What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

JazzyFresh said:
So who's drink did Kavanaugh spike and who's making the claim that he, personally, did?

I don't think that's a difficult question.
Click to expand...
Watch out everybody, JazzyFresh is looking for answers and he's not going to stop until he gets them.
 
JazzyFresh said:
So who's drink did Kavanaugh spike and who's making the claim that he, personally, did?

I don't think that's a difficult question.
Click to expand...
I don't think there was as much credibility to whatever her name is said about Kavanaugh. So it was reported at the time and then basically dropped. The allegations Ford made were far more credible and she delivered them herself in front of the Senate, so we all got a chance to judge for ourselves what we thought of her allegations. They seemed legit, she seemed legit, I believed her. The other women, I have no real idea about them. I don't know specifics about their allegations and I never really formed a solid opinion of what I thought of them.
 
JazzyFresh said:
A person said something and there is no proof. I should of used the word hearsay which holds no weight in court. My badm
Click to expand...

There were first hand accounts; Blasely's statement is first hand.

Here's a recap


You can review testimony on youtube, one clip is 10 hours long and encompasses much more than just her first hand experience.

But let's say you were questioning the validity of another statement; others(Julie Swetnik, other friends) witnessed assault. And that's pretty easy once you grasp why survivors(and even bystanders) don't say anything. I encourage you to read this. It covers survivors, only. But how many of the below would apply to witnesses?

  • Fear of reprisal
    • Pretty valid for anyone that even heard something, let alone witness it
  • Personal matter
  • Reported to a different official
    • Perhaps witnesses did report it to a principal or teacher.
  • Not important enough to respondent
    • I can see a world where children(who are cruel) don't think the victim is worth their help
  • Belief that the police would not do anything to help
    • Big time
  • Belief that the police could not do anything to help
    • Bigger time
  • Did not want to get offender in trouble with law
    • Seems like covering for your buddy is common
  • Did not want family to know
    • Privacy Concerns
  • Did not want others to know
    • Same
  • Not enough proof
    • Same as police could/would not do anything
  • Fear of the justice system
    • Reliving a horrible event isn't fun
  • Did not know how
  • Feel the crime was not “serious enough”
    • Sexual Culture in the 80's was very different than now
  • Fear of lack of evidence
  • Unsure about perpetrator’s intent
Events are corroborated through her Blasely-Ford's conversation with her husband, and a counselor, and I feel like several of her close friends, but can't find anything citing those. The "corroboration" happened before little k was nominated for appointment. It's not like Blasely-Ford is doing it for the money. She's comfortable in life. That, too, is important because her credibility is at stake. She put herself out there for no social or financial gain.

So Yeah, Mr Fresh. You have picked a side. The side of "that's not evidence".

That being said, what exactly would YOU need? Not to convict mind you... that ship has sailed. But what evidence would you need to disqualify someone from the highest court in the land?
 
Gameface said:
I don't think there was as much credibility to whatever her name is said about Kavanaugh. So it was reported at the time and then basically dropped. The allegations Ford made were far more credible and she delivered them herself in front of the Senate, so we all got a chance to judge for ourselves what we thought of her allegations. They seemed legit, she seemed legit, I believed her. The other women, I have no real idea about them. I don't know specifics about their allegations and I never really form a solid opinion of what I thought of them.
Click to expand...
Thank you!!! As I've said things like not remembering basic ****, 30+ years later, and having the lawyer admit she had a political bias, makes me question her. I will never say she's lying though because I don't know. I will never say a negative thing about her either. Same goes for Kavanaugh. It's so ****ed up and immoral to do that to either imo.
 
Harambe said:
There were first hand accounts; Blasely's statement is first hand.

Here's a recap


You can review testimony on youtube, one clip is 10 hours long and encompasses much more than just her first hand experience.

But let's say you were questioning the validity of another statement; others(Julie Swetnik, other friends) witnessed assault. And that's pretty easy once you grasp why survivors(and even bystanders) don't say anything. I encourage you to read this. It covers survivors, only. But how many of the below would apply to witnesses?

  • Fear of reprisal
    • Pretty valid for anyone that even heard something, let alone witness it
  • Personal matter
  • Reported to a different official
    • Perhaps witnesses did report it to a principal or teacher.
  • Not important enough to respondent
    • I can see a world where children(who are cruel) don't think the victim is worth their help
  • Belief that the police would not do anything to help
    • Big time
  • Belief that the police could not do anything to help
    • Bigger time
  • Did not want to get offender in trouble with law
    • Seems like covering for your buddy is common
  • Did not want family to know
    • Privacy Concerns
  • Did not want others to know
    • Same
  • Not enough proof
    • Same as police could/would not do anything
  • Fear of the justice system
    • Reliving a horrible event isn't fun
  • Did not know how
  • Feel the crime was not “serious enough”
    • Sexual Culture in the 80's was very different than now
  • Fear of lack of evidence
  • Unsure about perpetrator’s intent
Events are corroborated through her Blasely-Ford's conversation with her husband, and a counselor, and I feel like several of her close friends, but can't find anything citing those. The "corroboration" happened before little k was nominated for appointment. It's not like Blasely-Ford is doing it for the money. She's comfortable in life. That, too, is important because her credibility is at stake. She put herself out there for no social or financial gain.

So Yeah, Mr Fresh. You have picked a side. The side of "that's not evidence".

That being said, what exactly would YOU need? Not to convict mind you... that ship has sailed. But what evidence would you need to disqualify someone from the highest court in the land?
Click to expand...

Than you as well! This type of stuff is all I've been asking for. It's like pulling teeth sometimes.

To answer your question, a guilty verdict. Innocent until proven guilty. Every single person deserves that. As I've said, I don't wish what the left has done to Kavanaugh on my worst enemy. That includes what Republicans did to Hillary.
 
JazzyFresh said:
Than you as well! This type of stuff is all I've been asking for. It's like pulling teeth sometimes.

To answer your question, a guilty verdict. Innocent until proven guilty. Every single person deserves that. As I've said, I don't wish what the left has done to Kavanaugh on my worst enemy. That includes what Republicans did to Hillary.
Click to expand...

A guilty verdict can not be had. Statute of Limitations has passed. Are you sure you want to stand by that?
 
Catchall said:
There's a Whistleblower Protection Act that guarantees a government whistleblower freedom to make their claims (free speech) and be protected from prejudice, like getting fired or vilified for blowing the whistle. I don't think it says the whistleblower can remain anonymous. In most cases, who the whistleblower is, his/her experience, and the relation to the people being accused are all pretty relevant and important to establish the accusations as credible. That's usually why the first thing a whistleblower does is announce who he or she is.

If this person is CIA and needs to hide his identity as part of his job, then maybe that's different. It's possible he could testify behind closed doors. If it turns out this guy is working as a spy under cover in the White House, he may need to be reassigned. Trump probably also wants him removed.
Click to expand...
There is also a separate Intelligence Community Whistleblowers Act, which does largely guarantee anonymity. That's the purpose of having the whistleblower go through the intelligence community inspector general as has widely been reported. I found this document by Congressional Research Service discussing that act. I bolded the "shall not."

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf
Intelligence Community Whistleblower
Protections
(page 3)
Section 7(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable:
The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.​
 
JazzyFresh said:
Than you as well! This type of stuff is all I've been asking for. It's like pulling teeth sometimes.

To answer your question, a guilty verdict. Innocent until proven guilty. Every single person deserves that. As I've said, I don't wish what the left has done to Kavanaugh on my worst enemy. That includes what Republicans did to Hillary.
Click to expand...
Hey if that's your standard than are you willing to extend that to say OJ Simpson? He must be innocent too.
 
JazzyFresh said:
100%

Theres reasons for Statue of Limitations. Sadly she had her time.
Click to expand...

Allow me to inflate this for you, in an effort for you to see why I think your stance is flawed.

A man is born in America. He makes his fortunes overseas buying and selling slaves, often under age. Multiple times he ordered people raped, and raped a few himself. All of this by age 26. Comes back to America, and just doesn't tell anyone at first. He's got cash, and speaks well in public, and runs through school quickly. Gets a job as a judge, climbs the ranks over the next 40 years.

At 66 years old gets nominated for the supreme court, and during an extensive background check, his crimes from 40+ years come out. He even admits it.

You're ok with that guy deciding how to manage guns, debt, polygamy, and gay marriage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top