Legal Question For Jarod

Althea

Althea

Althea told me...........
I noticed Don engaged you in a disingenuous debate. In your experience as a lawyer, when there is an accusation of rape:

First there is an accusation

Then there is an investigation

Then there would be an arrest, if there were enough evidence.

Then there would be a trial.

In the case Don is attempting to reference, why would he purposely skip past the fact that there isn't a modicum of interest by Republicans to have the investigation?
 
Althea said:
I noticed Don engaged you in a disingenuous debate. In your experience as a lawyer, when there is an accusation of rape:

First there is an accusation

Then there is an investigation

Then there would be an arrest, if there were enough evidence.

Then there would be a trial.

In the case Don is attempting to reference, why would he purposely skip past the fact that there isn't a modicum of interest by Republicans to have the investigation?
Click to expand...

My guess would be the only evidence is hear say which is inadmissible. The only evidence, it would seem, is her accusation. You don’t destroy a persons life and reputation based on an accusation alone.

Now if an investigation provides evidence other than hear say that’s a different story.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
My guess would be the only evidence is hear say which is inadmissible. The only evidence, it would seem, is her accusation. You don’t destroy a persons life and reputation based on an accusation alone.

Now if an investigation provides evidence other than hear say that’s a different story.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that an investigation wouldn't clear his name. Your last sentence seems to beg the same question I asked. Why do Republicans refuse to call for an investigation?

And why did Don skip right past that in his question to Jarod?
 
Althea said:
You are assuming that an investigation wouldn't clear his name. Your last sentence seems to beg the same question I asked. Why do Republicans refuse to call for an investigation?

And why did Don skip right past that in his question to Jarod?
Click to expand...

I have to point out to you that "beggaring the question" is a logical fallacy. It's not a rational question. I'll demonstrate that by answering your question. Republicans are not calling for an investigation because they either dont' want one or don't believe the available evidence merits one. At this state, with no other evidence, it's simply she said/he said.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I have to point out to you that "beggaring the question" is a logical fallacy. It's not a rational question. I'll demonstrate that by answering your question. Republicans are not calling for an investigation because they either dont' want one or don't believe the available evidence merits one. At this state, with no other evidence, it's simply she said/he said.
Click to expand...
I believe all accusations begin as he/she said. That's why law enforcement conducts an investigation. In this case, we're now finding that Kav was often drunk to the point of being incapacitated. He was belligerent when he was drunk, and now we find that his rape frat often tried to drug their victims, or at the very least, get them drunk.


That's why investigations occur. The Senate Republicans are hardly in a position to declare that an investigation isn't necessary.


Nor is Don
 
Althea said:
You are assuming that an investigation wouldn't clear his name. Your last sentence seems to beg the same question I asked. Why do Republicans refuse to call for an investigation?
Click to expand...

FBI reports do not clear his name or reach any conclusions. Nobody calls for an investigation of their own activities. None of the members of Congress, celebrities, asked anybody to investigate.

Bill Clinton did not ask for an FBI investigation of the four women accusing him of sexual assault (and the Democrats did not either).

If another woman comes forth next week should they ask for another investigation for her? Obviously the Democrats are seeking to delay as long as possible even if they sincerely believe there is some credibility to Dr. Ford's accusation.
 
Flash said:
FBI reports do not clear his name or reach any conclusions. Nobody calls for an investigation of their own activities. None of the members of Congress, celebrities, asked anybody to investigate.

Bill Clinton did not ask for an FBI investigation of the four women accusing him of sexual assault (and the Democrats did not either).

If another woman comes forth next week should they ask for another investigation for her? Obviously the Democrats are seeking to delay as long as possible even if they sincerely believe there is some credibility to Dr. Ford's accusation.
Click to expand...
Obviously this is about Garland, rightfully so. Dems have a card to play in this hand, and they'll play it. As they should.

Does the Senate call for the FBI background check when a nominee is first announced? Or does the FBI get involved automatically? Are you saying that the Senate has no ability to defer to the FBI before they continue with the proceedings?

SC sat for more than 1 year when Mcturtle refused to even have a hearing for Garland.
 
Stargazer said:
Duke Lacrosse/Herman Cain Part Deux
Click to expand...
Duke Lacrosse was investigated. It was Sharpton who flapped his jowls and created the mess. Those boys weren't angels, but they didn't rape the stripper. It wasn't the FBI that caused so much damage. It was Sharpton et. al, just as he did in the Brawley debacle.
 
Althea said:
I noticed Don engaged you in a disingenuous debate. In your experience as a lawyer, when there is an accusation of rape:

First there is an accusation

Then there is an investigation

Then there would be an arrest, if there were enough evidence.

Then there would be a trial.

In the case Don is attempting to reference, why would he purposely skip past the fact that there isn't a modicum of interest by Republicans to have the investigation?
Click to expand...

I am on Tapatalk so if you thread banned me then my bad

But your premise is flawed. My question was general and did not reference a specific rape allegation.

I merely asked him if he would ever let a client accuse of a crime to testify before the accuser.

Now as to your sequence of events, you yourself missed a step as did all of Kavanaughs accusers.

One makes an accusation THEN one files a police report. Then there is an investigation

None of these women has EVER filed a police report yet scream for an FBI investigation.

Dumb ass
 
Althea said:
Obviously this is about Garland, rightfully so. Dems have a card to play in this hand, and they'll play it. As they should.

Does the Senate call for the FBI background check when a nominee is first announced? Or does the FBI get involved automatically? Are you saying that the Senate has no ability to defer to the FBI before they continue with the proceedings?

SC sat for more than 1 year when Mcturtle refused to even have a hearing for Garland.
Click to expand...

Background checks are done automatically dumb ass

Kavanaugh has been through SIX

You mean to tell me that after SIX background checks nothing about gang rapes ever showed up and only Avanatti discovered it?

Get Garland off your brain. You lost. You weren’t sad when Democrats wouldn’t give Miguel Estrada a hearing.
 
jimmymccready said:
Kavanaugh, McConnell, et al are, without a doubt, being Garlanded.

So whatt? They deserve it.
Click to expand...

Well if they grow nuts they confirm Kavanaugh and all you can do is hack off with BAC fantasizing about impeachment and packing the court

The only thing you will be packing is BACs fudge
 
Althea said:
I believe all accusations begin as he/she said. That's why law enforcement conducts an investigation. In this case, we're now finding that Kav was often drunk to the point of being incapacitated. He was belligerent when he was drunk, and now we find that his rape frat often tried to drug their victims, or at the very least, get them drunk.


That's why investigations occur. The Senate Republicans are hardly in a position to declare that an investigation isn't necessary.


Nor is Don
Click to expand...

Well again, those are unsubstantiated allegations and are probably politically motivated ad hominem attacks. An accusation must be more than just simple hear say to start an investigation. Those accusation must be "independently" verified and supported by actual evidence.

I honestly haven't seen that. Now I get it...most of these attacks on Kav are pay backs for the GOP's game of dirty tricks when Merit Garland was nominated. Tit for tat. I don't have an ounce of sympaty for Kav. It comes with the territory.

But objectively...this is just a smoke screen in an attempt by Democrats to delay Kav's nomination until after the midterm election. This could possibly work. There are some moderate Republican Senators who's seat in the Senate will be on the line if a pro-life ideologue like Kav is approved. They could join with Democrats to request an investigation on Kav's past. If that were to happen and Dems were to win the Senate after the Midterms, then Kav's nomination will be over and he won't be seated.

So Kav's fate is really in the hands of those couple of moderate GOP Senators. If they break with the Party than Kav is sunk. This is a real possibility as Murkowski, Ernst, Collins and Capito are all moderate female Republican Senators who's political careers could be seriously jeopardized by a conservative pro-life ideologue, like Kav, being seated. If those four Senators start to feel the heat from constituents back home, then Kav's nomination is probably sunk and Trump will probably have to go with someone more moderate on womens reproductive rights.
 
Althea said:
Duke Lacrosse was investigated. It was Sharpton who flapped his jowls and created the mess. Those boys weren't angels, but they didn't rape the stripper. It wasn't the FBI that caused so much damage. It was Sharpton et. al, just as he did in the Brawley debacle.
Click to expand...

And it was the prosecutor who was disbarred for his activities pursuing this case.
 
Stargazer said:
Duke Lacrosse/Herman Cain Part Deux
Click to expand...

BS!

This case was treated exactly like zimmeran's.

The racist right and their media twisted shit so bad and got them boys off.

Then blamed Sharpton.

Wash, rinse and repeat. All you racist fucks do is lie.
 
Flash said:
And it was the prosecutor who was disbarred for his activities pursuing this case.
Click to expand...
And the coach who lost his job because of the lies/deceit. Perhaps an investigation before rushing to the trial would have been a good idea? Nifong was disbarred for withholding evidence, which is exactly what Senate Republicans are doing now.
 
Teflon Don said:
Background checks are done automatically dumb ass

Kavanaugh has been through SIX

You mean to tell me that after SIX background checks nothing about gang rapes ever showed up and only Avanatti discovered it?

Get Garland off your brain. You lost. You weren’t sad when Democrats wouldn’t give Miguel Estrada a hearing.
Click to expand...
It was suggested that the Senate has no ability to ask the FBI to investigate the claims. If anyone came out with these claims during any of the six background checks, then we wouldn't be here today. This is much higher profile than his previous appointment, so the victims are seeing his face on t.v every day.
 
Althea said:
I noticed Don engaged you in a disingenuous debate. In your experience as a lawyer, when there is an accusation of rape:

First there is an accusation

Then there is an investigation

Then there would be an arrest, if there were enough evidence.

Then there would be a trial.

In the case Don is attempting to reference, why would he purposely skip past the fact that there isn't a modicum of interest by Republicans to have the investigation?
Click to expand...

Dear brain dead snowflakes: This should help to explain why there was no police report and why an investigation is a moronic talking point.

Investigator: when did this happen?
Lying Slut: I can't remember.
Investigator: Ohkay

Investigator: where did this happen?
Lying Slut: I can't remember.
Investigator: Ohkay

Investigator: who was there when this happened?
Lying Slut: I can't remember.
Investigator: Ohkay

Investigator: Do you remember what year this happened?
Lying Slut: I can't remember.
Investigator: Ohkay

Investigator: Were there any witnesses to this assault?
Lying Slut: Yes, but they both denied the event ever occurred.
Investigator: Ohkay

Investigator: why are you wasting our time?
Lying Slut: BUT TRUMP!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top