US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
cerebus said:
Lack of physical evidence of an event that happened 36 years ago is equal to innocence?

https://www.campussafetymagazine.co...ove-sexual-assault-without-physical-evidence/

A thorough investigation that wasn't hamstrung by the White House would have been able to either exonerate Kavanaugh fully - in which case nobody could ever say his career was 'destroyed' - or possibly established a likelihood of guilt.

- Deborah Ramirez provided a list of 20 witnesses who were never interviewed, some of whom are already on record as saying that they heard about the same incident, with the same details.
- Ford provided a list of possible witnesses who were never contacted.
- Many classmates spoke out to contradict Kavanaugh's sworn testimony of his drinking behavior.
- Julie Swetnick was seemingly totally ignored in the investigation, despite having the most serious claims of any of the three women.
Click to expand...

Hearsay is not evidence. Someone stating that they have heard about an incident is hearsay and is not credible "witness" testimony. Witness testimony someone that can say they were at the event, or they witnessed the incident first hand.

Ramirez had to call her friends to ask who it was that pulled down his pants. She couldn't outright remember if it was Kavanaugh. This claim is therefore not credible.

Ford's witnesses were contacted and said they do not know Kavanaugh and don't recall the party. They are therefore not witnesses.

Swetnick accused Kavanaugh of being around the punch bowl that she believed contained the drugs which made her lose consciousness and tried to make a link to Kavanaugh and gang rape. This claim is therefore not credible.
 
Last edited:
Emjay said:
Hearsay is not evidence. Someone stating that they have heard about an incident is hearsay and is not credible "witness" testimony. Witness testimony is someone to say they were at the event, or they witnessed the incident first hand.

Ramirez had to call her friends to ask who it was that pulled down his pants. She couldn't outright remember if it was Kavanaugh. This claim is therefore not credible.

Ford's witnesses were contacted and said they do not know Kavanaugh and don't recall the party. They are therefore not witnesses.

Swetnick accused Kavanaugh of being around the punch bowl and tried to make a link to Kavanaugh and gang rape. This claim is therefore not credible.
Click to expand...

Damn, well would you look at Columbo over here. This case is CLOSED, bitches.

giphy.gif
 
Pitbull said:
So not innocent till proven guilty?

You have just proven the point exactly :p
Click to expand...
Don't be obtuse for once in your life, it means he cannot be found guilty by a court, it says nothing about whether he did or did not assault Ford. Or do you think that destroying evidence of a crime means that crime didn't happen?
 
Cray said:
Don't be obtuse for once in your life, it means he cannot be found guilty by a court, it says nothing about whether he did or did not assault Ford. Or do you think that destroying evidence of a crime means that crime didn't happen?
Click to expand...

Any case of tampering with evidence been made?

You're reaching... :ROFL: and it clearly shows your double standards being applied here
 
cerebus said:
- Julie Swetnick was seemingly totally ignored in the investigation, despite having the most serious claims of any of the three women.
Click to expand...



“WSJ has attempted to corroborate Ms. Swetnick’s account, contacting dozens of former classmates and colleagues, but could not reach anyone with knowledge of her allegations. No friends have come forward to publicly support her claims.”
Click to expand...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-...vanaugh-accusers-but-not-the-third-1538256505

She said she contacted the police...

Some 10 days after Ms. Blasey Ford went public, police in Montgomery County, Maryland, where she says the incident took place, have yet to hear from her.

“At this time, the Montgomery County Police Department has not received a request by any alleged victim nor a victim’s attorney to initiate a police report or a criminal investigation regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh,” the police said in a statement.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/24/montgomery-county-police-department-says-it-hasnt-/[/QUOTE]
 
Pitbull said:
Now it's the type of sentence that's the issue... LMFAO!!! :D
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone calling for Kavanaugh to be prosecuted until he's proven guilty. Well, nobody who isn't a fringe leftie. But don't worry, you just carry on strawmanning.
 
Cray said:
Troll, troll, troll....
Click to expand...

Now I'm trolling? I didn't mention "tampering or destroying evidence" you did. And it was in direct relation to Kavanaugh that you said that. Then claim it's hypothetical when you get called on it :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X