Kavanaugh Debacle

[Jennie-Mae]

Oh of course ....... forgeries are not present or found case law...smh

Read what I wrote. You have a tendency of leaving out what doesn’t go along with your agenda.

We usually don’t take our political differences to court, unless your name is Al Gore. Is it?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I don’t think anybody here is in a position to be talking about ad hominem attacks or derogatory terms. That includes you as well.

In case you didn’t notice, I have said that both would have been investigated. If she’s the one lying, she’s the one going down.

Why are you turning a blind eye to what I’m saying, and then be debating what your blind eye has seen? Sounds like a big old straw man to me😄.

I said you were headed in the direction of ad hominem attacks..I did not say you were already underway

actually I didn't notice where you said both should be investigated...I would love for Ford to undergo SEVEN...hey I'd settle for one good one...FBI investigations

I'm not turning a blind eye to what you are saying

you ignore most of what I post regarding the lies Ford has manufactured and the political posturing for the wanna run for prez in 2020 gang. you just totally do not even respond other then to keep repeating Ford hasn't lied...that's what I get out of your posts and also that SEVEN investigations for Kavanaugh is not enough

I can't help you, actually no one can, if you keep doing that sort of thing. it makes honest conversation impossible

and by the way, telling me I have a blind eye is a personal jab and you are good at them in a sneaky kind of way and you can consider that remark personal from me

there are no straw men ... it's just you saying there are.

you are not ever going to actually embrace what is true it appears.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Well, I’ll credit you for your creativity😀, but like you said, nobody’s on trial, we’re just a bunch of folks bringing our biases to town😄.

how about Booker?

almost the same age only he actually did what he tries to say Kavanaugh did

you just pass right over that as well

not very honest of you and it seems the blind eye may well be yours

 

[Jennie-Mae]

I said you were headed in the direction of ad hominem attacks..I did not say you were already underway

actually I didn't notice where you said both should be investigated...I would love for Ford to undergo SEVEN...hey I'd settle for one good one...FBI investigations

I'm not turning a blind eye to what you are saying

you ignore most of what I post regarding the lies Ford has manufactured and the political posturing for the wanna run for prez in 2020 gang. you just totally do not even respond other then to keep repeating Ford hasn't lied...that's what I get out of your posts and also that SEVEN investigations for Kavanaugh is not enough

I can't help you, actually no one can, if you keep doing that sort of thing. it makes honest conversation impossible

and by the way, telling me I have a blind eye is a personal jab and you are good at them in a sneaky kind of way and you can consider that remark personal from me

there are no straw men ... it's just you saying there are.

you are not ever going to actually embrace what is true it appears.

You’re talking about personal jabs?

You’re talking about honest conversations?

You’re talking about ignoring posts?

I’m saying Fords not lying?

Well, you’re at least good at one thing, you know how to make up look like down, and white look like black.

You’d make a good criminal defense lawyer.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

You’re talking about personal jabs?

You’re talking about honest conversations?

You’re talking about ignoring posts?

I’m saying Fords not lying?

Well, you’re at least good at one thing, you know how to make up look like down, and white look like black.

You’d make a good criminal defense lawyer.

what I actually said, was that you do not respond to what I write concerning the actual facts

and you are really flying off the handle on this one

so tired of your little speeches that say nothing, do not address posts and attempt to turn the table

it's really old and you have done that consistently throughout the thread

and how about Booker? wouldn't you like to prosecute him in your personal court?

 

[Jennie-Mae]

what I actually said, was that you do not respond to what I write concerning the actual facts

and you are really flying off the handle on this one

so tired of your little speeches that say nothing, do not address posts and attempt to turn the table

it's really old and you have done that consistently throughout the thread

and how about Booker? wouldn't you like to prosecute him in your personal court?

I’m tired of this too, so let’s call it a day.

 

[UnderGrace]

I’m tired of this too, so let’s call it a day.

Yes lets, since you are talking about the circus of the popular feminist mob court and the rest of us are
talking about the facts and the basic principles of law and never the twain shall meet.

oh and btw…Gore went to court over voter fraud not forgeries.

 

[PennEd]

Well, but due process and basic legal rights applies to both Mr Kavanaugh and Mrs Ford.

You have failed to give her those rights solely on the grounds of sympathizing with Mr Kavanaugh. That’s not due process in my book.

Now, let me tell you something, I prefer Mr Kavanaugh over some liberal, left leaning, soft on crime, pro choice candidate that might could have been appointed after the midterm.

This case, however, is not about who is the preferred judge, it’s about whether our processes are sound.

This case has shown that the country is divided along the party lines, and for political reasons, both parties are ready to commit all kinds of forgery to achieve their goals.

Are you fibbing about being a prosecutor? 1st off no one is on trial here. Second off it is the ACCUSED that have legal rights NOT the ACCUSER.

Maybe you should refresh your knowledge of the 6th Amendment.

Since court cases are public record, would you mind telling us what cases you have prosecuted?

 

[UnderGrace]

Are you fibbing about being a prosecutor? 1st off no one is on trial here. Second off it is the ACCUSED that have legal rights NOT the ACCUSER.

Maybe you should refresh your knowledge of the 6th Amendment.

Since court cases are public record, would you mind telling us what cases you have prosecuted?

Something very strange in the state of Denmark, I know lawyers and well what can I say....

 

[UnderGrace]

Are you fibbing about being a prosecutor? 1st off no one is on trial here. Second off it is the ACCUSED that have legal rights NOT the ACCUSER.

Maybe you should refresh your knowledge of the 6th Amendment.

Since court cases are public record, would you mind telling us what cases you have prosecuted?

Thank you PennEd,

I have just been completely baffled,

Really basic legal knowledge .... non existent.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

Are you fibbing about being a prosecutor? 1st off no one is on trial here. Second off it is the ACCUSED that have legal rights NOT the ACCUSER.

Maybe you should refresh your knowledge of the 6th Amendment.

Since court cases are public record, would you mind telling us what cases you have prosecuted?

The problem is that you are limiting your understanding of this to a question about the defendants rights.

The legal process is not just about the defendant. Yes, the defendant has certain rights in order to establish a defense in accordance with his constitutional rights and his rights according to state law, or federal law be it a federal offense.

The main purpose of the process, however, is to make sure that criminals are convicted of their crimes. The defendants are given their fundamental rights, but our legal system is not just based on the criminals legal rights. Never has, never will.

I haven said anybody’s on trial. Why you keep bringing that up?

You know, Penned, in my office there’s this box. it’s got a lock on it, inside it is all the death threats, rape threats and all sorts of threats I have received the last years for doing my job. I say to myself that by locking them in I can control them. But of course, that’s just nonsense, they’re still there.

My car has been damaged, I’ve had a dead cat on my doorstep, my kids have been mentioned by “them”, nobody knows where we live now.

So I’m sorry but I won’t tell you my name or give you my court cases.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

Thank you PennEd,

I have just been completely baffled,

Really basic legal knowledge .... non existent.

The problem is that you don’t recognize legal knowledge.

You have an idea of what it is and that’s the answer to you.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

Yes lets, since you are talking about the circus of the popular feminist mob court and the rest of us are
talking about the facts and the basic principles of law and never the twain shall meet.

oh and btw…Gore went to court over voter fraud not forgeries.

You are talking about what you are saying are facts. That doesn’t necessarily make it a fact.

This is often a problem. People are just camouflaging their opinions facts and expect everybody to accept their facts.

People like that don’t see the need of an investigation because they “know the facts”.

We’ve had a little bit of that in this thread. People that “know”.

Ask your lawyer friends about this😉.

 

[Blanche]

You should be ashamed of yourself for speaking like that to me.

Jennie-Mae: Absolutely. It is completely out of line. Glad you called him on it.

 

[UnderGrace]

The problem is that you don’t recognize legal knowledge.

You have an idea of what it is and that’s the answer to you.

I have yet to read anything you have posted that approaches legal knowledge, a lawyer would know what is involved in a FBI investigation, a lawyer would know there is no forensic evidence that is just laughable to suggest, a lawyer would know the difference between forgery and fraud, a lawyer would also know that there needs to be corroboration, as well lawyers are by the nature of their training detailed orientated so one would absolutely see the inconsistencies and omissions in Ford's testimony, a lawyer who has practiced both sides of the aisle would be disturbed at your rhetoric which comes dangerously close to the abandonment of the civil rights of the accused

You were right though there is nothing more to say.
Ignore

 

[Jennie-Mae]

I have yet to read anything you have posted that approaches legal knowledge, a lawyer would know what is involved in a FBI investigation, a lawyer would know there is no forensic evidence that is just laughable to suggest, a lawyer would know the difference between forgery and fraud, a lawyer would also know that there needs to be corroboration, as well lawyers are by the nature of their training detailed orientated so one would absolutely see the inconsistencies and omissions in Ford's testimony, a lawyer who has practiced both sides of the aisle would be disturbed at your rhetoric which comes dangerously close to the abandonment of the civil rights of the accused

You were right though there is nothing more to say.
Ignore

Sprinkling the thread with legal terms doesn’t make you an expert on the law.

As a prosecutor I am well aware of that investigations are not flawless. Hastily done investigations even more.

You’re attacking numerous straw men in your posts.

I have never suggested that there are forensic evidence in this “case”.

I take it you haven’t interrogated Mrs Ford yourself. Yet you know she’s lying. What’s worse, you’re assuming that a lawyer would see inconsistencies that you, to put it quite literally, have been reading about in media that aren’t necessarily non biased related to the Honorable Mr Kavanaugh. Not even the FBI report is even suggesting that she’s lying. And how could it? They didn’t even bother to interview Ford nor Kavanaugh.

Yet you are convinced she’s lying. In a court of law you’re stance on this would be the equivalent of malpractice. I really hope you have nothing to do with practicing law.

Would you be so kind to repeat what you said about the defendants rights, while you’re simultaneously are denying the the alleged victim her rights?

I’m using the term “alleged” because I can’t know what is the truth here. But I would for sure opened an investigation to find out.

 

[PennEd]

The problem is that you are limiting your understanding of this to a question about the defendants rights.

The legal process is not just about the defendant. Yes, the defendant has certain rights in order to establish a defense in accordance with his constitutional rights and his rights according to state law, or federal law be it a federal offense.

The main purpose of the process, however, is to make sure that criminals are convicted of their crimes. The defendants are given their fundamental rights, but our legal system is not just based on the criminals legal rights. Never has, never will.

I haven said anybody’s on trial. Why you keep bringing that up?

You know, Penned, in my office there’s this box. it’s got a lock on it, inside it is all the death threats, rape threats and all sorts of threats I have received the last years for doing my job. I say to myself that by locking them in I can control them. But of course, that’s just nonsense, they’re still there.

My car has been damaged, I’ve had a dead cat on my doorstep, my kids have been mentioned by “them”, nobody knows where we live now.

So I’m sorry but I won’t tell you my name or give you my court cases.

Yeah... Sorry Jennie. this whole post just makes me wonder more about the veracity that you are a prosecutor.

Maybe you just work in a law office?

 

[Jennie-Mae]

Yeah... Sorry Jennie. this whole post just makes me wonder more about the veracity that you are a prosecutor.

Maybe you just work in a law office?

Lol, well, sorry for saying this, I’m not trying to be rude or anything, but your posts are filled with a self confidence on the law that you only can find in a layman’s approach to the law.

Why is it that so many laymen are convinced that they know that much about the law, and the process, that they are willing to display their ignorance on the matter for everybody to see?

Can you tell me?🤨😄

 

[UnderGrace]

Lol, well, sorry for saying this, I’m not trying to be rude or anything, but your posts are filled with a self confidence on the law that you only can find in a layman’s approach to the law.

Why is it that so many laymen are convinced that they know that much about the law, and the process, that they are willing to display their ignorance on the matter for everybody to see?

Can you tell me?🤨😄

This is absolutely hilarious.

not just based on the criminals legal rights. Never has, never will.

The criminals are the people behind bars

Its okay we know.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

This is absolutely hilarious.



The criminals are the people behind bars

Its okay we know.

I think you’re quite good at being hilarious yourself😄.

Isn’t it about high time you just admit that you don’t have a clue?

It’s okay😄.