• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schumer: FBI should reopen Kavanaugh background check - ABC

Samhain said:
All we know is that she gave the name of 2 people who were supposedly there but didn't respond to a newspapers inquiry, and 2 people who were supposedly there that have stated they weren't there and it didn't happen. That's all we know. All of that information, save Judge and Kavanaugh's denial, is from a single source.

Everything else is conjecture. These 2 additional people may not exist, they may not know what anyone is talking about, they may have been there and been the 2 people who assaulted her, they may know of parties with her but don't remember anyone else, the list literally goes on and on.
Click to expand...

Then just talk to them and find out in an official capacity. How hard is that? Just because they didn't talk to a news outlet, doesn't mean they wouldn't talk to a LE official.
 
ludin said:
Feinstein says she isn't sure the accusations are true.

Then she can testify on monday before congress. she has been invited to do so.
she is refusing to go.

so he is innocent until he is proven guilty.

Judge has already stated that the incident didn't happen as well as kavanaugh.

She can't remember how she got there, how she got home, whose house it was or the date that the party occured on.
Click to expand...

Gosh, no, they both claim they didn't try to rape someone. Imagine that.
 
roguenuke said:
And memory has been explained to be choppy for such events in other threads. I'll post the same link here.
People do not usually remembers a lot of details that others think they should or would when it comes to an event like this, an attack.
Click to expand...

That is why we have innocent until proven guilty.
She does not get to make blind accusations without being able to support them.

again Feinstein even says i don't know if they are true.
so this charade has gone on long enough.

She has a chance monday to testify on record before congress.
if she chooses not to do it then we can move forward with the vote.
 
RAMOSS said:
Gosh, no, they both claim they didn't try to rape someone. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

so why should they not be believed? innocent until proven guilty right?
it is up to their accuser to prove her story not them prove her wrong.
 
ludin said:
The only witness to the event says that it didn't happen.
the FBI has already stated that they are not going to investigate it as nothing amounts to
a federal offense. People need to listen. it would help a great deal and would
stop 500 repeat threads of the same thing.

schumer can cry all he wants to. the FBi and the DOJ have stated that this is a no go unless ordered to.
the white house is going by the stance of the FBI and DOJ.
Click to expand...

Surely you'd admit the other "witness" has a vested interest in this story being untrue. Thus he is, of course, going to refuse to admit it if it is true. That makes this whole argument a non starter, as you can't trust his word over hers or hers over his.

It was a party. Surely there are other people who were there that can say "Yeah man I saw them go upstairs" or "Hey, he wasn't even at this party."

Let's find those people.
 
chuckiechan said:
The whole purpose of this show is for democrats is to try to push the vote off until after the election
Click to expand...

Taking a page from the Republicans, huh
 
THE GOP has Trump in the White House, Thomas on the Bench and Kavanaugh about to be confirmed.

If they move forward I think they lose a lot of women votes.

It's a big Fuc% you to women if the Dems market it well.
 
roguenuke said:
And memory has been explained to be choppy for such events in other threads. I'll post the same link here.

Why Rape and Trauma Survivors Have Fragmented and Incomplete Memories | Time

People do not usually remembers a lot of details that others think they should or would when it comes to an event like this, an attack.
Click to expand...

That is precisely why many laws include a statute of limitation. The idea that many or even most folks would remember clearly what went on at HS drinking party 36 years ago simply boggles the mind. I'm sure that a few seconds of alleged extreme terror leave a lasting impression but attempting to address that issue 36 years later is simply insane. Should we seek to punish a person for a wrong allegedly committed at age 17 when they are 53? There comes a point in time when it is simply futile to try to administer justice for a long past alleged wrong.
 
roguenuke said:
I want her to testify, hope she does. But given the limitations that have been put on this due to Republicans trying to push this nomination through as fast as they can, that shows that they don't care nearly as much about hearing the truth as they do about trying to get the most conservative person they can on the Court. That means they don't care anymore than Democrats about people but rather their own political agenda. If they cared, then it wouldn't matter how long it took to get their guy confirmed or denied, and they'd let it go if Kavanaugh didn't make it through. Instead, they are all about that Court position.
Click to expand...

there are no limitations. she is free to testify in public or in private.
she can present any evidence to support her claims that she wants.

she is the one putting limitations on everything. she is refusing to testify now.
so there is really no point for the hearing.

I would still hold it and if kavanaugh shows up then he shows up and if she doesn't she doesn't.
and then say that is the end of that move to the vote.
 
roguenuke said:
I disagree that an investigation cannot turn up more information about the event, as I clearly stated with my response. There was information put out about other people who could provide more information about the event, if questioned. Just fine them and talk to them.
Click to expand...

But you didn't answer my question.
 
ludin said:
That is why we have innocent until proven guilty.
She does not get to make blind accusations without being able to support them.

again Feinstein even says i don't know if they are true.
so this charade has gone on long enough.

She has a chance monday to testify on record before congress.
if she chooses not to do it then we can move forward with the vote.
Click to expand...

That is why we have freedom of speech. Innocent until proven guilty applies to a criminal court proceeding, not accusations made public. Evidence is subjective, especially in such situations. That is what starts investigations, and, as from what we have seen happen in the past, can lead to more people coming forward (not saying that will happen here, only that it has happened in the past only after someone made such an allegation, which they are legally allowed to make). Then it is on others to choose whether they believe those accusations or not.
 
Obscurity said:
Surely you'd admit the other "witness" has a vested interest in this story being untrue. Thus he is, of course, going to refuse to admit it if it is true. That makes this whole argument a non starter, as you can't trust his word over hers or hers over his.

It was a party. Surely there are other people who were there that can say "Yeah man I saw them go upstairs" or "Hey, he wasn't even at this party."

Let's find those people.
Click to expand...

That, of course, would require at a minimum knowing the date, time and location of the HS drinking party involved. This is why it is important to report alleged crimes in a timely manner. Rather than dwell on the distant past let's try to use this as a teachable moment for those that may experience similar victimization in their HS years.
 
roguenuke said:
The investigation wouldn't be for any criminal charges, although I'm aware that that is their excuse, it would be for the reason of vetting a nominee to the SCOTUS, which is also part of their job. But nor does it have to be the FBI who investigates.
Click to expand...

They have already vetted him and they are the only enforcement agency that handles SCOTUS vetting.
it isn't their excuse. as is said i knew you would keep on ranting.
 
Obscurity said:
Surely you'd admit the other "witness" has a vested interest in this story being untrue. Thus he is, of course, going to refuse to admit it if it is true. That makes this whole argument a non starter, as you can't trust his word over hers or hers over his.

It was a party. Surely there are other people who were there that can say "Yeah man I saw them go upstairs" or "Hey, he wasn't even at this party."

Let's find those people.
Click to expand...

sorry it is up to her to prove them guilty. so far the only thing we have is he said she said.
the only other witness says that it didn't happen.

If she wants she can file a claim with the local MD cops and if they choose they can investigate it.
that is about all that she can do.

the FBI is not going to. it is not their purview.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That, of course, would require at a minimum knowing the date, time and location of the HS drinking party involved. This is why it is important to report alleged crimes in a timely manner. Rather than dwell on the distant past let's try to use this as a teachable moment for those that may experience similar victimization in their HS years.
Click to expand...

How can no one recall this party? I agree, crimes ought to be reported immediately. I can also understand why some folks would not report them immediately out of shame.
 
ludin said:
sorry it is up to her to prove them guilty. so far the only thing we have is he said she said.
the only other witness says that it didn't happen.

If she wants she can file a claim with the local MD cops and if they choose they can investigate it.
that is about all that she can do.

the FBI is not going to. it is not their purview.
Click to expand...

I'd argue it's becoming their purview because there are death threats involved and you as well as I know those threats aren't solely coming from her area of residence.

Moreover, I'd argue this is a necessary investigation for the health of the nation, especially given the Anita Hill testimony, which was absolutely horrendous.
 
roguenuke said:
I read it and it is wrong. Her story could in fact provide some evidence that either Kavanaugh is lying or she is because she provided names of two of the other 3 people in the house. Speaking to those 2 other people could determine if he, Kavanaugh and/or Judge and Ford were in fact at the party (although I would describe it more as a social gathering, people getting together to watch TV since there were only 6 teens there). It is possible those 2 people don't remember, but it is also possible that they do remember such a gathering or at least that the three main parties in this story actually were at one or more such gatherings together. Maybe they could also provide details that she couldn't/didn't.
Click to expand...

I suppose that you may remember attending every (6 person?) gathering at someone's house and who else was there when you were in HS. I surely do not and expect that my memory is nearer the average.
 
roguenuke said:
That is why we have freedom of speech. Innocent until proven guilty applies to a criminal court proceeding, not accusations made public.
Click to expand...
Stop with **** BS nonsense. innocent until proven guilty 100% everywhere. YOu are innocent until someone can prove you guilty. it doesn't have to be in court. and false allegations made
in public should be considered slander if they can't be supported. which is why we have slander laws. accusations in public are meaningless without supporting evidence.
Thank God this is the case. I am glad that hopefully only a few people have your mentality. You would have locked my son up in jail because someone accused him of something he didn't do.
that is why your comments are pure BS. you would have ruined someone in my families life if the rest of us had your mentality.

Evidence is subjective, especially in such situations. That is what starts investigations, and, as from what we have seen happen in the past, can lead to more people coming forward (not saying that will happen here, only that it has happened in the past only after someone made such an allegation, which they are legally allowed to make). Then it is on others to choose whether they believe those accusations or not.
Click to expand...

No evidence is not subjective. You either have it or you don't. So far out of the 3 people that know about the situation 2 say it didn't happen.
so there you go. there is not reason that they should not be believed.

again not that you care that they are innocent you have already shown that you don't care which is disgusting.
 
ludin said:
so why should they not be believed? innocent until proven guilty right?
it is up to their accuser to prove her story not them prove her wrong.
Click to expand...

I am just saying that people who are accused of trying to rape someone are going to say 'no, I didn't do that', no matter if they did it or not. To use that as evidence is a bit insane.
 
Obscurity said:
I'd argue it's becoming their purview because there are death threats involved and you as well as I know those threats aren't solely coming from her area of residence.

Moreover, I'd argue this is a necessary investigation for the health of the nation, especially given the Anita Hill testimony, which was absolutely horrendous.
Click to expand...

Death threats are a separate investigation unless you can link them back to kavanaugh or someone that he influence to do it.
I agree that they should be investigated and the emails or whatever turned over to the FBI. that is mutually elusive to the rest of it though.
 
ludin said:
Death threats are a separate investigation unless you can link them back to kavanaugh or someone that he influence to do it.
I agree that they should be investigated and the emails or whatever turned over to the FBI. that is mutually elusive to the rest of it though.
Click to expand...

It very well may be mutually exclusive; I'm no expert. What I do know is that this is a kettlepot and without something giving it's going to erupt.
 
Obscurity said:
How can no one recall this party? I agree, crimes ought to be reported immediately. I can also understand why some folks would not report them immediately out of shame.
Click to expand...

It seems, from another post, that there were a total of 5 other people present at this HS 'party' (party being the term for there was alcohol/drug use involved) in a private home somewhere in Montgomery County MD and probably in the summer of 1982.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am just saying that people who are accused of trying to rape someone are going to say 'no, I didn't do that', no matter if they did it or not. To use that as evidence is a bit insane.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

they don't have to prove their innocence. she has to prove they are guilty.

you want to know why?

New York woman, 20, who lied about rapes, appears to roll her eyes in court as she's jailed for a year | Fox News

this is why. 2 young men lives were ruined because of what you are defending.
Yovino subsequently admitted making up the claims so she wouldn’t lose a potential boyfriend.

I personally know what it is like to have false accusations leveled at someone.
it completely messes up your family for days until it is cleared away.

but according to you they are guilty without evidence or anything else. congrats.
 
ludin said:
No it isn't.

they don't have to prove their innocence. she has to prove they are guilty.

you want to know why?

New York woman, 20, who lied about rapes, appears to roll her eyes in court as she's jailed for a year | Fox News

this is why. 2 young men lives were ruined because of what you are defending.
Yovino subsequently admitted making up the claims so she wouldn’t lose a potential boyfriend.

I personally know what it is like to have false accusations leveled at someone.
it completely messes up your family for days until it is cleared away.

but according to you they are guilty without evidence or anything else. congrats.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are a small minority of women who lied about their rapes. That gives you perfect justification to slime any woman that makes a claim about being raped. Uh huh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom