*No. A claim destroying a man's reputation does not magically turn it into a legal matter.*
So how in our system do you think we handle accusations of crimes or criminal behavior?
What do we give a persons for their ability to address accusations of serious crimes?
So far the only thing you are claiming is "listen and if it sounds true to you, believe", but maybe this isn't what you are saying, i could be wrong.
What does this do for a innocent people or at least people not found guilty? They can lose there job, big deal right? Well, that's not all, they can lose there ability to get further jobs, and anyone in society that knows about this case can hound or shun said person (and whole family can be troubled). All from accusations, not proof. So we take these things to court in an attempt to prove innocence or guilt. And well it wasn't in count, that's what happened with the last FBI investigation allowing him to become a new Justice, this will not change.

I understand your worry the precedent this sets if what happened to Ford to be true (even tho i disagree). But the precedent you are asking for is FAR greater then you are worried about and will damage our system even further. As people will start to lose faith in the process of appointing Justices to the Supreme Court if all it takes is mere accusations (without evidence).
I can only hope you rethink this stance you have taken.

Ok. That is long. Lol

A couple of points. The guy is so bent on what precedent it sets. He doesn’t realize what not nominating Bret does: it sets the precedent that unsubstantiated allegations automatically invalidates someone for office. In that case, Hillary shouldn’t have fun for president. He can’t remain consistent with that logic if he doesn’t agree with that point. The result of this precedent is that allegations can become politically weaponized to invalidate potential candidates. (Like it was done to Bret)

On Bret, he pretty much assumes he’s guilty. What’s his standard of evidence there? Why should we believe ford when she can’t remember anything else and nobody corroborated her allegation? The reason why it became a trial is because this was the basis for whether or not Bret should be nominated. You can’t change the rules of the game to get what you want. Seriously, if it’s a job interview why have an fbi investigation? That pretty much defeats his point there. Also, if the logic is ‘I don’t want a potential sexual harasser on the Supreme Court’ how does it suddenly become ok for one to be a federal judge?

Well, the only reason i didn't link the "job" interview part with the fbi investigations (even tho its wrong to view it merely as that), is because that's normal when seeking these high positions.

Well yeah, but this investigation happened specifically to address this claim.

The last one yes.

Right. The other, like 5 or something, background checks weren’t good enough to the left.

Don’t give them any ground in a debate. This final investigation was specifically to vet fords claim. That renders the whole job interview point moot.

I can give some ground that it is a job interview, because it partly is. Where they are wrong, is that its merely that, as accusations of crimes or criminal behavior bring legal recourse.

Ok. I’d definitely make the point that his logic invalidates Hillary from the presidency.

I’m saying the investigation renders the point moot because it pretty much was a trial.

I don't know much about this person, so i don't know if he is a "Devil lady" woops i mean Hillary guy.

If he’s a Hillary supporter it makes the inconsistency in his logic stand out.

I don't really need to even go there, if he does not care about how are system works (or is meant to work).
That's the only problem i need to talk about.

Ok.

anyone watch Justicar? (he makes less videos now, but talked about this).

No. I don’t know who that is

Not many people who know him, want to be on the wrong side of what Justicar is talking about.... heh

@Shadows that’s pretty cryptic.

What is, i just mean if you are on the other side of an argument he is making, which he chooses to speak about. There is a very good chance you are wrong.

@Salacious Swanky Cat the ironic thing is that the FBI “investigation” amounted to less than what the JC hearing was, since it was literally nothing more than a background check

FBI didn’t have subpoena power in that instance; JC did

If people really wanted to get those therapy notes out, Booker et. al would have subpoenaed the WaPo and/or Ford’s therapist for them

Just as an example

Since they were persistent that the notes and polygraph were “corroboration” as it were

Sweet Jesus

Ben Shapiro’s reaction to Lieawatha’s DNA test just made my day

Oh no, I am exiled to Twitter gulag for saying the thought crime.

<@375462051939876876> which one mate?

Far too many to even list now, need to be specific har har

@Deleted User we all know that the dems don’t want the truth.

I called someone a fucking retard for claiming that Ford accused Kavanaugh of attempted rape after I'd already pointed out to that very same person that what he was actually accused of was a misdemeanor.

Apparently someone reported me for it, because now I can't reply for a week.

I personally want to create a Twitter account with the sole intention of getting banned for life. Lol

What you haven't had that happen to you yet?

I’ve never had a Twitter...

its a great way to keep up on news

Fair enough, considering these days most “journalists” just go on Twitter for their scoops...

thats were you can hear stories....rumors first and its a little less rage inducing to keep up what the "other side" however you want to define that is talking about or stories they are following.....Its wrong to just dismiss then since they will report and follow stories others won't

Fair enough mate

... Probably still won’t get one

not for everyone. If you want to stay on you have to hold your tweets