Due process should have included a full FBI investigation of Kavanaugh.
-
-
-
The problem with that is first: There were 6 different fbi investigations made about him, and also, and also there would literally be NO EVIDENCE to what she claimed. Since she waited 35 years to do anything, even tho he was in the public eye for 22 years..
-
1) FBI never spoke to Dr. Ford during their previous 6 investigations. New info requires further investigation. 2) Corroborating witness statements are evidence. Friends, or her therapist, who verify they were told of the assault are corroborating witnesses under the law.
-
I agree another investigation should have been done, but regarding the therapist notes. Fords legal team would not release those to the FBI or senate....https://twitter.com/senorrinhatch/status/1048204862582923264 …
-
I imagine if the FBI had actually interviewed Dr. Ford, she would have been willing to provide them with the notes.
-
Perhaps...but Kav's "job interview" was broadcasted live to the world. If there was ever a time when evidence should be brought up it should have been then. Thats like if I had evidence that OJ killed his wife during trial and refuse to give it and instead want an interview.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If no one was tried for a crime, then where does due process apply?
-
“The 5th Amend Due Process Clause applies to the federal government, while 14th Amend applies to state/local gov’t. The 14th amend states that no state can "deprive any person of their life, liberty, or property w/out due process of law" (due process kicks in WAY before trial)
-
Was Kavanaugh denied any of these things?
-
If the left had their way he would have been
-
Pretty sure all they asked for was an investigation, nice try tho
-
And he had an inv, nothing was found and the majority of liberal senators voted no to the nomination anyway
-
(Not a real investigation.) No due process was violated.
-
It was a ‘real’ inv, it was just expedited. But that seems fair considering there was no evidence presented
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
“Believe all survivors”= no due process. There must be corroborating evidence first. There was none in this case after the investigation. It was always a disgusting political ploy.
-
Sign says "believe all survivors", not believe all accusers. There's a important difference there that seems to be not sinking in...
-
“Believe all survivors” is a non sequitur and an intentional manipulation of logic.
-
You don’t mean non sequitur.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The notion that evidence or corroboration are not needed because it's not a "trial" is absurd. Burden of proof laying with the accuser is a standard that transcends only a legal standard. The fact this concept alludes atheists bleeds into broader credibility.
-
Actually, some people do say that evidence isn't needed. Never the less, the point is producing evidence and/or corroboration are reasonable standards beyond a legal context.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Democrat Senators