Posted on Oct 1, 2018
In memo, outside prosecutor argues why she would not bring criminal charges against Kavanaugh
714
9
13
0
0
0
Yes - legally no prosecutor would take this case on. He said/she cases are hard to prosecute. But this was a job interview. Not a trial.
In memo, outside prosecutor argues why she would not bring criminal charges against Kavanaugh
Posted from washingtonpost.comPosted in these groups: 
Political Organization
Supreme Court
Political Organization Supreme Court
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
LOL at the idea of no evidence. No shit, Sherlock. That's why the FBI needed to investigate this. You know, investigators investigate stuff. And especially LOL was the idea that it was OK to simply take a letter from Mark Judge's lawyer, signed by his lawyer, not even himself, saying he doesn't remember anything as acceptable evidence. Is there a case in history where one of the people accused of being in the room during a sexual assault is allowed to simply mail in a letter and say "sorry, don't remember that happening"? Why would we even bother with trials and witnesses if that was all that was required? It was particularly telling that Kavanaugh refused over and over again to state that he would welcome an FBI investigation. If I were falsely accused of sexual assault, I would insist on it I would welcome every investigation that would supportmy innocence. Since he kept saying that all the witnesses vindicated him, than why in hell wouldn't he want to get those witnesses under oath to testify on his behalf?
Kavanaugh kept saying that he was willing to come in the next day to testify. Well that's great, but even if you were guilty no one would expect you to come in and say "yeah, my bad, I did it". That's why we need to get the other people in and under oath, and able to be questioned and cross examined to determine their credibility.
Kavanaugh kept saying that he was willing to come in the next day to testify. Well that's great, but even if you were guilty no one would expect you to come in and say "yeah, my bad, I did it". That's why we need to get the other people in and under oath, and able to be questioned and cross examined to determine their credibility.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I read the FBI hasn't even contacted him or Ford to set up an interview yet. They talked to Ramirez.
There's no way criminal charges come out of this though. It's a 36 year old allegation. I only waited one day to report my ex husband (then boyfriend) for abuse and it turned into he said/she said and I dropped it after 2 months because I knew he'd never take a polygraph (not that it mattered) and they'd never have evidence - despite the bruises I had. But any lawyer he had would argue I did it to myself or some bull...I got tired of it going nowhere. The only reason he got arrested the final time is I got away right after, called the police immediately and he got arrested on the spot. He ended up pleading guilty but he only got probation.
My point is that it's pretty obvious no criminal charges will ever come of this. That's not the point of this though.
There's no way criminal charges come out of this though. It's a 36 year old allegation. I only waited one day to report my ex husband (then boyfriend) for abuse and it turned into he said/she said and I dropped it after 2 months because I knew he'd never take a polygraph (not that it mattered) and they'd never have evidence - despite the bruises I had. But any lawyer he had would argue I did it to myself or some bull...I got tired of it going nowhere. The only reason he got arrested the final time is I got away right after, called the police immediately and he got arrested on the spot. He ended up pleading guilty but he only got probation.
My point is that it's pretty obvious no criminal charges will ever come of this. That's not the point of this though.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm having great difficulty taking any of this seriously. I really don't GAS what Kavanaugh may or may not have done in high school 30 years ago … when he was 17 and the alleged victim who can't remember anything but that it was … Kavanaugh ... was 15. True or not it is so far outside the statute of limitations as to be laughable. It amazes me that Democrats have suddenly developed a concern for age-old sexual misconduct. They sure didn't have any when Bill Clinton was in office. This whole thing is a crock of BS in my view.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
No, it was not just a “job interview” and everyone knows it. This portion specifically was an investigation and should still follow the legal standards of our country.
In fact Schumer said, on or about, July 10 that they would do everything to stop BK’s nomination; that’s just what thy did!
In fact Schumer said, on or about, July 10 that they would do everything to stop BK’s nomination; that’s just what thy did!
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
LTC Stephan Porter - It was a job interview. They did investigate the accusations as part of the interview.
If any female acted the way he did during that interview, we would be labeled "hysterical" "emotionally unstable" and many other things and have lost the nomination purely on the reaction.
Well the Republicans announced before Obama picked Garland they would do anything and everything to stop his nominee. They actually did. No one stopped Kavanaugh from getting nominated did they? He's a SCOTUS Justice. So obviously they didn't do anything and everything to stop him.
If any female acted the way he did during that interview, we would be labeled "hysterical" "emotionally unstable" and many other things and have lost the nomination purely on the reaction.
Well the Republicans announced before Obama picked Garland they would do anything and everything to stop his nominee. They actually did. No one stopped Kavanaugh from getting nominated did they? He's a SCOTUS Justice. So obviously they didn't do anything and everything to stop him.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google