Alan Dershowitz: Postpone Kavanaugh confirmation until FBI can investigate accusations against him

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Is there anything to go on other than the accusers oral statement? Any facts or evidence at all?

No. And that's why the FBI investigation would be a waste of time. "I want you to investigate an allegation that an incident took place at some unknown time in an unknown location during a house party 35 or more years ago. The four other potential attendees who could verify when and where the party took place and are named in the story all deny attending such a party in sworn statements. Get back to me."



It's not even about her being a liar (though her stated inability to remember giving her records out to a reporter a month or so ago, and having no knowledge of how she ended up in front of a polygrapher or who paid for it is sort of incredible). There simply isn't anything to pursue. We don't condemn and ruin people with this level of evidence. It is literally "she says- four other people say".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

She sat on the information because Ford didn't want to come out publicly about it yet. This is established, and I'm already well aware that Republicans don't care about decorum and whats right. I was trying to appeal to what's left of you people's desire to get to the bottom of things.

If you honestly believe that, your probably the kind of person that has sent money to a Nigerian Prince.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

"I want you to investigate an allegation that an incident took place at some unknown time in an unknown location during a house party 35 or more years ago. The four other potential attendees who could verify when and where the party took place and are named in the story all deny attending such a party in sworn statements. Get back to me."

I'll take the case! I charge $150 a day plus expenses. I'll begin my investigation in Las Vegas. I will leave no casino or brothel unsearched until I get to the truth!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"No"

Reason: we need to install our SCOTUS control before dems even have a chance to potentially take the house (or by some miracle the senate)

Not delaying a crucial public process over someone's mere accusations without actual evidence to prove the allegations. Words aren't enough, ever for any reason period.

Maintaining control of government matters way more to me than some sex-obsessed nonsense democrats whipped up in the 11th hour. Way, way, way more important. One is all the way down here while the other is all the way up ^^^^^^^HERE^^^^^^^ (big difference, yes?)

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Then you'd be doing more than the FBI will be doing

They aren't going to reach a conclusion. They are merely going to interview people and write their opinion down on a peice of paper AKA a form 302. The 302 does NOT include an actual sworn statement from the witness or complainant. It is merely the Special Agent's "impression" of that person and their claims.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"No"

Reason: we need to install our SCOTUS control before dems even have a chance to potentially take the house (or by some miracle the senate)

Again party over country. The tune was different when there was a SC opening at the end of Obama's term. Funny thing that.

a reply to: intrepid

That's exactly right. After seeing what the dirty democrats are doing, don't ever make the mistake of thinking there's even a slight chance I will go along with anything they say, do or want.

I oppose the dirty dogs the same way they oppose us: totally, on every issue, no matter what the individual circumstances are.

As others have said, we have been needing to take the kid gloves off for some time. Since the first loud mouth, uppity democrat started foaming at the mouth about "Russia, Russia, Russia! Scary paranoid creeps." 24/7 we should've taken the kid gloves off.

No, next time we slap the democrat party right across its mouth it should be without a plushy glove. Much easier to put democrat leftists back in their place that way. Leftists should be thanking us: this way, they can quit politics all together and get back to their normal lives (you know, flip burgers 9-5, go to burning man, woodstock, not shower, etc)

a reply to: intrepid

Obama should have set a reasonable date to swear Garland in and told Congress they have the right to advise and consent and if the Senate wanted to take a vote denying his confirmation and withhold their consent that was their prerogative, but they don't get to just sit on it. And then he should have forced a crisis by simply swearing him in regardless if they declined the opportunity to consent/dissent. Making a procedural game for confirmations is a time-honoured DNC tradition, but it doesn't make it okay for the GOP to usurp Obama's appointment.



None of what the Republicans did or tried to do re: Garland makes this absolute sham performance by the Dems acceptable to anyone with a shred of decency.

a reply to: RadioRobert

And then he should have forced a crisis by simply swearing him in regardless.

Sure, if you wanted to immediately spark a revolution/civil war, that'd be an excellent idea.

Meanwhile, the Constitution (the only "person" whos opinion actually matters) says the President nominates while the Senate must advise/consent. Key word being "consent" ie: they must approve. Therefore, Obama could not have possibly sworn anybody in because despite his appointment, one doesn't become an actual SCOTUS judge until the Senate says so.

originally posted by: JBurns
...one doesn't become an actual SCOTUS judge until the Senate says so.

Thus the hurry in case the Senate turns over in Nov?

When did Alan Dershowitz become a right wing talking head?

Is this what they call the mandela effect, cause my memory has this guy as a left wing ivy league lawyer who isnt afraid to go on right wing shows and have a discussion.

a reply to: JBurns

Senate has the right to advise and consent -- or withhold consent. With a vote.. It does not have an enumerated right to refuse to bring it to a vote indefinitely and thereby infringe on enumerated rights of the Executive.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I agree RR, and I apologize for being snippy.

I am pretty damn upset about all this. I think it is the most disgusting display of partisan politics since this country was founded. I truly mean it when I say I no longer consider myself in any sort of union with those individuals.

I'm not a vindictive or spiteful person, and I won't go out of my way to stick it to anybody. But as far as I'm concerned we'd all be better off if both sides split now, implemented their ideology separately (since they aren't compatible, I won't accept theirs and they don't want mine either). I also think it'd be best if they really did take California and secede (a peaceful succession, of course) since again I don't want their governance and they don't want mine

But I don't see how maintaining the current conditions is healthy for anybody. Why force two bitter halves to stick together, when its clear they hate one another and want absolutely nothing to do with the other? It is just like an old bitter married couple, no reason to stick together. Better to rip the band-aid off and have the absolute bare minimum contact required for basic tasks, allowing this gradual disintegration to finally happen because one thing is very clear and that is: each side is better off without the other and there is no chance of going back. So why dwell in this dismal state for the next couple years and lets just get this inevitable split over with, amicably.

originally posted by: JBurns
Why force two bitter halves to stick together, when its clear they hate one another and want absolutely nothing to do with the other?

This is exactly what's being put forth "My America or no America." (I should trademark that) and you're falling for it but there's a lot of people that don't swallow this crap. They're sick of it.

a reply to: intrepid

You know what I'm sick of, intrepid? This toxic and self-destructive political environment. I don't disagree with you, at least not entirely. I am angry and tired of the self-destruction "burn it all" nonsense when XX doesn't get his/her way. It is ridiculous to say the least

They *need* to experience the same crap they put out there, that way they learn to stop doing it to other people.

I think I need to take a few days off politics, it can't be good for high B.P.

Dershowitz is not conservative, so why the surprise? Fox has shown recently that they are not conservative. I'm convinced now (in spite of the fact that Hannity and Ingraham are still on) that Fox is really a gatekeeper faux opposition voice.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

BWAHAHAHAHA dershowitz is a die hard conservative talking head!?!?!? He is a flaming lib, or at least he was, until you guys lost all your marbles and started yelling incoherent gibberish, abandoning all of your professed "principles."

a reply to: RadioRobert

The senate also has the right to arrange their own schedule. So yeah, they do have the right to refuse to vote on it.

People who see a different reality often are the ones who make the most social change.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
I think you and Alan Dershowitz might be in the Twilight Zone.
You are seeing a different reality than most people.

Not everyone on Fox sides with Trump, contrary to rumors.
Alan Dershowitz is a liberal Harvard professor.