More than 40 potential sources have not been contacted by the FBI in Kavanaugh investigation

No it is unsubstantiated and refuted testimony. She could have said she could fly. That is not evidence that she can fly.

 

It is evidence that she said she could fly.

 

Bob you posted this:

What evidence were you referring to?

 

Indeed she did not. She made accusations, but provided neither testimony to what happened, nor provided anything in the way of evidence. And as has been said previously, accusations are not evidence and can never be considered as being evidence.

 

That is, unequivocally, what is being stated, in absolute terms. The accusations and so-called "testimony" of Ford is not evidence, and never can be considered or treated as being evidence.

 

It does not matter if her accusation was made under oath, it is still not evidence.

 

I don't 'get it.' Let's assume I steal your car. I sit in the witness box and I say under oath that I saw you steal my car. Is that not evidence (not compelling) or not?

 

I reckon you have no idea. If a forensic scientist sits in a witness bix and says that your DNA was found at the crime scene, is that not evidence that, in his expert opinion, your DNA was at the crime scene

 

Let us see if this matter is actually being understood.

In the hypothetical scenario constructed and being presented on the part of yourself, with yourself admitting to engaging in grand theft auto for the sake of the scenario, are now sitting in the witness box and claiming that it was in actuality yourself who was the victim of grand theft auto, being committed by the actual owner of the motor vehicle.

Is that what is ultimately being described in the above?

 

Such is no longer the case, as it has been proven that DNA evidence can indeed be faked.

https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2015/02/dna-evidence-can-be-faked

In a recent story in The New York Times, Andrew Pollack reports that "scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.


"The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person."


“You can just engineer a crime scene,” Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics, told the Times. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”

There is also the FBI admitting to severe flaws in existing examination techniques, that cast further doubt on the legitimacy of forensic analysis. The so-called "experts" provided false testimony in the majority of examined cases to favor the prosecution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1120f229a723

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.


The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.

Testimony and accusations are not evidence. It is truly as simple as that.

 

Man, you all need to make up your mind. You loved some FBI until you lost a supreme court seat, and now you hate some FBI.

 

Deleted. Wrong thread.

 

What does it matter?
Everything that could be corroborated, she forgot.
How Hillary of her

 

No, you just said it made it more likely that he did it, which is silly

 

Nice straw man. Okay, I'll play; the oath doesn't say that.

Now, what part of the oath says they should be impartial and not make threats against perceived political enemies? Here, let me help you:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

 

The DNA is the evidence, his testimony confirms the evidence. You need to take that "lawyer" thingy off your user name you ain't got one legal matter correct yet.

 

The false accusation against him is not part of his duty.

 

It remains an allegation. What evidence supported the allegation?

 

Someone did that?

 

And, he was not rendering opinion on a case brought before a court over which he presided

 

It's not. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are sure barriers against Fascism and Socialism.

‘Chilling message’: Hong Kong refuses to explain FT journalist visa denial.

The unprecedented denial of a visa to a Financial Times journalist “sends a chilling message to everyone in Hong Kong,” the paper said Sunday, as press groups and politicians in the city continued to denounce the move.

Asia news editor Victor Mallet was informed Friday that his visa renewal — usually a procedural matter — had been refused, weeks after he hosted a controversial pro-independence activist in his role as vice president of the city’s Foreign Correspondent’s Club (FCC).

“No criticism has been offered of his work as a journalist,” the FT editorial board said. “In the absence of any proper explanation for the decision, it is therefore hard to resist the conclusion that it amounts to retribution for his role as (FCC vice president).”

A huge amount of pressure was applied to the FCC by both the Hong Kong and Chinese governments to cancel the talk by Andy Chan, founder of the Hong Kong National Party in August.

The Hong Kong National Party has since been banned — itself an unprecedented move — though it was completely legal at the time of his speech.

Over the last couple of days we’ve had an (allegedly) murdered Saudi journalist at a Saudi consulate in Turkey, a murdered Bulgarian journalist in Europe, and now this.​

It’s almost as though the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands anywhere else.

 

Yes, I just love how Margot was asked what should have been an easy answer for her, which was to simply describe how fascism is RW, and how she thinks that the Republican party in the United States conform to fascism....She instead predictably chose to deflect, attack me, and then ignore the question all together....That's a hack move, and she can be proud that now she owns that, and the rest of the board saw it....

 

Right is just a direction. In some societies, the Right are Monarchists. In our society they are Constitutionalists. Those that claim both are the same are essentially arguing that Monarchists are the same as Constitutionalists which of course, is the height of nonsense.

 

When you have something you can show that brings his impartiality into question, then you can of course make your case....Right now, you have nothing.

 

No doubt the Alt-Right can't see it, but I think most Americans can. He's biased, hateful and impartial. The only thing he forgot at the end of his conspiracy theory rant was to say "What goes around comes around, muthafucka!" and then stand up and drop his mike.

Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated, the Democratic Senate leader said he would “oppose me with everything he’s got.” A Democratic senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil. Evil. Think about that word. And said that those that supported me were “complicit and evil.” Another Democratic senator on this committee said, “Judge Kavanaugh is your worst nightmare.” A former head of the Democratic National Committee said, “Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.”

I understand the passions of the moment. But I would say to those senators: Your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listened carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat against my family? To send any violent email to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me, and against my friends, to blow me up and take me down.

You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwinds. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. But at least it was just a good old-fashioned attempt at Borking. Those efforts didn’t work.

When I did at least O.K. enough at the hearings that it looks like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn’t take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford’s wishes.

And then, and then, as no doubt was expected, if not planned, came a long series of false last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred. Crazy stuff. Gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island. All nonsense. Reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media. This has destroyed my family and my good name. A good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government.

This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade confident and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around.