American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations

[Frankeneinstein]

The ABA is a professional organization, membership is voluntary, they don’t disbar anybody because they don’t control bar admission. Kavanaugh could only be disbarred by the state and/or federal bars to which he has admission.

You are correct, I was making the point that the reason they are taking this route is to have Kavanaugh disbarred, in fact my son is a law student at GW [sorry I love to brag about that] and I was discussing this with him today and he explained to me how it works [he met with Ruth Bader Ginsburg for 2 hours, something else I love to brag about]...but thank you for the heads up

 

[Windparadox]

Is that how you want to do this? fine, but be warned, you will need to do the pee-pee dance with the language to keep trying to prove what these words really mean do not really mean that, in which case I will let you go play soemwhere else:

`
In other words, you don't have an intelligent or rational answer.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

In other words, you don't have an intelligent or rational answer.

I answered the question and gave you proof, so your only response can be a subjective one where you decided what is rational and intelligent, in other words....a cop out...would you like the OP to prove the same thing you asked me to prove...or do you find that irrational and unintelligent?

 

[BoSoxGal]

The ABA is a professional organization, membership is voluntary, they don’t disbar anybody because they don’t control bar admission. Kavanaugh could only be disbarred by the state and/or federal bars to which he has admission.

You are correct, I was making the point that the reason they are taking this route is to have Kavanaugh disbarred, in fact my son is a law student at GW [sorry I love to brag about that] and I was discussing this with him today and he explained to me how it works [he met with Ruth Bader Ginsburg for 2 hours, something else I love to brag about]...but thank you for the heads up

Congrats to your son; I am a GULC alum.

But with respect, you are incorrect. The ABA does not have a role in initiating disbarment proceedings against any lawyer. And I assure you that after giving Kavanaugh the highest possible rating upon his nomination, they are not now suggesting he is unfit to practice law.

They merely want to preserve confidence in the judiciary by slowing the rush to confirmation and seeing a full investigation that would assuage the concerns of the majority of Americans regarding this process.

 

[OKTexas]

Then just shut up about it already, if it won't change a thing. Every commiecrat on the judiciary committee said they would never vote for Kavanaugh and that was the day he was nominated, nothing has changed. The completed FBI report has already been submitted to the WH.

`
I'm sorry you don't like my opinion (not really). Since you cannot see into the future anymore than I can, you have no idea what will happen when/if the FBI conducts such an investigation. As you have no proof it will not change anything, I rest my case.

Well little girl, the FBI has completed it's background check on Kavanaugh including the Ford information. What comes next is the committee vote tomorrow. A floor vote to begin debate on Sunday and a floor vote to confirm mid week. He'll be seated by Thursday or Friday, with a bipartisan vote of 56-44. I'd bet $10. on it.

.

 

[Jerico]

You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.

Says the party who held onto these allegations for two months until it became politically opportunistic to reveal them. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourselves

That ^^^ has zero to do with the issue at hand.

Kavanaugh has been accused of a crime, a crime against a child; the day before or 36 years in the past, matters not. It must be investigated by Law Enforcement.

What kind of mental gymnastics is this? Kavanaugh, too, was a child. He was one year her senior.

By Constitutional right, a person is innocent until found guilty. Kavanaugh has done nothing wrong until PROVEN otherwise. Accusations matter not at all without evidence of a crime.

Furthermore, the FBI already ruled that there isn't even a case to open or close because no crime was described.

If a crime were described, the statute of limitations forbids investigation.

If the statue of limitations weren't expired, the FBI STILL, would not have jurisdiction.

even if all of the above were NOT true, and everything was just as you say, the investigation can continue after he is voted in. Considering that such an investigation would be incredibly damaging to republicans should it be true, democrats should be happy to have him confirmed. They aren't though. The Democrats don't think he's guilty. The argument is faulty.


The Democrats had weeks to file to the FBI. They didn't.

She could have filed with her local law enforcement. She didn't.

The Democrats refused to take part in the investigation. They asked no questions during the depositions.


That bitch was flanked by 2 lawyers at all times. Her statement was given to her. A lawyer was paid or given something under the table by shiela Jackson.

She can't remember any details other than Kavanaugh and Judge. Knows she had one beer but can't even remember where she was or how she got there.

She literally got caught lying about no fewer than a dozen story line details, the most egregious of which is that she can't fly to make the hearing date because she's afraid to fly, but has no problems flying 3000 miles to meet strangers for a polygraph test BEFORE claiming she doesn't fly.

No reasonable human being can look at this situation, apply the laws of our land, and come out assuming Kavanaugh is guilty of anything. To even suggest anything else is indicative of pure malice or complete idiocy. Take your pick.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Well, I'm an attorney, and I think Kavanaugh will still be confirmed. But liberals won't listen to me since I'm a legal immigrant, Asian, and I have a mind of my own. Also, the ABA has no authority or power to hold up the confirmation. Sorry.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Congrats to your son; I am a GULC alum.

Thank you, we are yankee fans as well, you guys have some team up there, I hope we get to play you guys but I think you win it all this year

 

[Windparadox]

I answered the question and gave you proof, so your only response can be a subjective one where you decided what is rational and intelligent, in other words....a cop out...would you like the OP to prove the same thing you asked me to prove...or do you find that irrational and unintelligent?

`
You gave no answer, no proof. Your OPINIONS are not facts; just a reminder.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You gave no answer, no proof. Your OPINIONS are not facts; just a reminder.

I think you just accidentally posted your E-mail to Dr. Ford

 

[Windparadox]

Well little girl, the FBI has completed it's background check on Kavanaugh including the Ford information. What comes next is the committee vote tomorrow. A floor vote to begin debate on Sunday and a floor vote to confirm mid week. He'll be seated by Thursday or Friday, with a bipartisan vote of 56-44. I'd bet $10. on it.

`
You are welcome to your opinions. There is no law preventing the FBI from doing another background check based on the claims of these three women but as I said before, trump will not allow it. What happens after that, remains to be seen.

 

[Jerico]

Well little girl, the FBI has completed it's background check on Kavanaugh including the Ford information. What comes next is the committee vote tomorrow. A floor vote to begin debate on Sunday and a floor vote to confirm mid week. He'll be seated by Thursday or Friday, with a bipartisan vote of 56-44. I'd bet $10. on it.

`
You are welcome to your opinions. There is no law preventing the FBI from doing another background check based on the claims of these three women but as I said before, trump will not allow it. What happens after that, remains to be seen.

So a 7th background check then. Yeah that will clear up a lot.

What evidence was presented that warrants a criminal investigation? Is there a single substantiated piece of evidence? A witness that doesn't outright refute her claims perhaps would be a start.

What exactly about this whole thing, in your mind, justifies an investigation? The FBI itself said there was nothing to investigate. Allegations don't warrant investigations. Evidence of a crime does. You seem confident of a crime having been committed. Please share your evidence with us so we can agree with you and prevent a predator from going on the supreme court.

Hopefully you read the post I just posted so I don't have to repeat myself, but in it I didn't state opinions. I stated facts. Perhaps you could address those.

 

[Windparadox]

So a 7th background check then. Yeah that will clear up a lot.
What evidence was presented that warrants a criminal investigation? Is there a single substantiated piece of evidence? A witness that doesn't outright refute her claims perhaps would be a start.What exactly about this whole thing, in your mind, justifies an investigation? The FBI itself said there was nothing to investigate. Allegations don't warrant investigations. Evidence of a crime does. You seem confident of a crime having been committed. Please share your evidence with us so we can agree with you and prevent a predator from going on the supreme court.Hopefully you read the post I just posted so I don't have to repeat myself, but in it I didn't state opinions. I stated facts. Perhaps you could address those.

`
`
Boy oh boy, are you confused. First off, I'm dealing with the topic which is the ABA asking for the FBI to investigate the assault allegations, which I agree with. I can't answer your questions because I'm not the topic here, the article here is. Please stay on topic, it's not hard. You might want to actually read the article while you are at it.

Secondly, your opinion that allegations don't warrant an FBI investigation is your opinion, not a fact. Perhaps you need some enlightenment, such as a) Sen. Joe Donnelly: FBI should investigate allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, b) Kavanaugh allegations multiply, as do calls for FBI investigation, c) Brett Kavanaugh pressured to ask White House for FBI investigation of assault allegations Of course the FBI investigates allegations. Whomever told you otherwise was lying to you.

Thirdly, where on earth did you get the idea that I claimed a crime was committed? Could you point that out please.

Fourth, it seems you cannot tell the difference between facts and opinions. Please allow me to add this handy little chart that describes the difference between the two:
`

`​

Fifth, goodness, where did I mention anything about a sexual predator? I looked through my posts here and could not find one. Can you find it? I sure can't.

You might want to slow down a bit and compose yourself before going any further. Simply put, I agree with the American Bar Association that this process should be delayed until the FBI investigates the allegations (claims, accusations, whatever). You obvious don't agree, which is your right.

I hope this clears up some of your confusion.
`

 

[Jerico]

So a 7th background check then. Yeah that will clear up a lot.
What evidence was presented that warrants a criminal investigation? Is there a single substantiated piece of evidence? A witness that doesn't outright refute her claims perhaps would be a start.What exactly about this whole thing, in your mind, justifies an investigation? The FBI itself said there was nothing to investigate. Allegations don't warrant investigations. Evidence of a crime does. You seem confident of a crime having been committed. Please share your evidence with us so we can agree with you and prevent a predator from going on the supreme court.Hopefully you read the post I just posted so I don't have to repeat myself, but in it I didn't state opinions. I stated facts. Perhaps you could address those.

`
`
Boy oh boy, are you confused. First off, I'm dealing with the topic which is the ABA asking for the FBI to investigate the assault allegations, which I agree with. I can't answer your questions because I'm not the topic here, the article here is. Please stay on topic, it's not hard. You might want to actually read the article while you are at it.

Ok. So can I request an FBI investigation, into say, you without anything more than an allegation? You're basically proposing that one woman's uncorroborated testimony should stall a man's career indefinitely, forcing him to lose out on the opportunity of a life time. If you are ok with that happening to him, you're ok with it happening to you. Would it be fair for your professional and personal life be put on hold, legal fees forced upon you as a defense, and shamed in the public square without anything other than someone's words?

Think about what you are saying. You're ok with this man losing his bid to join the supreme court because of he said she said. Good luck convincing anybody of the judicial integrity of such a position.

Secondly, your opinion that allegations don't warrant an FBI investigation is your opinion

Not true. according to brennancenter (sorry, I'm too new to post links), the FBI must have evidence to open up a full investigation. A preliminary investigation was already undertaken and no warrant for further FBI involvement deemed necessary. They need evidence that a crime happened to investigate the crime. It's pretty simple. That's why missing people stay missing until there is proof of their death or tangible reason for assuming it. You can't legally charge someone with murder without evidence or admission of a murder.

Also, ( I had to remove your links) your links don't prove anything. They're just democrat senators calling for a fictitious investigation. Kind of like the Russian Collusion investigation. You should watch the senate hearing today. The republicans make it very clear and very convincing about just how full of shit the democrats are on this.

Thirdly, where on earth did you get the idea that I claimed a crime was committed? Could you point that out please.

You're implying some semblance of guilt on the man by even corroborating what is happening here. Kavanaugh has done nothing, I repeat nothing, to warrant this scrutiny. We have far more evidence that Ford is a liar and /or wrong than we do Kavanaugh so much as has ever met her. Even so, you think he should lose his once in a lifetime opportunity for heresay only.

You know full well that this is the only chance he will get. Don't be coy. If he isn't voted on tomorrow, he will never again be considered no matter what comes of an investigation 1+ years from now. Even if the investigation yielded nothing, and the republicans maintained the senate and house, he would be glossed over due to political baggage.

You are advocating for law by accusation. Very dangerous. Completely Un American.

If you wanted to be consistent, you could, for example support what Kavanaugh says with equal fervor as that of Ford. What makes her words so damning and his so unconvincing?

Fourth, it seems you cannot tell the difference between facts and opinions. Please allow me to add this handy little chart that describes the difference between the two:

Oh common. Put more effort into this. You haven't countered any of my facts. You just dismiss them.


`

`


​

Fifth, goodness, where did I mention anything about a sexual predator? I looked through my posts here and could not find one. Can you find it? I sure can't.

The thought crossed your mind I'm sure. Why else would you doubt Kavanaugh enough to tank his career over words one refuted woman says?

An analogy.
"Maybe she isn't a witch. Shall we burn her first then call her what she is? I'm not saying she's a witch. I'm just saying that witches burn in fire is all. Maybe we could test this?"

I mean how is what you say any different? Let's just put Kavanaugh over the fire and see if he burns. If he isn't guilty, he has nothing to worry about! teehee!

Honestly, you just want to forever delay him for no reason. Sorry, but you want him to go through all the motions of a sexual predator, except prison, without any evidence that he is a sexual predator and plenty stipulating that he is not.

What frightens me about your rhetoric is how casually you can dance on the thin line between the literal and the implied. I mean, what about Ford making false accusations? Can we drag her through an investigation requiring legal council and a sacrifice of her privacy for the next year too? Would that be ok with you if we apply your logic both ways? Let's put both of them under investigation. Fair?

I also want the Senate democrats investigated for possible sedition and obstruction. I don't have much proof, but I do allege it and I got more evidence of that than you do of Kavanaugh(see my first post), so this shouldn't be an unfair request to you.

You might want to slow down a bit and compose yourself before going any further. Simply put, I agree with the American Bar Association that this process should be delayed until the FBI investigates the allegations (claims, accusations, whatever). You obvious don't agree, which is your right.

I hope this clears up some of your confusion.
`

I'll just go ahead and admit that I came here with my sleeves rolled up, but I can't help thinking you're just being facetious here. We can sum this whole thing up as me considering him innocent until evidence is given to the contrary. You, on the other hand, are ok with having him dragged through legal hell, having his reputation ruined, his chance of a life time stolen from him,all because some woman made a claim despite more women refuting it and even more still giving counter statements.

You also didn't really address any of my points.

I will tone down my tone a bit. You are right about that. I was a bit combative, but I don't see how you can claim that you aren't implying that Kavanaugh is unsuited for the supreme court because of unsubstantiated allegations.

Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

First, where are your grounds or evidence that the ABA is involved with any attempt to delay the vote?

Simply put, I agree with the American Bar Association that this process should be delayed

Lemme guess, you see no contradiction?

 

[Windparadox]

Lemme guess, you see no contradiction?

`
Touche!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

We're good, thank you

 

[Windparadox]

<snip/unsnip>Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?

`
All those words and all you did was double down on your own confusion. I tried at least.

 

[Vastator]

Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh

`
What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????

The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes. They have no jurisdiction. After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?

But the FBI conducts background searches. They just have to chase down a few more leads. Where's Mark Judge?

Mark Judge has already sworn an affidavit. Did you miss that part? He says that Ford is lying.

What part aren't you people getting? There is not a single intelligent person on this earth that backs Ford's version of events because it has more holes that a one ton block of Swiss cheese! Her own friend whom she claimed was in the room basically said, "I have no idea what the fuck she is talking about!"

Her friend said that due to her health problems her lawyer wrote that statement without her approval. The Arizona,prosecutor reveled that bon mot! Judge has never testified under oath nor has he been interviewed by an FBI investigator.

Dr. Ford is credible. Kavanaugh threw a fit in the afternoon. Partisan, bitter and obfuscurial. He has neither the temperamentnor the credibility to have a seat on the bench. Are there no other jurists Conservative enough to serve as associate justice? Why this particular guy?

What makes her “credible”?

 

[Jerico]

<snip/unsnip>Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?

`
All those words and all you did was double down on your own confusion. I tried at least.

Oh I see. Deflection. yeah that's decent of you.

You're right. There's no point in questioning the bar assocation on this. Surely it's perfectly reasonable, legally, to expect Kavanaugh to defend his name, monetarily through legal fees, publicly against salacious articles, and privately through legal council, against the carte blanche FBI onslaught that comes with an investigation's access to his personal information all because one woman said something bad about his character.

What do you do? Completely ignore everything I stated, and automatically assume a position of authority and superiority.

Your refusal to debate your own statements doesn't help your case.

In doing so you pretty much validate my intuition, which is that you're just pretending to be a devil's advocate by claiming some semblance of impartiality despite having nothing of the sort. Your only defense seems to rest on the notion, not fact, that the ABA is definitely impartial here which is certainly not established.

What is clear is that nobody, man or woman, deserves to have happen to them what happened to Kavanaugh without evidence and without proper channels of investigation being undertaken, privately, once evidence is presented. The ABA and their idea be damned. The constitution doesn't support their desire.