Is it Time to Change the Rule of Law in America?

[Billy_Bob]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.

Oh, BOO-FU@KIN' HOO!

The Democrats drug out some political activist liars who accused Kavanaugh of BULLSHIT.

They then declared Kavanaugh was 'GUILTY until proven innocent' and insisted "the burden of proof now falls on the accused' rather than on the accuser...trying to stack the deck so their latest conspiracy would be all but guaranteed to succeed.

The problem was the American people had seen this shit before, watched the despicable Liberals tear apart Cain with this bullshit. Instead of sit by and watch it happen this time they woke up and REJECTED it...as they damn-well should have.

And now, after being defeated and their strategy backfired, you and other Liberal Socialist snowflakes WANT TO HOLD A DISCUSSION TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO THE DESPICABLE IDEA THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE DECLARED 'GUILTY' OF ANYTHING JUST BASED OFF OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATION - NO EVIDENCE, NO WITNESSES?

F* THAT, AND F* YOU!

Part of the U.S. Government TARGETED A U.S. Citizen when they targeted Kavanaugh for 'destruction', just as much as it did when it targeted Conservatives in 2012 with the IRS.

U.S. Senators - Democrats - strategically targeted and tried to destroy a US citizen by publicly releasing an unsubstantiated rumor then declared him to be guilty despite having no evidence and no witnesses.

You want to change our system of justice to make THAT the new 'norm'?

You see how the Democrats demonized Kavanaugh ... did you see how the despicable Libs attempted to destroy his word, his reputation, his life's work, his future career, his family, his daughter, his marriage ... did you see how they went after his daughter in the media...without having any evidence of any crime...

...and because the 'Herman Cain'ing of Brett Kavanaugh failed because the American people completely rejected that process / version of liberal-dictated justice you feel we should have a 'talk' about how wrong the majority of Americans were to have rejected it and how we should embrace that liberal bullshit?

Because Feinstein and the pathetic Democrats pushing that bullshit strategy of 'The Politics of Personal Destruction' FAILED / were REJECTED, we should now talk about making putting every American through what Brett Kavanaugh and his family were just forced to go through the 'NEW NORM'?!

Again, F* That!

A accusation by a victim (A well renowned, well respected victim) is NOT rumor.

Without corroborating evidence it is garbage... You want to try again moron?

 

[miketx]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

Hey, let's hear for your wanting a Dictatorshiip.

I don't think that was his point. I think as a new mod, he's seeing who is who here.

 

[Skylar]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

 

[Skylar]

According to Ford it was attempted Rape and in Fear for her life.........

Go to Maryland..............File a complaint...........or shut the hell up.........

On the form for the complaint..........it requires WHEN and WHERE........

So if you turkeys really have something here.............Get on with it...........your boring me.

Attempted Rape was a misdemenor in Maryland until 1996. It had a one year statute of limitations. She couldn't file if she wanted to.

Again, presumption of innocence is for criminal trials. Which this wasn't. And Kavanaugh was facing an investigation. Not criminal penalty. While Trump and his supporters were calling for imprisonment for Hillary Clinton for a crime she's not even charged with.

I would settle for an IMPARTIAL investigation of Hillary

You got an impartial investigation. Trump supporters didn't like the outcome of the investigation. So they demanded that Hillary be imprisoned for crimes she wasn't even charged with.

Making their bleeting now regarding 'presumption of innocence' just empty nonsense.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I guess we should call your employer and tell them your a rapist then... Its only a job... and unless you can prove your not a rapist then you deserve to lose it... Hell lets even throw you out on the street because your a rapist and have no job...

Do you get how fucking stupid you are yet?

 

[Billy_Bob]

According to Ford it was attempted Rape and in Fear for her life.........

Go to Maryland..............File a complaint...........or shut the hell up.........

On the form for the complaint..........it requires WHEN and WHERE........

So if you turkeys really have something here.............Get on with it...........your boring me.

Attempted Rape was a misdemenor in Maryland until 1996. It had a one year statute of limitations. She couldn't file if she wanted to.

Again, presumption of innocence is for criminal trials. Which this wasn't. And Kavanaugh was facing an investigation. Not criminal penalty. While Trump and his supporters were calling for imprisonment for Hillary Clinton for a crime she's not even charged with.

I would settle for an IMPARTIAL investigation of Hillary

You got an impartial investigation. Trump supporters didn't like the outcome of the investigation. So they demanded that Hillary be imprisoned for crimes she wasn't even charged with.

Making their bleeting now regarding 'presumption of innocence' just empty nonsense.

The investigation that showed you have NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE TO ANYTHING? That investigation?

 

[Skylar]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I guess we should call your employer and tell them your a rapist then... Its only a job... and unless you can prove your not a rapist then you deserve to lose it... Hell lets even throw you out on the street because your a rapist and have no job...

Do you get how fucking stupid you are yet?

Says the poor hapless soul that insists he should call my employer....and doesn't even know my name.

Sorry, Fool....but calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. While demanding that Hillary be locked up for a crime she isn't even accused of....most definitely does.

 

[Meister]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I know, I know you don't want to admit what scumbags your masters are. They sure didn't do themselves any favors.

They should have done an investigation when Frankestein received the information and she should have passed in on to the FBI.
They should have brought it up during the Sept. "job interview" (hearings). That would have been appropriate.
Waiting until the 11th hour and then dropping the so called bomb does not make it a job interview.
At that point it becomes a character assassination. I hope that is clear enough for you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I guess we should call your employer and tell them your a rapist then... Its only a job... and unless you can prove your not a rapist then you deserve to lose it... Hell lets even throw you out on the street because your a rapist and have no job...

Do you get how fucking stupid you are yet?

Says the poor hapless soul that insists he should call my employer....and doesn't even know my name.

Sorry, Fool....but calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. While demanding that Hillary be locked up for a crime she isn't even accused of....most definitely does.

Way to go Libtard...

You missed the point again or your intentionally obtuse and a partisan hack..

 

[Skylar]

According to Ford it was attempted Rape and in Fear for her life.........

Go to Maryland..............File a complaint...........or shut the hell up.........

On the form for the complaint..........it requires WHEN and WHERE........

So if you turkeys really have something here.............Get on with it...........your boring me.

Attempted Rape was a misdemenor in Maryland until 1996. It had a one year statute of limitations. She couldn't file if she wanted to.

Again, presumption of innocence is for criminal trials. Which this wasn't. And Kavanaugh was facing an investigation. Not criminal penalty. While Trump and his supporters were calling for imprisonment for Hillary Clinton for a crime she's not even charged with.

I would settle for an IMPARTIAL investigation of Hillary

You got an impartial investigation. Trump supporters didn't like the outcome of the investigation. So they demanded that Hillary be imprisoned for crimes she wasn't even charged with.

Making their bleeting now regarding 'presumption of innocence' just empty nonsense.

The investigation that showed you have NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE TO ANYTHING? That investigation?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I guess we should call your employer and tell them your a rapist then... Its only a job... and unless you can prove your not a rapist then you deserve to lose it... Hell lets even throw you out on the street because your a rapist and have no job...

Do you get how fucking stupid you are yet?

Says the poor hapless soul that insists he should call my employer....and doesn't even know my name.

Sorry, Fool....but calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. While demanding that Hillary be locked up for a crime she isn't even accused of....most definitely does.

Way to go Libtard...

You missed the point again or your intentionally obtuse and a partisan hack..

Or.....your point was just laughable nonsense. As a 'presumption of innocence' has nothing to do with a job interview or a call for an investigation.

But feel free to call my employer, fool.

 

[Meister]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I want a impartial investigation for your gal, Hillary.

 

[Skylar]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I know, I know you don't want to admit what scumbags your masters are. They sure didn't do themselves any favors.

Yeah, the IG under Trump found that the FBI's conclusions regarding Hillary were reasonable and based on law and precedent. And that there was no evidence that any investigative decision was affected by political bias.

But tell us more about 'your masters', tinfoil. For the giggles.

 

[Billy_Bob]

According to Ford it was attempted Rape and in Fear for her life.........

Go to Maryland..............File a complaint...........or shut the hell up.........

On the form for the complaint..........it requires WHEN and WHERE........

So if you turkeys really have something here.............Get on with it...........your boring me.

Attempted Rape was a misdemenor in Maryland until 1996. It had a one year statute of limitations. She couldn't file if she wanted to.

Again, presumption of innocence is for criminal trials. Which this wasn't. And Kavanaugh was facing an investigation. Not criminal penalty. While Trump and his supporters were calling for imprisonment for Hillary Clinton for a crime she's not even charged with.

I would settle for an IMPARTIAL investigation of Hillary

You got an impartial investigation. Trump supporters didn't like the outcome of the investigation. So they demanded that Hillary be imprisoned for crimes she wasn't even charged with.

Making their bleeting now regarding 'presumption of innocence' just empty nonsense.

The investigation that showed you have NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE TO ANYTHING? That investigation?

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I guess we should call your employer and tell them your a rapist then... Its only a job... and unless you can prove your not a rapist then you deserve to lose it... Hell lets even throw you out on the street because your a rapist and have no job...

Do you get how fucking stupid you are yet?

Says the poor hapless soul that insists he should call my employer....and doesn't even know my name.

Sorry, Fool....but calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. While demanding that Hillary be locked up for a crime she isn't even accused of....most definitely does.

Way to go Libtard...

You missed the point again or your intentionally obtuse and a partisan hack..

Or.....your point was just laughable nonsense. As a 'presumption of innocence' has nothing to do with a job interview or a call for an investigation.

But feel free to call my employer, fool.

LOL

Your a damn fool...

You think your safe when all it will take, using your idiocy, is for one woman to accuse you of this... But then you will get the presumption of innocence because your a worthless piece of shit democrat who thinks only those who think like you should get it...

 

[Skylar]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I want a impartial investigation for your gal, Hillary.

And you got one. That you don't like the outcome doesn't magically change the nature of the invesgigation.

And of course, Trump supporters calling for Hillary to be imprisoned for crimes she's not even charged with?

So much for the 'presumption of innocence' with conservatives. They wipe their ass with it with every recitation of 'LOCK HER UP!'. A chant that our Attorney General joined in only 2 months ago.

 

[Meister]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I know, I know you don't want to admit what scumbags your masters are. They sure didn't do themselves any favors.

Yeah, the IG under Trump found that the FBI's conclusions regarding Hillary were reasonable and based on law and precedent. And that there was no evidence that any investigative decision was affected by political bias.

But tell us more about 'your masters', tinfoil. For the giggles.

You need to bone up on what an impartial investigation is. <snicker>

 

[Meister]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I want a impartial investigation for your gal, Hillary.

And you got one. That you don't like the outcome doesn't magically change the nature of the invesgigation.

And of course, Trump supporters calling for Hillary to be imprisoned for crimes she's not even charged with?

So much for the 'presumption of innocence' with conservatives. They wipe their ass with it with every recitation of 'LOCK HER UP!'. A chant that our Attorney General joined in only 2 months ago.

You need to bone up on what an impartial investigation is. <snicker>

 

[Skylar]

Attempted Rape was a misdemenor in Maryland until 1996. It had a one year statute of limitations. She couldn't file if she wanted to.

Again, presumption of innocence is for criminal trials. Which this wasn't. And Kavanaugh was facing an investigation. Not criminal penalty. While Trump and his supporters were calling for imprisonment for Hillary Clinton for a crime she's not even charged with.

I would settle for an IMPARTIAL investigation of Hillary

You got an impartial investigation. Trump supporters didn't like the outcome of the investigation. So they demanded that Hillary be imprisoned for crimes she wasn't even charged with.

Making their bleeting now regarding 'presumption of innocence' just empty nonsense.

The investigation that showed you have NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE TO ANYTHING? That investigation?

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I guess we should call your employer and tell them your a rapist then... Its only a job... and unless you can prove your not a rapist then you deserve to lose it... Hell lets even throw you out on the street because your a rapist and have no job...

Do you get how fucking stupid you are yet?

Says the poor hapless soul that insists he should call my employer....and doesn't even know my name.

Sorry, Fool....but calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. While demanding that Hillary be locked up for a crime she isn't even accused of....most definitely does.

Way to go Libtard...

You missed the point again or your intentionally obtuse and a partisan hack..

Or.....your point was just laughable nonsense. As a 'presumption of innocence' has nothing to do with a job interview or a call for an investigation.

But feel free to call my employer, fool.

LOL

Your a damn fool...

'Your a', huh?

If you're gonna try to insult someone about being a fool, don't fuck up the grammar, dipshit.

You think your safe when all it will take, using your idiocy, is for one woman to accuse you of this... But then you will get the presumption of innocence because your a worthless piece of shit democrat who thinks only those who think like you should get it...

Then call my employer, fool. Make your accusations.

Laughing......might be helpful if you knew my name, though.

 

[Skylar]

The Kavanaugh hearing was a job interview. Not a trial. Why then would we have to change our law regarding criminal trials? Also, what was being demanded in the Kavanaugh hearing was an investigation. Not imprisonment.

In stark contrast....

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"

Republicans are openly calling for the imprisonment of a woman who isn't charged with any crime.

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I want a impartial investigation for your gal, Hillary.

And you got one. That you don't like the outcome doesn't magically change the nature of the invesgigation.

And of course, Trump supporters calling for Hillary to be imprisoned for crimes she's not even charged with?

So much for the 'presumption of innocence' with conservatives. They wipe their ass with it with every recitation of 'LOCK HER UP!'. A chant that our Attorney General joined in only 2 months ago.

You need to bone up on what an impartial investigation is. <snicker>

Laughing.....check the IG report on that investigation and then talk to me.

But tell us again about the 'presumption of innocence' as your ilk chant 'LOCK HER UP!'

(snicker)

 

[Meister]

Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I want a impartial investigation for your gal, Hillary.

And you got one. That you don't like the outcome doesn't magically change the nature of the invesgigation.

And of course, Trump supporters calling for Hillary to be imprisoned for crimes she's not even charged with?

So much for the 'presumption of innocence' with conservatives. They wipe their ass with it with every recitation of 'LOCK HER UP!'. A chant that our Attorney General joined in only 2 months ago.

You need to bone up on what an impartial investigation is. <snicker>

Laughing.....check the IG report on that investigation and then talk to me.

But tell us again about the 'presumption of innocence' as your ilk chant 'LOCK HER UP!'

(snicker)

If it's not an independent investigation it's not impartial

 

[Skylar]

Its all senate judiciary hearings for the job of supreme court justice.

And again, calling for an investigation in a job interview has nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence'. That's a legal concept for criminal court. Which this was not.

While "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" is call for imprisonment based on no charges.

Please learn the difference.

I want a impartial investigation for your gal, Hillary.

And you got one. That you don't like the outcome doesn't magically change the nature of the invesgigation.

And of course, Trump supporters calling for Hillary to be imprisoned for crimes she's not even charged with?

So much for the 'presumption of innocence' with conservatives. They wipe their ass with it with every recitation of 'LOCK HER UP!'. A chant that our Attorney General joined in only 2 months ago.

You need to bone up on what an impartial investigation is. <snicker>

Laughing.....check the IG report on that investigation and then talk to me.

But tell us again about the 'presumption of innocence' as your ilk chant 'LOCK HER UP!'

(snicker)

If it's not an independent investigation it's not impartial

Who says it wasn't an independant investigation?

Let me guess, the same hapless soul that insisted that the investigation wasn't impartial, citing himself?

Remember, and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about. While the IG does.