Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Jun 16, 2019 10:17 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97897 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2135, 2136, 2137, 2138, 2139, 2140, 2141 ... 2448  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29980
Santa wrote:
I suppose it's possible that Ford could have provided new and crucial information that she hadn't provided in her previous statements, her letter or during her testimony, so maybe the FBI should have interviewed her. Or she might have changed parts of her story again. Outside of those possibilities she would have only said what she had already said, so maybe it was right that they didn't.

Oddly, she refused to provide a whole lot of other supporting evidence to the Senate, like the actual therapy records.


CIA SLEEPER AGENT


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8256
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Santa wrote:
I suppose it's possible that Ford could have provided new and crucial information that she hadn't provided in her previous statements, her letter or during her testimony, so maybe the FBI should have interviewed her. Or she might have changed parts of her story again. Outside of those possibilities she would have only said what she had already said, so maybe it was right that they didn't.

Oddly, she refused to provide a whole lot of other supporting evidence to the Senate, like the actual therapy records.


CIA SLEEPER AGENT



Or a reptile.

From another planet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23941
Nah. Just a very dedicated fanatic. Probably mad, as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4653
:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7358
Zoot alors!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7358
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5705
Santa wrote:
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?



If the FBI had subjected her to a full investigation, the same people whining about the FBI being hamstrung would be going ape-shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23941
zzzz wrote:
Santa wrote:
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?



If the FBI had subjected her to a full investigation, the same people whining about the FBI being hamstrung would be going ape-shit.



:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4243
Location: Straya cunt
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Santa wrote:
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?



If the FBI had subjected her to a full investigation, the same people whining about the FBI being hamstrung would be going ape-shit.



:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.



For? :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:48 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6506
Slim 293 wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Santa wrote:
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?



If the FBI had subjected her to a full investigation, the same people whining about the FBI being hamstrung would be going ape-shit.



:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.



For? :roll:


He already said...period. Can't trust anything that has them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7358
Slim 293 wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.



For? :roll:


If she had been as inconsistent with the FBI as she has been with the Senate she could have been up for 5 years in the pokey for lying to the Feds. So could Kav according to some on here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21748
Location: Middle East
Fangle wrote:

I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.


They managed to interview a total of 9 people, and that didn't include the Kav. CBF or anyone pertaining to the Ramirez allegations. They were given only a week, and were held to an even more restrictive witness list for the first few days. The interview notes, related memoes etc... are all being kept highly classified, and the Senators responsible for assessing the results of the interviews (1000 pages) were given 1 hour each, within a SCIF to go through and make their minds up. As this was not a criminal investigation, the FBI could not include any conclusions or assessments of the investigation, they had to leave that to the politically motivated Senators who had a whole hour to read all that. :?

Now, I've been pretty careful about not saying the Kav is guilty, deserves to go to prison or anything else quite so judgemental, I've really been in favour of a non-partisan investigation early on, as it's been clear that the Senate really aren't up to the task - Feinstein sitting on info, Male GOP senators outsourcing their questioning after insisting that they are the only ones who can be allowed to do it etc... I'm certainly not insisting the Kav be found guilty, just that these credible (yes, even Trump said so) allegations be assessed to the best of their ability.

We may never know the reasons why the FBI investigation shaped up the way it did, thanks to the confidentiality slapped onto it, despite that they've done so in other politically related investigations in the past:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... estigation

which leads to a few more questions the US public may have about open government or there being a separate set of rules for the privileged I guess.

I've said so a few times, that the investigation could well have been beneficial for the Kav if done correctly. You say you can't prove a negative, but that isn't really what they needed to do. They may have uncovered some exculpatory evidence (thanks to his calendar maybe???) that may have cleared him, if they'd been able to conduct interviews and re-interviews with both of the main parties or others. And this is what they needed to do.

Anyone thinking the televised circus of them testifying on front of the Senate Judicial Committee was sufficient is an idiot. They had their say, got upset, cried, shouted, waved calendars and showed choir boy appointments, and then had Senators grandstand for their own satisfaction. Yes, the Female Assistant did a half decent job of attempting to question.... one of them. Maybe if actual investigative pros had had a chance, they would've done a whole lot better, not have the witnesses avoid answering the question or posture for the cameras etc... a re-interview would've done a world of good as they'd have the chance inbetween to crosscheck claims, assess statements etc... and see what other leads may crop up.
The Committee aren't investigators, Jeff Flake isn't even a lawyer (although his time in South Africa as a Mormon missionary will no doubt have come in handy) for example. Lawyers don't exactly investigate either, especially not in such a setting. They never want to ask a question they don't already know the answer to, and they're much more interested in making the person they're questioning appear one way or another, rather than actually extract any new information from them at the time. It's quite impressive what a professional investigator can actually do, especially when there aren't 5 minute breaks, TV cameras on them, or political appointees sermonizing in their ears.

Maybe once Mueller finally wraps up his investigation we'll see just what dedicated investigative professionals can do. (Yeah, that'll be tainted by politics too, I'm not that optimistic)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29980
The measured response to all that baloney from the GOP is:

Get fucked.

You don't lob a grenade in at the 13th hour and get to dictate terms on these things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23941
Turbogoat wrote:
Fangle wrote:

I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.


They managed to interview a total of 9 people, and that didn't include the Kav. CBF or anyone pertaining to the Ramirez allegations. They were given only a week, and were held to an even more restrictive witness list for the first few days. The interview notes, related memoes etc... are all being kept highly classified, and the Senators responsible for assessing the results of the interviews (1000 pages) were given 1 hour each, within a SCIF to go through and make their minds up. As this was not a criminal investigation, the FBI could not include any conclusions or assessments of the investigation, they had to leave that to the politically motivated Senators who had a whole hour to read all that. :?

Now, I've been pretty careful about not saying the Kav is guilty, deserves to go to prison or anything else quite so judgemental, I've really been in favour of a non-partisan investigation early on, as it's been clear that the Senate really aren't up to the task - Feinstein sitting on info, Male GOP senators outsourcing their questioning after insisting that they are the only ones who can be allowed to do it etc... I'm certainly not insisting the Kav be found guilty, just that these credible (yes, even Trump said so) allegations be assessed to the best of their ability.

We may never know the reasons why the FBI investigation shaped up the way it did, thanks to the confidentiality slapped onto it, despite that they've done so in other politically related investigations in the past:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... estigation

which leads to a few more questions the US public may have about open government or there being a separate set of rules for the privileged I guess.

I've said so a few times, that the investigation could well have been beneficial for the Kav if done correctly. You say you can't prove a negative, but that isn't really what they needed to do. They may have uncovered some exculpatory evidence (thanks to his calendar maybe???) that may have cleared him, if they'd been able to conduct interviews and re-interviews with both of the main parties or others. And this is what they needed to do.

Anyone thinking the televised circus of them testifying on front of the Senate Judicial Committee was sufficient is an idiot. They had their say, got upset, cried, shouted, waved calendars and showed choir boy appointments, and then had Senators grandstand for their own satisfaction. Yes, the Female Assistant did a half decent job of attempting to question.... one of them. Maybe if actual investigative pros had had a chance, they would've done a whole lot better, not have the witnesses avoid answering the question or posture for the cameras etc... a re-interview would've done a world of good as they'd have the chance inbetween to crosscheck claims, assess statements etc... and see what other leads may crop up.
The Committee aren't investigators, Jeff Flake isn't even a lawyer (although his time in South Africa as a Mormon missionary will no doubt have come in handy) for example. Lawyers don't exactly investigate either, especially not in such a setting. They never want to ask a question they don't already know the answer to, and they're much more interested in making the person they're questioning appear one way or another, rather than actually extract any new information from them at the time. It's quite impressive what a professional investigator can actually do, especially when there aren't 5 minute breaks, TV cameras on them, or political appointees sermonizing in their ears.

Maybe once Mueller finally wraps up his investigation we'll see just what dedicated investigative professionals can do. (Yeah, that'll be tainted by politics too, I'm not that optimistic)



Why not just give it to the proper police to investigate, decently ? They have sex crimes units, better than the FBI ..
Why all this show, if the alleged victim is so sore about the whole episode that she insisted on reporting her tragedy to the Senate, and is reportedly readying to move to New Zealand now Kavanaugh has been confirmed...

Edit : Then we will not have to tl:dr all these reams that TG post on here.

Hell, you must ask Soros for a raise, mate, your fingers are probably won down to stubs by now ...


Last edited by Wilson's Toffee on Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23941
Seneca of the Night wrote:
The measured response to all that baloney from the GOP is:

Get fucked.

You don't lob a grenade in at the 13th hour and get to dictate terms on these things.



Aye. Just so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5705
Santa wrote:
Slim 293 wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.



For? :roll:


If she had been as inconsistent with the FBI as she has been with the Senate she could have been up for 5 years in the pokey for lying to the Feds. So could Kav according to some on here.


There's already potential liability for lying to the Committee.

Also her incosistencies are with earlier versions of her story. It is not w/in her final version.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23404
Seneca of the Night wrote:
The measured response to all that baloney from the GOP is:

Get fucked.

You don't lob a grenade in at the 13th hour and get to dictate terms on these things.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7358
zzzz wrote:
Santa wrote:
Slim 293 wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.



For? :roll:


If she had been as inconsistent with the FBI as she has been with the Senate she could have been up for 5 years in the pokey for lying to the Feds. So could Kav according to some on here.


There's already potential liability for lying to the Committee.

Also her incosistencies are with earlier versions of her story. It is not w/in her final version.


Yes, but as far as the inconsistencies go there is at least a risk that if she strays off script she might be vulnerable. That's a standard risk I suppose but in this case there is clear evidence of prior behaviour. As to the sanction, yes again. They both are. So I can't see the value of the added threat of speaking with the FBI.

All in all I just can't see what would be gained from Kav and Ford speaking with the FBI. Either they repeat the known information (most likely and if they have good lawyers almost certain) or they get into some sort of a pickle. None of the pro-interviewerists have made a case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21748
Location: Middle East
See above 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5705
Turbogoat wrote:
Fangle wrote:

I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.


They managed to interview a total of 9 people, and that didn't include the Kav. CBF or anyone pertaining to the Ramirez allegations. They were given only a week, and were held to an even more restrictive witness list for the first few days. The interview notes, related memoes etc... are all being kept highly classified, and the Senators responsible for assessing the results of the interviews (1000 pages) were given 1 hour each, within a SCIF to go through and make their minds up. As this was not a criminal investigation, the FBI could not include any conclusions or assessments of the investigation, they had to leave that to the politically motivated Senators who had a whole hour to read all that. :?

Now, I've been pretty careful about not saying the Kav is guilty, deserves to go to prison or anything else quite so judgemental, I've really been in favour of a non-partisan investigation early on, as it's been clear that the Senate really aren't up to the task - Feinstein sitting on info, Male GOP senators outsourcing their questioning after insisting that they are the only ones who can be allowed to do it etc... I'm certainly not insisting the Kav be found guilty, just that these credible (yes, even Trump said so) allegations be assessed to the best of their ability.

We may never know the reasons why the FBI investigation shaped up the way it did, thanks to the confidentiality slapped onto it, despite that they've done so in other politically related investigations in the past:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... estigation

which leads to a few more questions the US public may have about open government or there being a separate set of rules for the privileged I guess.

I've said so a few times, that the investigation could well have been beneficial for the Kav if done correctly. You say you can't prove a negative, but that isn't really what they needed to do. They may have uncovered some exculpatory evidence (thanks to his calendar maybe???) that may have cleared him, if they'd been able to conduct interviews and re-interviews with both of the main parties or others. And this is what they needed to do.

Anyone thinking the televised circus of them testifying on front of the Senate Judicial Committee was sufficient is an idiot. They had their say, got upset, cried, shouted, waved calendars and showed choir boy appointments, and then had Senators grandstand for their own satisfaction. Yes, the Female Assistant did a half decent job of attempting to question.... one of them. Maybe if actual investigative pros had had a chance, they would've done a whole lot better, not have the witnesses avoid answering the question or posture for the cameras etc... a re-interview would've done a world of good as they'd have the chance inbetween to crosscheck claims, assess statements etc... and see what other leads may crop up.
The Committee aren't investigators, Jeff Flake isn't even a lawyer (although his time in South Africa as a Mormon missionary will no doubt have come in handy) for example. Lawyers don't exactly investigate either, especially not in such a setting. They never want to ask a question they don't already know the answer to, and they're much more interested in making the person they're questioning appear one way or another, rather than actually extract any new information from them at the time. It's quite impressive what a professional investigator can actually do, especially when there aren't 5 minute breaks, TV cameras on them, or political appointees sermonizing in their ears.

Maybe once Mueller finally wraps up his investigation we'll see just what dedicated investigative professionals can do. (Yeah, that'll be tainted by politics too, I'm not that optimistic)


For the umpteenth time - it's not an investigation.

The role of the Senate is to advise and consent on the apointment. The role of the committee is to gather information to help the full senate do that. The role of the FBI is to assist the Committee with information gathering. Neither the FBI nor the senate are there to determine the truth or accuracy of Fords claim. The FBI interviewed everyone identified by Ford as having first hand information of which the Senate should be aware.

If Ford had wants a law enforcement investigation, she only has to ask.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21748
Location: Middle East
zzzz wrote:
For the umpteenth time - it's not an investigation.

The role of the Senate is to advise and consent on the apointment. The role of the committee is to gather information to help the full senate do that. The role of the FBI is to assist the Committee with information gathering. Neither the FBI nor the senate are there to determine the truth or accuracy of Fords claim. The FBI interviewed everyone identified by Ford as having first hand information of which the Senate should be aware.

If Ford had wants a law enforcement investigation, she only has to ask.


Actually, an 'investigation' is exactly what Jeff Flake called for. It's not a 'criminal investigation', but that's exactly what I said above.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po ... 490465002/

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/29/j ... ino-reacts

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation ... 88545.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23404
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
For the umpteenth time - it's not an investigation.

The role of the Senate is to advise and consent on the apointment. The role of the committee is to gather information to help the full senate do that. The role of the FBI is to assist the Committee with information gathering. Neither the FBI nor the senate are there to determine the truth or accuracy of Fords claim. The FBI interviewed everyone identified by Ford as having first hand information of which the Senate should be aware.

If Ford had wants a law enforcement investigation, she only has to ask.


Actually, an 'investigation' is exactly what Jeff Flake called for. It's not a 'criminal investigation', but that's exactly what I said above.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po ... 490465002/

And that's what they did...and delivered their report to the Senate. As for the criminal investigation, if she wants to go for it why doesn't she? Also, those asking why the FBI didn't question her or Kav again....they had a bloody full day of answering questions and had the chance to say whatever they needed to already for goodness sake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14463
Slim 293 wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Santa wrote:
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?



If the FBI had subjected her to a full investigation, the same people whining about the FBI being hamstrung would be going ape-shit.



:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.



For? :roll:



Having the temerity to accuse someone of sexual assault.

As we all know, the real victims in any sexual assault cases are the men and boys who have their reputations tarnished.

Women who "participate" in rape probably enjoy it.

Edit: I am being sarcastic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21748
Location: Middle East
saffer13 wrote:
As for the criminal investigation, if she wants to go for it why doesn't she?


You know, that's just the kind of question the FBI might have liked to ask and see what her answer would be. This is how an investigation goes if you have an open mind.

Quote:
Also, those asking why the FBI didn't question her or Kav again....they had a bloody full day of answering questions and had the chance to say whatever they needed to already for goodness sake.


And as I said above, it was ridiculous what transpired in the committee hearing. You yourself got quite agitated at the interruptions, and that the Female Assistant wasn't allowed to do her job.
All that grandstanding got in the way, remember?

Good investigation never stops at just one interview. You get their version, check, crosscheck with what else you can find out, then go back and see how that affects their version the next time round.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21748
Location: Middle East
Rinkals wrote:
Having the temerity to accuse someone of sexual assault.

As we all know, the real victims in any sexual assault cases are the men and boys who have their reputations tarnished.

Women who "participate" in rape probably enjoy it.

Edit: I am being sarcastic.


The 'Lock her up' chants have resumed. Aimed at Feinstein at this point, but give it time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23404
Turbogoat wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Having the temerity to accuse someone of sexual assault.

As we all know, the real victims in any sexual assault cases are the men and boys who have their reputations tarnished.

Women who "participate" in rape probably enjoy it.

Edit: I am being sarcastic.


The 'Lock her up' chants have resumed. Aimed at Feinstein at this point, but give it time.

She can join Hillary in the cell. I see Hillary is becoming more and more vocal lately.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23941
There are relevant authorities to report sexual assault to . Why do it to an obviously partisan senator ? The whole story just stinks.
I will grant the woman appears quite mad, so she is possibly without too much blame .... which must stick on Feinstein and her colleagues, then.

This is not a search for justice, or equality , or even handedness. Or even a cry for help.
This is a vicious, concerted and calculated attack on a very gifted, very hard working man, who prepared his whole life for this day and this job.

The fact that they lost says a lot for some common decency yet to be found amongst that superbly shit kind of human being, politicians.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23941
Turbogoat wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Having the temerity to accuse someone of sexual assault.

As we all know, the real victims in any sexual assault cases are the men and boys who have their reputations tarnished.

Women who "participate" in rape probably enjoy it.

Edit: I am being sarcastic.


The 'Lock her up' chants have resumed. Aimed at Feinstein at this point, but give it time.


And Hillary. Never forget Hillary ..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29980
saffer13 wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Having the temerity to accuse someone of sexual assault.

As we all know, the real victims in any sexual assault cases are the men and boys who have their reputations tarnished.

Women who "participate" in rape probably enjoy it.

Edit: I am being sarcastic.


The 'Lock her up' chants have resumed. Aimed at Feinstein at this point, but give it time.

She can join Hillary in the cell. I see Hillary is becoming more and more vocal lately.


Feinstein should have her head chopped off. If we can measure a politician by before and after results examine california before Feinstein, after Feinstein. She should have it chopped off in front of the embarcadero and her body dangled from a gibbet from the golden gate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2937
Years ago I had gone home early with a terminal case of the man flu. I was sleeping when my phone rang. I woke up in a groggy state and answered the phone with my name. From it came "Hello Dad". A young man's voice. Then the thoughts raced through my groggy mind. I thought of the very few girls who I had bedded, but as I had seen them since then, I knew that none of them had had kids from me. Then, had some girl told a kid that I was his father?

Anyway, I could sort of understand what it is like to blamed for something from the distant past. There is no way I could prove that I didn't rape someone in the distant past.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21748
Location: Middle East
And the demands for women to be locked up increases to wishing violence upon them with such ease.

And it's by the poster wailing about Gulags, no less.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23404
Fangle wrote:
Years ago I had gone home early with a terminal case of the man flu. I was sleeping when my phone rang. I woke up in a groggy state and answered the phone with my name. From it came "Hello Dad". A young man's voice. Then the thoughts raced through my groggy mind. I thought of the very few girls who I had bedded, but as I had seen them since then, I knew that none of them had had kids from me. Then, had some girl told a kid that I was his father?

Anyway, I could sort of understand what it is like to blamed for something from the distant past. There is no way I could prove that I didn't rape someone in the distant past.

If you ever need me to be a character witness, just let me know. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23941
The irony - that a Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be subjected to proving his innocence of charges wholly unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, without any semblance of anything like a fair trial (or any judicial trial at all) without the basic right of the presumption of innocence. Just because "a woman would not lie" about such things...
Disregarding where and how the charges originated and how it was brought, Senate is not the place for it, nor the FBI the correct authorities to investigate them, nor the confirmation hearing the correct forum to introduce such proceedings or allegations. The chairman should have ignored the charges except for referring them the to the relevant police department (if at all, it is the responsibility of the alleged victim and her political and legal counsel to submit charges at the correct authorities, the Maryland Police Department in this case, I believe) and gone on with the hearing.

Much ado about nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23941
saffer13 wrote:
Fangle wrote:
Years ago I had gone home early with a terminal case of the man flu. I was sleeping when my phone rang. I woke up in a groggy state and answered the phone with my name. From it came "Hello Dad". A young man's voice. Then the thoughts raced through my groggy mind. I thought of the very few girls who I had bedded, but as I had seen them since then, I knew that none of them had had kids from me. Then, had some girl told a kid that I was his father?

Anyway, I could sort of understand what it is like to blamed for something from the distant past. There is no way I could prove that I didn't rape someone in the distant past.

If you ever need me to be a character witness, just let me know. :twisted:



Lordy, lordy me ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14463
Fangle wrote:
Years ago I had gone home early with a terminal case of the man flu. I was sleeping when my phone rang. I woke up in a groggy state and answered the phone with my name. From it came "Hello Dad". A young man's voice. Then the thoughts raced through my groggy mind. I thought of the very few girls who I had bedded, but as I had seen them since then, I knew that none of them had had kids from me. Then, had some girl told a kid that I was his father?

Anyway, I could sort of understand what it is like to blamed for something from the distant past. There is no way I could prove that I didn't rape someone in the distant past.

Of course.

What should happen is that these assaults are tried as soon after the occurrence as possible, while evidence is reasonably fresh, witnesses (if there are any) are interrogated before memory fades.

However, just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7358
Rinkals wrote:
Fangle wrote:
Years ago I had gone home early with a terminal case of the man flu. I was sleeping when my phone rang. I woke up in a groggy state and answered the phone with my name. From it came "Hello Dad". A young man's voice. Then the thoughts raced through my groggy mind. I thought of the very few girls who I had bedded, but as I had seen them since then, I knew that none of them had had kids from me. Then, had some girl told a kid that I was his father?

Anyway, I could sort of understand what it is like to blamed for something from the distant past. There is no way I could prove that I didn't rape someone in the distant past.

Of course.

What should happen is that these assaults are tried as soon after the occurrence as possible, while evidence is reasonably fresh, witnesses (if there are any) are interrogated before memory fades.

However, just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Thanks for your insight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23941
They will keep on repeating their inanities. Round and round in a circle they will go ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19267
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
They will keep on repeating their inanities. Round and round in a circle they will go ...

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14463
Santa wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Fangle wrote:
Years ago I had gone home early with a terminal case of the man flu. I was sleeping when my phone rang. I woke up in a groggy state and answered the phone with my name. From it came "Hello Dad". A young man's voice. Then the thoughts raced through my groggy mind. I thought of the very few girls who I had bedded, but as I had seen them since then, I knew that none of them had had kids from me. Then, had some girl told a kid that I was his father?

Anyway, I could sort of understand what it is like to blamed for something from the distant past. There is no way I could prove that I didn't rape someone in the distant past.

Of course.

What should happen is that these assaults are tried as soon after the occurrence as possible, while evidence is reasonably fresh, witnesses (if there are any) are interrogated before memory fades.

However, just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Thanks for your insight.


I think this is the bit that you missed.

Quote:
just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5199
Location: The void
Rinkals wrote:
just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen

Who was raped?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97897 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2135, 2136, 2137, 2138, 2139, 2140, 2141 ... 2448  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: backrow, Bindi, Bing [Bot], Boomslang, danny_fitz, diarm, earl the beaver, Fat Old Git, Google Adsense [Bot], Jake, JB1981, Joost, koroke hangareka, Leinsterman, Mick Mannock, mr bungle, New guy, obelixtim, penguin, Red Revolution, Sards, Short Man Syndrome, themaddog and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group