wannaggie said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

You're incorrect. There are at least three witnesses in this case. Two witnesses are saying it didn't happen, one witness is saying it did. The woman making the allegations is a witness. In fact some police departments specifically refer to the victims of assault/theft/rape as "the Complaining Witness".

---

So there are no witnesses saying that it happened, got it

DevilD77 said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

An accusation is not evidence without something to corroborate it.

If something like this went to trail, and the only thing the prosecution had was the accuser, it would be laughed out of court so fast and with prejudice.

---

You're simply incorrect about this point. Testimony is evidence in every court in America.

For example, the overwhelming majority of Assault-Family Violence incidents occur behind closed doors with no witnesses, and may not be reported for several days until the victim is persuaded by friends/family to report. There may not be any significant bruising/marks or any other physical evidence.

Theft of Property is another example. An employee at Dollar General calls the police to report that someone grabbed a bunch of merchandise and ran out the door. Police take the statement, fill out the paperwork. Next week they pick up someone on a drug possession charge, and one of the arresting cops notices the arrestee matches the general description of the Theft case. They do a photo lineup with the Dollar General clerk, the clerk points and says, "Yeah, this one, this is the woman who stole from our store last week". The person's face wasn't visible on cameras, and none of the stolen merchandise is ever found. But the store clerk's testimony IS evidence and that kind of case WILL be referred to the DA to seek an indictment,

Also, less than 5% of indictments ever get to a trial. Prosecutors use the indictment as leverage to get a plea deal so they can move on to the other 400 cases on their docket.

---

Does it happen 35 years later though?

---

Oh I absolutely agree that this particular accusation and its timing sound like an example of politically-driven character assassination. But the testimony of one witness does still count as evidence before the Grand Jury or at trial. And if that one witness is perceived as credible by the jurors (who may be subject to internal biases for various reasons), then it's pretty common for them vote to indict/convict based on testimony.

All the fictional cop/forensics TV shows have given people a strongly overinflated expectation of how crimes are investigated and prosecuted. Nobody waits around for their army of autistic genius technogeeks in the crime lab basement to hand-code a tailored image search algorithm to hunt through hundreds of hours of video footage pieced together from 20 businesses in the area and enhance a reflection of the suspect's face off the hood of a freshly waxed car and then cross-reference it with their pattern of past visits to fast food places at that time of day.

---

But she is not a witness. She is the complainant. So it comes back to he said/she said with the only witness being on the side of the defense.

---

Ask a police officer or prosecutor. She is "the complaining witness".

wannaggie said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

You're incorrect. There are at least three witnesses in this case. Two witnesses are saying it didn't happen, one witness is saying it did. The woman making the allegations is a witness. In fact some police departments specifically refer to the victims of assault/theft/rape as "the Complaining Witness".

---

So what's your theory on why she scrubbed her social media history recently?

rgag12 said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

You're incorrect. There are at least three witnesses in this case. Two witnesses are saying it didn't happen, one witness is saying it did. The woman making the allegations is a witness. In fact some police departments specifically refer to the victims of assault/theft/rape as "the Complaining Witness".

---

So there are no witnesses saying that it happened, got it

---

You're incorrect. She is a witness.

i don't think you are reading his explanation.

What would be the Hail Mary call if Trump had nominated a female?

aginlakeway said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

You're incorrect. There are at least three witnesses in this case. Two witnesses are saying it didn't happen, one witness is saying it did. The woman making the allegations is a witness. In fact some police departments specifically refer to the victims of assault/theft/rape as "the Complaining Witness".

---

So what's your theory on why she scrubbed her social media history recently?

---

What does that have to do with the two mistakes in this thread I'm correcting?
1) She is a witness. Every victim of a crime is a witness to their own crime.
2) Witness testimony is evidence and is presented as such to Grand Juries and at trial.

She is a witness making a complaint about something 35 years ago. She has no physical evidence, and the two other alleged witnesses claim it never happened. She also claims there are two other people who may have knowledge of events surrounding this complaint. It would be nice if she identified those two people.

Has Brett Kavanaugh been formally accused of a crime here? Do we need to have a trial, or is this just a bull**** tactic to foul up the process?

wannaggie said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

You're incorrect. There are at least three witnesses in this case. Two witnesses are saying it didn't happen, one witness is saying it did. The woman making the allegations is a witness. In fact some police departments specifically refer to the victims of assault/theft/rape as "the Complaining Witness".

---

So there are no witnesses saying that it happened, got it

---

You're incorrect. She is a witness.

---

Can you really be a witness to something you obviously made up?

wannaggie said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

You're incorrect. There are at least three witnesses in this case. Two witnesses are saying it didn't happen, one witness is saying it did. The woman making the allegations is a witness. In fact some police departments specifically refer to the victims of assault/theft/rape as "the Complaining Witness".

---

So what's your theory on why she scrubbed her social media history recently?

---

What does that have to do with the two mistakes in this thread I'm correcting?
1) She is a witness. Every victim of a crime is a witness to their own crime.
2) Witness testimony is evidence and is presented as such to Grand Juries and at trial.

---

I was simply asking you a question.

What's your theory on why she scrubbed her social media history recently?

i get this has worked you guys up but you need to read his posts. he is making no claims of the credibility of this lady as a witness. only that she is a witness by definition.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

'The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

You're incorrect. There are at least three witnesses in this case. Two witnesses are saying it didn't happen, one witness is saying it did. The woman making the allegations is a witness. In fact some police departments specifically refer to the victims of assault/theft/rape as "the Complaining Witness".

---

So there are no witnesses saying that it happened, got it

---

You're incorrect. She is a witness.

---

Can you really be a witness to something you obviously made up?

---

Can you witness a lie? How does that work?

She can't name those people because she conveniently can't remember who they are...

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

You're incorrect. There are at least three witnesses in this case. Two witnesses are saying it didn't happen, one witness is saying it did. The woman making the allegations is a witness. In fact some police departments specifically refer to the victims of assault/theft/rape as "the Complaining Witness".

---

So there are no witnesses saying that it happened, got it

---

You're incorrect. She is a witness.

---

Can you really be a witness to something you obviously made up?

---

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought since this was a potential legal situation we were discussing legal terms like "witness" and "evidence".

Because in legal terms, yes, anyone who offers testimony to having seen a crime is a witness. and testimony is evidence. Now, the GJ and the trial jury have the chance to examine the evidence, including testimony of witnesses, and decide for themselves if those pieces of evidence are sufficient to meet Probable Cause for indictment or Beyond Reasonable Doubt for conviction.

This is no different than a jury watching surveillance camera footage of a crime, and then deciding that the video is too grainy for it to be considered reliable evidence that the person on the video is the same as the Defendant.

All evidence is presented. It's up to the jurors to decide something is made up and then vote accordingly. That doesn't make the evidence not Evidence. It just makes it crappy unreliable evidence.

aginlakeway said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

You're incorrect. There are at least three witnesses in this case. Two witnesses are saying it didn't happen, one witness is saying it did. The woman making the allegations is a witness. In fact some police departments specifically refer to the victims of assault/theft/rape as "the Complaining Witness".

---

So what's your theory on why she scrubbed her social media history recently?

---

What does that have to do with the two mistakes in this thread I'm correcting?
1) She is a witness. Every victim of a crime is a witness to their own crime.
2) Witness testimony is evidence and is presented as such to Grand Juries and at trial.

---

I was simply asking you a question.

What's your theory on why she scrubbed her social media history recently?

---

1) I don't know anything about her social media history, so I can't speak to what you're asking, specifically.
2) However, I don't know that I need a "theory" to answer a question of why someone who is potentially about to become a public figure would want to edit their public image. Vanity, credibility, protection, trying to control others' perception of you. This is pretty basic human psychology.

deddog said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

What would be the Hail Mary call if Trump had nominated a female?

---

She used the 'n' word
In high school.
40 years ago.
(While reading Tom Sawyer)

---

Forty years from now it will be because she wouldn't date a Trans.

bmks270 said:

---

What would be the Hail Mary call if Trump had nominated a female?

---

Seems pretty evident to me that, if Coney-Barrett was the nominee, her Catholic faith would've been the big issue for the usual lib suspects, and use it as a bludgeon to beat her over the head with, since clearly her being a Catholic means she would work to overturn Roe and Casey.

Feinstein (oh look, what do you know...) already suggested as much during her appointment to the court of appeals.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

What would be the Hail Mary call if Trump had nominated a female?

---

Seems pretty evident to me that, if Coney-Barrett was the nominee, her Catholic faith would've been the big issue for the usual lib suspects, and use it as a bludgeon to beat her over the head with, since clearly her being a Catholic means she would work to overturn Roe and Casey.

Feinstein (oh look, what do you know...) already suggested as much during her appointment to the court of appeals.

---

Isn't Pelosi Catholic?

Squadron7 said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

What would be the Hail Mary call if Trump had nominated a female?

---

Seems pretty evident to me that, if Coney-Barrett was the nominee, her Catholic faith would've been the big issue for the usual lib suspects, and use it as a bludgeon to beat her over the head with, since clearly her being a Catholic means she would work to overturn Roe and Casey.

Feinstein (oh look, what do you know...) already suggested as much during her appointment to the court of appeals.

---

Isn't Pelosi Catholic?

---

In name only.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems roll out even more "evidence" over the next few days n order to try to delay the nomination. I'd bet $100 some witness all of a sudden comes forward with a possible recollection of being at that party.

I don't even think they'll care if the "evidence" is true or not. Just anything to delay the senate confirmation vote.

aggiehawg said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Isn't Pelosi Catholic?

---

In name only.

---

So about as Episcopalian as Trump.

Burdizzo said:

---

Has Brett Kavanaugh been formally accused of a crime here? Do we need to have a trial, or is this just a bull**** tactic to foul up the process?

---

Accused? Yes. Charged? No, and he won't ever be (at least not for this "crime")

This whole "guilty until proven innocent" bull**** has got to stop. Trial by social media has become so commonplace that's it's ****ing up the country.

aggiehawg said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

What would be the Hail Mary call if Trump had nominated a female?

---

Seems pretty evident to me that, if Coney-Barrett was the nominee, her Catholic faith would've been the big issue for the usual lib suspects, and use it as a bludgeon to beat her over the head with, since clearly her being a Catholic means she would work to overturn Roe and Casey.

Feinstein (oh look, what do you know...) already suggested as much during her appointment to the court of appeals.

---

Isn't Pelosi Catholic?

---

In name only.

---

I'm pretty sure she'd catch fire if she stepped within 500 feet of a church.

blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Isn't Pelosi Catholic?

---

In name only.

---

I'm pretty sure she'd catch fire if she stepped within 500 feet of a church.

---

And then melt when you doused her with water to quell the flames.

Prosperdick said:

---

And just watch, the MSM will not report any of this PLUS as a bonus they likely won't mention or completely gloss over that he was 17.

It's very similar to the tactic they used with Manafort...they rarely mentioned the crimes were committed during the Bush administration but you damn sure knew he was Trump's campaign manager.

Here's a wager you can make with your lib friends who find her credible...$1000 that you can't randomly draw 10 registered Democrat names out of her home state and find one that contributed to Hillary's campaign more than 16 times nor attended the vagina hat rally.

---

For grins I checked CNN and it wasn't until the TENTH paragraph that stated the time frame in which this supposedly occurred. I'm kinda shocked they mentioned it at all.

captkirk said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned....

---

64 - Damn

---

STOP THE **** SHAMING!!!!

The lie does not even break the threshold of being any actual crime.

captkirk said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned....

---

64 - Damn

---

In a row?

annie88 said:

---

---

I'm pretty sure Salmon P. Chase witnessed it. We'll need a seance to get his testimony about it.