How far back are we going to go to disqualify people from public office for sexual harrassment?

View attachment 217192

17 is absurd in my opinion. How bout 4?
Conservatives are always pushing to try adolescents as adults. If a 13 year old can be tried as an adult, why shouldn't a 17 year old be held accountable for his actions?

What crime?
Some states have automatic transfer laws that allow juvenile defendants to be tried as adults in serious cases such as rape and murder. If a 16 year old can be tried for rape as an adult, shouldn't a 17 year old be held accountable for attempted rape?
 
View attachment 217192

17 is absurd in my opinion. How bout 4?
Conservatives are always pushing to try adolescents as adults. If a 13 year old can be tried as an adult, why shouldn't a 17 year old be held accountable for his actions?

What crime?
Some states have automatic transfer laws that allow juvenile defendants to be tried as adults in serious cases such as rape and murder. If a 16 year old can be tried for rape as an adult, shouldn't a 17 year old be held accountable for attempted rape?

Yeah, if it happened and then, when he's 17... not 36 years later. This is going nowhere as there is and will be no evidence he did anything.
 
View attachment 217192

17 is absurd in my opinion. How bout 4?
Conservatives are always pushing to try adolescents as adults. If a 13 year old can be tried as an adult, why shouldn't a 17 year old be held accountable for his actions?

What crime?
Some states have automatic transfer laws that allow juvenile defendants to be tried as adults in serious cases such as rape and murder. If a 16 year old can be tried for rape as an adult, shouldn't a 17 year old be held accountable for attempted rape?

Yeah, if it happened and then, when he's 17... not 36 years later. This is going nowhere as there is and will be no evidence he did anything.
Yeah, I have to agree. If he was going to be held accountable, it should have been then, not decades later. Now it's just a he said she said thing. Kind of troubling though to potentially have someone on the Supreme court that might have committed such a thing.
 
sexual harassment is not the same as attempted sexual assault


It sure isn't! But can you PROVE ANYTHING? If you can't, you are taking on persons word over the other, and that is DISCRIMINATION!

she has 2 people that can back her up as far as her account & a lie detector test saying she was truthful. brett only has his word. you would think a buddy would help him out....
Lie detectors?

Really?

You believe that malarkey?

Lie Detectors Don’t Work as Advertised and They Never Did | Smart News | Smithsonian

uh-huh. someone with PTSD couldn't beat a lie detector & make the outcome to her benefit.
Lie detectors do not detect lies.
 
sexual harassment is not the same as attempted sexual assault


It sure isn't! But can you PROVE ANYTHING? If you can't, you are taking on persons word over the other, and that is DISCRIMINATION!

she has 2 people that can back her up as far as her account & a lie detector test saying she was truthful. brett only has his word. you would think a buddy would help him out....

she has 2 people that can back her up as far as her account & a lie detector test saying she was truthful.

If she BELIEVES it happened, even if it didn't, a lie detector test is useless.


brett only has his word.

If Brett took a lie detector test, and it proved him innocent, would you believe it?

why not bring in the witness'? why not have the FBI check it out? because there's a question of who to believe. & brett should have no problem with that but he does & so does grassley.

why?
/---/ Because it's not what the FBI does. How many times does that have to be explained to you LIbtards?
Conflict over FBI investigation puts Kavanaugh hearing in doubt
Whatever took place at a home in Montgomery County, Maryland in 1982 is long past the statute of limitations and would have been a matter for local police, not the FBI. Nor is it clear what the FBI would actually investigate, beyond the accounts of Ford and Kavanaugh, and the third person allegedly in the room, Kavanaugh’s friend, Mark Judge. It is highly doubtful that reliable evidence of even such elementary facts as where and when the party took place, if one took place at all, could be obtained after 36 years. And no one knows what went on in the room, if something did occur, except those involved, the boys then 17, the girl 15.
 
View attachment 217192

17 is absurd in my opinion. How bout 4?
Conservatives are always pushing to try adolescents as adults. If a 13 year old can be tried as an adult, why shouldn't a 17 year old be held accountable for his actions?

What crime?
Some states have automatic transfer laws that allow juvenile defendants to be tried as adults in serious cases such as rape and murder. If a 16 year old can be tried for rape as an adult, shouldn't a 17 year old be held accountable for attempted rape?
sure.

but you also have to prove that in a court of law which starts with filing the complaint locally at the time, not 37 years later via a senator days before a SCOTUS nomination vote.
 
View attachment 217192

17 is absurd in my opinion. How bout 4?
Conservatives are always pushing to try adolescents as adults. If a 13 year old can be tried as an adult, why shouldn't a 17 year old be held accountable for his actions?

What crime?
Some states have automatic transfer laws that allow juvenile defendants to be tried as adults in serious cases such as rape and murder. If a 16 year old can be tried for rape as an adult, shouldn't a 17 year old be held accountable for attempted rape?

Yeah, if it happened and then, when he's 17... not 36 years later. This is going nowhere as there is and will be no evidence he did anything.
Yeah, I have to agree. If he was going to be held accountable, it should have been then, not decades later. Now it's just a he said she said thing. Kind of troubling though to potentially have someone on the Supreme court that might have committed such a thing.
it's a lot more troubling we have a senator who will take unverified evidence to the court of public opinion in an attempt to destroy a mans life for no other reason than their politics do not align. doesn't it bother you then that we already have those people "in power" doing such things we excuse cause we don't like their politics either?
 
Same could be said for her.

Lie detector?

she talked herself into believing it happened, of course she passed the lie detector

Actually, Polygraphs are junk science, so I don't put much stock in that.

it's a lot more troubling we have a senator who will take unverified evidence to the court of public opinion in an attempt to destroy a mans life for no other reason than their politics do not align. doesn't it bother you then that we already have those people "in power" doing such things we excuse cause we don't like their politics either?

Funny, you guys had no problem with Ken Starr spending 70 million on a panty-sniffing investigation of Bill Clinton because your "politics did not align". The ultimate hypocrisy was that the guys pushing the investigation and impeachment cheated on their wives as well. Hyde and Gingrich particularly.
 
How far back to go with sexual harassment claims depends on the nature of the office at issue and what power a person in that office will be able to exercise over others.

Sexual harassment involves issues of character.
 

Forum List

Back
Top