T
Theo520
Guest
The others don’t make political statements to the press.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens suggests Kavanaugh should not sit on Supreme Court
- Status
Ask any FBI agent that does them. He had seven. He also had a committee investigation.JonNC:
What are the criteria of “exhaustive”?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Depends on what you mean by political, but they sure do talk and are hardly low profile.
D
dvdjs
Guest
We learned in this process that the FBI background checks are limited not exhaustive.
The last one was limited to the accusations, as agreed upon by all members of the committee. None of the others were limited in scope. No corroborating evidence was discovered. There has never been any corroborating evidence. No one has come forward to corroborate the accusations.JonNC:
We learned in this process that the FBI background checks are limited not exhaustive.
It has been front and center for over a month. If someone could corroborate they would have. No one has to wait for the FBI to knock on their door. No one has come forward. There is no corroborating evidence.
We were told that the FBI. was the pros at this, that the committee couldn’t do it. Now, unless you believe that the House can force or coerce corroborating testimony out of people who haven’t yet come forward, it will be viewed rightly as a political vendetta.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
Some of the accusations.
And some of the witnesses.
No. The committee looked into other accusations. The Swetnick One was so outlandish that it wasn’t considered in any way credible by anyone with common sense.JonNC:
Some of the accusations.
And some of the witnesses.
Again, the place where a thorough investigation: Maryland.
D
dvdjs
Guest
If your goal is to raise the standard in every situation to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and thereby reduce the likelihood of victims coming forward that is a good idea., If not, it may need more reflection.
Of course the intention is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These are accusations of a crime! Why would one be opposed to proving them beyond a reasonable doubt? Unless, of course, one really wants to avoid a resolution to the accusations.JonNC:
If your goal is to raise the standard in every situation to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and thereby reduce the likelihood of victims coming forward that is a good idea., If not, it may need more reflection.
If victims or witnesses won’t come forward, how can they be resolved?
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
I disagree that we should put use a criminal standard of proof in considering a SCOTUS nominee.
We don’t even use that standard in civil suits.
These are not civil accusations. They are accusations of felony crimes! And the statute of limitations does not expire. If he committed a crime, it should be prosecuted.JonNC:
I disagree that we should put use a criminal standard of proof in considering a SCOTUS nominee.
We don’t even use that standard in civil suits.
By the same token, everyone has a right to presumption of innocence, regardless of setting, including “job interviews” like appointed or elected positions.
D
dvdjs
Guest
They were background reports on a a nominee for SCOTUS.
And they showed no evidence of any wrongdoing, no corroborating evidence of wrongdoing, no evidence that the events even took place.JonNC:
They were background reports on a a nominee for SCOTUS.
And that is why there has been no criminal complaint made.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Not true.
Ahhh, back to the criminal standard that does not apply, apart from silencing victims.
None. Absolutely no corroborating evidence. Zero.
Either he committed sexual assault of some type or he didn’t.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I think that the evidence pointed clearly to a culture in which the incident described was far less implausible than the categorical denials.
Either OJ committed murder of he didn’t
Last edited:
Far less implausible?
Oh, come on.
There was at least circumstantial evidence. OJ knew his wife and Ron Goldman. There was a day, a place, a time, and evidence of a crime
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
With OJ they had a case. They had motive, means, and physical evidence. They even had a witness who saw him flee the scene.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
Certainly.
Stick with the thread. OJ was alleged to have committed serious crimes. At the levle of proof required in aa criial court he was found not guilty At the level of proof required in the civil court the verdict went against him fin for offenses linked to the felony crime. IOW, your argument about the standards guilt in criminal courts are a sine qua non not hold water.
T
Theo520
Guest
The current generation of elite law students will one day become judges themselves. If they remain committed to the circular logic of #BelieveSurvivors, the rule of law is in trouble.
- Status