Legal Question For Jarod

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...

Yet that is exactly what the Democratic Party of the Jackass has done. You must be proud to be one of its constituents.
 
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...

You're 100% wrong. No police department is going to investigate a case that is 35 years old with nothing more than "because the lying slut says so." ZERO NONE NADA
 
Althea said:
Obviously this is about Garland, rightfully so.
Click to expand...

There's nothing "rightfully so" regarding Garland in this case. Garlands reputation wasn't smeared by innuendo. His reputation wasn't dragged through the mud. He wasn't called a rapist in front of his children. To even try to make this look like anything but a despicable partisan hit job is the definition of repugnant, uncivil and pathetic.
 
Althea said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You make it sound like he was appointed to traffic court in 2003

Nice try. Went through full confirmation. Six background checks.

Do you know how FBI background checks go? They are extremely thorough.
 
jimmymccready said:
Kavanaugh, McConnell, et al are, without a doubt, being Garlanded.

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

There's nothing like Garland in this case. Garlands reputation wasn't smeared by innuendo. His reputation wasn't dragged through the mud. He wasn't called a rapist in front of his children.

No one deserves anything like this. Particularly an upstanding, law abiding decent civil servant like Kavanaugh. To even try to make this look like anything but a despicable partisan hit job is the definition of repugnant, uncivil and pathetic.
 
TTQ64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


giphy.gif
 
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...
statute of limitations makes your question retarded.
 
Teflon Don said:
Bullshit. You make it sound like he was appointed to traffic court in 2003

Nice try. Went through full confirmation. Six background checks.

Do you know how FBI background checks go? They are extremely thorough.
Click to expand...
Obviously not. OR...he lied to the FBI. He's already lied to the Senate.
 
Mr. Attorney
If the statute has expired would there be a need to investigate.

If after 36 years it ends up with a he said/she said scenario what type of investigation would take place.
If investigators completed an extensive background check wouldn’t these or similar type of allegations surfaced?
 
Tkaffen said:
Mr. Attorney
If the statute has expired would there be a need to investigate.

If after 36 years it ends up with a he said/she said scenario what type of investigation would take place.
If investigators completed an extensive background check wouldn’t these or similar type of allegations surfaced?
Click to expand...
It’s not a criminal trial, it’s a background check. They ask people about your character.
 
Phantasmal said:
It’s not a criminal trial, it’s a background check. They ask people about your character.
Click to expand...

The charges are extremely serious and criminal in nature; this isn't a game you dumbass, this is a man's life and career you assholes are trying to ruin. This is a serious civil process you morons on the left are making a mockery of like a bunch of monkeys for partisan political purposes. You morons should all be embarrassed but you lack the collective grey matter it would take to comprehend the obvious.

It's much the same as you leftist morons tear the very institutions and fabric of American life apart for petty partisan reasons because you children refuse to accept the FACT that you lost and election and now think you can tear the house down in your whiny pathetic ignorant little tantrums. It is despicable. The American people need to rise up and tell the media and the Democratic Party of the Jackass enough!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top