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?
