White House Finds No Corroboration of Sexual Misconduct Allegations Against Kavanaugh in FBI Report

a reply to: Bloodworth

Yes. IMO America just won bigly

There is no question our Constitution is safer with Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch than it was before.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

You people legitimately disgust me.
Her story doesn't need to be corroborated, you twits. That's not how these things work. Corroboration of a story isn't a necessity in proving its credibility, even in a criminal case with a much higher burden of proof. I know you uninformed clowns keep parroting this inaccurate nonsense, but it doesnt matter if anybody corroborates her story.
If you get attacked or mugged one night by yourself and pick the perp out of a lineup, do the police say "it only counts if somebody else can corroborate your story" and let them go? No. No, because that is stupid, and only stupid people would think that.

a reply to: Maroboduus

Mitchell Memo

2 In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

a reply to: Maroboduus

AND, as I said: that's in a criminal case, with a much more strict burden of proof. This isn't a criminal case. A nomination hearing doesnt have a burden of proof. It's basically a job interview: they can deny someone if they dont like their freaking haircut.
You uninformed MAGA clowns keep talking about this case like the Democrats have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that this truly happened, and that isn't even remotely close to being true. They have shown the allegations to be credible. Even your Fox News friends admitted that her testimony was credible. That, and his testimony that showed he is utterly incapable of being unbiased, should be more than enough to disqualify. (And that's before we even get to the fact that most of the evidence implies that he did indeed commit sexual assault)

originally posted by: Maroboduus

If you get attacked or mugged one night by yourself and pick the perp out of a lineup, do the police say "it only counts if somebody else can corroborate your story" and let them go? No. No, because that is stupid, and only stupid people would think that.

What are you talking about...

So I go to the police and say you mugged me, they pick you up and put you in a lineup and I say yep there is Maroboduus.... I guess you are going to jail...

I think we can say she already identified him so no lineup is needed, after that they need to prove the case. In our case the cops ask me if you took anything, and I say no, are there witnesses and I say 4, but all four say never happened, cops ask when when and where this happened and I say I don't know....

The cops then tell me to get the hell out and stop wasting their time.

originally posted by: Maroboduus
They have shown the allegations to be credible.

What made her credible?

That, and his testimony that showed he is utterly incapable of being unbiased, should be more than enough to disqualify. (And that's before we even get to the fact that most of the evidence implies that he did indeed commit sexual assault)

There is ZERO evidence of any kind and everything she has talked about is starting to look like collusion was driving her narrative, including her so called lie test and even therapy...

Dems gonna lose their bowel functions when Kavanaugh gets in.

a reply to: Maroboduus

Just practice saying SCOTUS Kavanaugh.

a reply to: Maroboduus

The latest FBI report actually has some proof of a Democrat criminal conspiracy against Kavanaugh.

Proof that was already uncovered by the several dozen Committee investigations that are not public (yet).

Watch for big bombshells incoming in a few weeks as the indictments get secured.

a reply to: Maroboduus

Come Fly With Me

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Agit8dChop
I know you uninformed clowns keep parroting this inaccurate nonsense, but it doesnt matter if anybody corroborates her story.

Well, yes.. it does.

As soon as Ford named names of people present at the party - they became a factor.

All of them having no memory of that party of such an event taking place is evidence.

Ford and her lawyers put forward a polygraph of proof of her claims, yet refuse to produce it.

Fords own story has changed a couple of times and she is unable to provide anything as proof of her accusations.

that all amounts to a logical conclusion that she has not proven her allegations and therefore he cannot be charged.

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Agit8dChop

You people legitimately disgust me.
Her story doesn't need to be corroborated, you twits. That's not how these things work. Corroboration of a story isn't a necessity in proving its credibility, even in a criminal case with a much higher burden of proof. I know you uninformed clowns keep parroting this inaccurate nonsense, but it doesnt matter if anybody corroborates her story.
If you get attacked or mugged one night by yourself and pick the perp out of a lineup, do the police say "it only counts if somebody else can corroborate your story" and let them go? No. No, because that is stupid, and only stupid people would think that.

Well let’s put this into perspective she never said a damn thing about these allegations until he was nominated, and he was in the public light so it’s not like he came out of nowhere and she realized that was the guy. Now in your scenario it would be very different if you didn’t make any accusations until say 18 months later (pretty generous compared to 30 years) of course your burden of proof is going to be higher because you had no reason to wait to report the crime and try to go after the person. If she was concerned about the law and not just torpoedoing the man she would have come forward literally ANY other time...

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Agit8dChop

You people legitimately disgust me.
Her story doesn't need to be corroborated, you twits. That's not how these things work. Corroboration of a story isn't a necessity in proving its credibility, even in a criminal case with a much higher burden of proof. I know you uninformed clowns keep parroting this inaccurate nonsense, but it doesnt matter if anybody corroborates her story.
If you get attacked or mugged one night by yourself and pick the perp out of a lineup, do the police say "it only counts if somebody else can corroborate your story" and let them go? No. No, because that is stupid, and only stupid people would think that.

Ok coororobation doesn't matter.
What about the FBI investigation?

He went through the motions and was found innocent.

Respect the process and the outcome

You cannot demand someone's guilt after they went through a process that proved their innocence
That's stupid.


What did it for me was when connie chung chimed in with her abuse story. she wrote she remembered everything in detail and it was a very long time ago.

Most remember something like that very well.