Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Who do you believe?

  • Total voters
    453
HereticBD said:
In real life, cases like this get completely ignored because there is no evidence. In real life, its just some woman's vague story that has nothing to back it up. In real life, this case ends when all the alleged eye witnesses say they don't remember it.

Tell me when you've come back down to reality. There are murder cases with far more evidence that go cold after decades, and yet you think they'll find some smoking gun to confirm a guy shoved a girl on a bed in a nondescript location, at nondescript time, that nobody saw 36 fucking years ago.

I refuse to believe anyone is that fucking stupid, so please, stop being dishonest. There is no way you don't know how absolutely ridiculous it is to expect any new findings in this case, that will back up her vague account that has no evidence and is backed up by nobody.
Click to expand...
No, they don’t get ignored. Fake news.
 
Farmer Br0wn said:
Nope.

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." is a standard that applies to debate, rhetoric, Theory, and legal investigations and indictments.

What other standard would you want applied to you if you were ever accused of something truly awful?


When no evidence is found to support the assertion, the listening audience and all other parties involved have no choice but to dismiss the assertion.

No evidence will ever be found in instances where the most pertinent fact is unknown, and unknowable.

You're free to investigate until Kingdom Come. You will still arrive at the exact same place everyone else is currently at.
Click to expand...
That’s flat out wrong. In most criminal cases investigators have to build a case by discovering evidence.
 
Farmer Br0wn said:
A person who makes an assertion, must provide evidence for that assertion. Otherwise, the listening audience and all other parties involved have no choice but to dismiss that assertion.

Attempting an investigation on a fact that's unknown, and unknowable would yield the same results we're currently at. There's absolutely no way to prove, or disprove these allegations with absolute certainty. You're free to keep on investigating until the sun no longer shines, but you'll never arrived at a different conclusion than the one where all currently at.

If someone brings forward an unknown, and unknowable assertion without evidence, you really have no choice but to ignore it. You can't even make it a part of your decision making process because of the probability of it being untrue.
Click to expand...
That’s wrong, and the guy you’re quoting would tell you that too.
 
kpt018 said:
No, they don’t get ignored. Fake news.
Click to expand...
kpt018 said:
That’s flat out wrong. In most criminal cases investigators have to build a case by discovering evidence.
Click to expand...
kpt018 said:
That’s wrong, and the guy you’re quoting would tell you that too.
Click to expand...

Pfft, so now you've just resigned yourself to "Nuh-uh" responses.

Pathetic.

Enjoy your lifetime PROVEN INNOCENT new Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh.
 
HereticBD said:
In real life, its just some woman's vague story that has nothing to back it up.
Click to expand...

This. Can't believe people are still fussing over this. Four witnesses including her best friend refused to corroborate her story. Then her testimony was shredded by Mitchell. There's nothing there.
 
HereticBD said:
Pfft, so now you've just resigned yourself to "Nuh-uh" responses.

Pathetic.

Enjoy your lifetime PROVEN INNOCENT new Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
When you guys make sense I’ll dignify it with a thought out response. I mean, how else should I address people who don’t even have a basic understanding as to how investigations work? Or the basic understanding of how knowledge is acquired? If society operated the way you guys are suggesting no cases would ever be solved outside of confessions.
 
cincymma79 said:
Click to expand...



Now I'm really convinced that the Democrats are using puppet-strings to prop up Ginsberg.

Holy crap! They need to force her retirement.

She can barely lift her head and talk at the same time.
 
kpt018 said:
I mean, how else should I address people who don’t even have a basic understanding as to how investigations work?
Click to expand...

YOU are the moron who doesn't understand how basic investigations go. Again, this shit ends in the real world, the moment none of her own alleged witnesses can back her up, because there is absolutely nothing else to go on. If it even gets that far, since she has no clue where, when, or how it happened 36 fucking years ago.

You're acting like this wasn't investigated at all. It was investigated FAR more thoroughly than it ever otherwise would've been. In the real world, she doesn't get a Senate Judiciary investigation. She doesn't get an FBI investigation. She gets a few cops making some inquiries about her witnesses. If they don't pan out, the case is deemed worthless and she's told to kick rocks.

By all means though, please cry more about your new PROVEN INNOCENT Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh. Your tears are delicious.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
This. Can't believe people are still fussing over this. Four witnesses including her best friend refused to corroborate her story. Then her testimony was shredded by Mitchell. There's nothing there.
Click to expand...

Some people are just really, REALLY stupid, I guess.
 
HereticBD said:
YOU are the moron who doesn't understand how basic investigations go. Again, this shit ends in the real world, the moment none of her own alleged witnesses can back her up, because there is absolutely nothing else to go on. If it even gets that far, since she has no clue where, when, or how it happened 36 fucking years ago.

You're acting like this wasn't investigated at all. It was investigated FAR more thoroughly than it ever otherwise would've been. In the real world, she doesn't get a Senate Judiciary investigation. She doesn't get an FBI investigation. She gets a few cops making some inquiries about her witnesses. If they don't pan out, the case is deemed worthless and she's told to kick rocks.

By all means though, please cry more about your new PROVEN INNOCENT Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh. Your tears are delicious.
Click to expand...

Irl they would interview the other guy in the room (Judge), but they didn’t. Once again you’re too partisan to think honestly about this. And in typical fashion you resort to name calling.

It’s hilarious that you expect better posts from people when you’re a fucking hostile asshole. Smh
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
This. Can't believe people are still fussing over this. Four witnesses including her best friend refused to corroborate her story. Then her testimony was shredded by Mitchell. There's nothing there.
Click to expand...
If you’re reading partisan hacks it will seem like I’m “fussing over this”. My position is we don’t know the truth and probably never will. I’m simply pushing back on hacks that want to say otherwise.
 
HereticBD said:
Some people are just really, REALLY stupid, I guess.
Click to expand...
More proof you’re a partisan hack. Instead of acknowledging the country is split over this you just conclude everyone who disagrees with you and your side is really stupid.
 
kpt018 said:
If you’re reading partisan hacks it will seem like I’m “fussing over this”. My position is we don’t know the truth and probably never will. I’m simply pushing back on hacks that want to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

1. I agree we don't know the truth and never will. But it isn't a 50/50 issue. Her testimony isn't very credible. It's possible she's telling the truth, but it isn't probable.
 
I still haven't voted, I am waiting for more information.

haven't decided on Madison vs Pickney yet either. I like what Madison has done with the constitution and federalist papers, but more info needed. He would have the funkiest vice of all time though.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
1. I agree we don't know the truth and never will. But it isn't a 50/50 issue. Her testimony isn't very credible. It's possible she's telling the truth, but it isn't probable.
Click to expand...
Agreed that we don’t know for sure, I think your odds are just showing your bias. Despite getting attacked for stating basic stuff I think Kavanaugh sounded credible as well. I think one of them is honestly mistaken.

I don’t think we can put odds on it based on the information we have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,712
Messages
55,436,460
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top