Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[Ohio]

The swamp rats are now scrambling for cover.

Rosenstein got McCabe fired and now McCabe leaks info to NY Times that forces Rosenstein to resign ???

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The swamp rats are now scrambling for cover.

Yeah, Trump is scrambling.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah, Trump is scrambling.

Yeah, he's criss-crossing the country trying to gin up the votes.

[zeek]

"Anita Hill Says Kavanaugh Accuser Hearing 'Cannot Be Fair'"

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/25/65148..._medium=social

"A fair process would start with a "real investigation," Hill tells All Things Considered, saying the absence of other witnesses raises concerns about a he-said-she-said situation."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Anita Hill Says Kavanaugh Accuser Hearing 'Cannot Be Fair'"

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/25/65148..._medium=social

"A fair process would start with a "real investigation," Hill tells All Things Considered, saying the absence of other witnesses raises concerns about a he-said-she-said situation."

It's clearly rigged. More dirty tricks from the pubbies.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Anita Hill Says Kavanaugh Accuser Hearing 'Cannot Be Fair'"

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/25/65148..._medium=social

"A fair process would start with a "real investigation," Hill tells All Things Considered, saying the absence of other witnesses raises concerns about a he-said-she-said situation."

No, a fair process would begin with at least 2 witnesses. There is no reason that the FBI needs to jump around like a puppet with every accusation. If that were true we would have someone claim that they were black out drunk but knew for sure Kavanaugh did something because as he was doing something someone yelled out his full name. After the 2 week investigation proves that is false, the woman says my bad, I guess I was so drunk I just thought this was the case. Then another person comes forward, ad infinitum.

Please note, the crime of sexual abuse almost always will have lots of physical evidence as a witness. DNA (which we have used for over 36 years), witnesses (if this was a party surely there were other people there), photographs (if you thought you were going to die then surely a photograph will show that you were harmed), ripped clothing, etc. Of course we are usually shown police reports and criminal charges that were dropped or settled out of court. Likewise there is usually other evidence that a life changing event took place (girl left the school, maybe got into fights at school, rumors were floated, she began seeing a therapist, etc). Apparently this woman began seeing a therapist 10 years ago, 26 years after this event?

This is a hearing, not a court. If this were a court I would refuse to press charges based on a lack of evidence. But since it is a hearing we do want to hear from her, who knows when she speaks others might also come forward.

Sure enough she has spoken and we do have some evidence as a result. First, she wants Kavanaugh to go first, that is absurd. He should know what he is being charged with before having to respond. However, it does indicate that she is concerned about the veracity of her own testimony. For example, if she says the party was in July and Kavanaugh can prove he was out of the country with his family then it would prove she was wrong.

She also insists that the senators ask her the questions and not a lawyer designated by them. That proves clearly that her motive is political.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, a fair process would begin with at least 2 witnesses. There is no reason that the FBI needs to jump around like a puppet with every accusation. If that were true we would have someone claim that they were black out drunk but knew for sure Kavanaugh did something because as he was doing something someone yelled out his full name. After the 2 week investigation proves that is false, the woman says my bad, I guess I was so drunk I just thought this was the case. Then another person comes forward, ad infinitum.

Please note, the crime of sexual abuse almost always will have lots of physical evidence as a witness. DNA (which we have used for over 36 years), witnesses (if this was a party surely there were other people there), photographs (if you thought you were going to die then surely a photograph will show that you were harmed), ripped clothing, etc. Of course we are usually shown police reports and criminal charges that were dropped or settled out of court. Likewise there is usually other evidence that a life changing event took place (girl left the school, maybe got into fights at school, rumors were floated, she began seeing a therapist, etc). Apparently this woman began seeing a therapist 10 years ago, 26 years after this event?

This is a hearing, not a court. If this were a court I would refuse to press charges based on a lack of evidence. But since it is a hearing we do want to hear from her, who knows when she speaks others might also come forward.

Sure enough she has spoken and we do have some evidence as a result. First, she wants Kavanaugh to go first, that is absurd. He should know what he is being charged with before having to respond. However, it does indicate that she is concerned about the veracity of her own testimony. For example, if she says the party was in July and Kavanaugh can prove he was out of the country with his family then it would prove she was wrong.

She also insists that the senators ask her the questions and not a lawyer designated by them. Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses."
"The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable."

The Senate Judiciary Committee refuses to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault. Senator Chuck Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses." "The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable." That shows that Grassley's motives are purely political.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Senate Judiciary Committee refuses to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault. Senator Chuck Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses." "The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable." That shows that Grassley motives are purely political.

On the contrary. Grassley is just carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, to "advise and consent."

But let me quote Senator Maize Hirono for you zeek,

"Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Senate Judiciary Committee refuses to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault. Senator Chuck Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses." "The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable." That shows that Grassley motives are purely political.

It is a hearing and it is highly publicized. If hearing this woman speak encourages others to come forward then it can create a snowball effect. It is difficult to imagine that anyone abused by this man is not aware of what is going on. Likewise anyone who has anything of note could contact a democratic senator who would make sure it was heard. Obviously the committee needs to control the process, someone will and if not them then who?