Kavanaugh Confirmation

#10,901
#10,901
Mick said:
Just waiting on one of you to denounce domestic violence. Still waiting.
Click to expand...

No need to wait. Most of us have already denounced domestic violence. We've also denounced a rush to judgement, taking an accusation with no proof to support it as fact, and using sexual assault allegations as a political weapon. Waiting on you to denounce the Dems for using this as a weapon to delay and derail the confirmation hearings rather than coming forward weeks ago. They easily could have introduced the letter to the committee in confidentiality when first received, but made the conscious choice to wait for maximum delay effect. There's no rational excuse for that. Guess I'll keep waiting.
 
#10,902
#10,902
Mick said:
Still half the amount of taxpayer dollars the Senate spent on pro-K commercials.
Click to expand...

Full of excuses but no rationality. Personally, I haven't seen a pro-K commercial, so why not provide a link to how much was supposedly spent on them? Also, do you disagree that it hurts her credibility if she is found to have received "donations" from any prominent Dem booster?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#10,903
#10,903
Weezer said:
No need to wait. Most of us have already denounced domestic violence. We've also denounced a rush to judgement, taking an accusation with no proof to support it as fact, and using sexual assault allegations as a political weapon. Waiting on you to denounce the Dems for using this as a weapon to delay and derail the confirmation hearings rather than coming forward weeks ago. They easily could have introduced the letter to the committee in confidentiality when first received, but made the conscious choice to wait for maximum delay effect. There's no rational excuse for that. Guess I'll keep waiting.
Click to expand...

I'm sure McConnell would have acted on it. lol!
 
#10,913
#10,913
Seriously Mick, you have problems. Partisanship does not excuse bad behavior. People like you, who denounce the behavior of one party while supporting the same behavior in your party, you are what is wrong with this country. Wrong is wrong no matter who's doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, Obsessed and jaybird_1981
#10,916
#10,916
Mick said:
I don't like Hillary. Next strawman.
Click to expand...

So you say, but "paybacks a bitch", right? You've set aside your own morals to accept anything the Dems do as justified and right and anything the Republicans do as immoral and wrong. It doesn't matter if they act the same. That's sad. It's like you've admitted you're nothing more than a sheep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#10,920
#10,920
Hunerwadel said:
The way I understand it is that the State crimes would be completely different charges than the Federal ones. Therefore not double jeopardy.
Click to expand...
That’s the way the law stands currently.

For instance, if you are a felon and get caught with a firearm, you may be convicted under both federal and state law. This would change that.

The way it would impact Trump is, let’s use Manafort for example as his situation is well-known. Trump can’t pardon Manafort for state crimes. Manafort has been convicted of federal crimes. Trump could pardon him but at present he could then be indicted for State charges. If Gamble goes Trump’s way, double jeopardy would shield Manafort from state charges.

There’s a long history of cases where federal courts and, I believe, the Supreme Court have upheld the constitutionality of concurrent prosecutions in this way.

I haven’t looked to see how the Court voted in those cases but, if you subscribe to the idea that Kavanaugh is a plant to save Trump’s bacon for future criminal prosecutions, then he’s probably going to be siding with Kagan and RBG in this case rather than Clarence Thomas and the other conservatices. That’s some irony.
 
Last edited:
#10,922
#10,922
Mick said:
Not even close unless you have already called the accusers liars, otherwise it's a legitimate concern for a SC nominee.
Click to expand...
No many of us have called them not credible.

I believe Ford believes what she’s saying at least. But when considering all of the information available which she herself provided the sources for I find her account unlikely.

You continually forcing a she’s either truthful or lying is the one cheapening her testimony. Not the ones who believe as I have stated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#10,923
#10,923
Mick said:
Not even close unless you have already called the accusers liars, otherwise it's a legitimate concern for a SC nominee.
Click to expand...

It’s been dirty pool and you know it. And the only credible one can’t get anyone who she says was present agree with her. They all say they have no clue what she is talking about. The FBI will come back with nothing new. And you will keep getting excited over terms like Devil’s Triangle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top