is an open legal question.