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

[Billy_Bob]

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?

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.

 

[Meister]

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.

Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?
You should know, your a self proclaimed smart person.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?

Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Which of course, you ignored.

And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.

 

[Meister]

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.

Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?

Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Which of course, you ignored.

And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.

So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?

Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Which of course, you ignored.

And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.

So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.

Dude, you're literally quoting yourself as me now. As the only one saying it wasn't impartial...is you. Citing you.

Me, I'm citing the IG that found that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable based on law and precedent. And yet your ilk STILL call for Hillary to be locked up for crimes she isn't even charged with.

So much for conservatives believing in 'the presumption of innocence'.

 

[Meister]

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.

Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?

Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Which of course, you ignored.

And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.

So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.

Dude, you're literally quoting yourself as me now. As the only one saying it wasn't impartial...is you. Citing you.

Me, I'm citing the IG that found that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable based on law and precedent. And yet your ilk STILL call for Hillary to be locked up for crimes she isn't even charged with.

So much for conservatives believing in 'the presumption of innocence'.

Strange you would cherry pick and clip the rest of my post.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?

Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Which of course, you ignored.

And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.

So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.

Dude, you're literally quoting yourself as me now. As the only one saying it wasn't impartial...is you. Citing you.

Me, I'm citing the IG that found that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable based on law and precedent. And yet your ilk STILL call for Hillary to be locked up for crimes she isn't even charged with.

So much for conservatives believing in 'the presumption of innocence'.

Strange you would cherry pick and clip the rest of my post.

Says the soul that straight up hallucinated a reply I never offered, citing himself as me.

Again, if you believe that the investigation wasn't impartial, show us the evidence. It had better be far more compelling than the IG that found that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

But don't bother even babbling about 'the presumption of innocence'. "LOCK HER UP" demonstrates the lie of conservative lip service to that principle.

 

[CowboyTed]

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?

You know that Kavanuagh was accused of a crime.. Even the GOP Senators said she was credible...

It was the GOP who didn't want an investigation... The GOP just didn't want an investigation..

Innocent people usually want accusations against them investigated. Innocent people don't lie about mitigating circumstances...

I am not saying Kavanaugh is guilty but I think credible accusations have been laid against him...

 

[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?

You know that Kavanuagh was accused of a crime.. Even the GOP Senators said she was credible...

It was the GOP who didn't want an investigation... The GOP just didn't want an investigation..

Innocent people usually want accusations against them investigated. Innocent people don't lie about mitigating circumstances...

I am not saying Kavanaugh is guilty but I think credible accusations have been laid against him...

Don't let the 6 FBI background investigations already done enter into the thought process.
If Kav was this dirty, they would have found something in their investigations...the FBI is good at
sniffing that stuff out.
But, I'll put you down as guilty until proven innocent, thank you for your response.

 

[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?

You know that Kavanuagh was accused of a crime.. Even the GOP Senators said she was credible...

It was the GOP who didn't want an investigation... The GOP just didn't want an investigation..

Innocent people usually want accusations against them investigated. Innocent people don't lie about mitigating circumstances...

I am not saying Kavanaugh is guilty but I think credible accusations have been laid against him...

Don't let the 6 FBI background investigations already done enter into the thought process.
If Kav was this dirty, they would have found something in their investigations...the FBI is good at
sniffing that stuff out.
But, I'll put you down as guilty until proven innocent, thank you for your response.

Laughing.......there is no such thing as 'guilty until proven innocent' in a job interview. And its not like Trump supporters care about the principle even when it involves actual imprisonment.

As LOCK HER UP! demonstrates at Trump's rallies demonstrate elegantly. With even the Attorney General joining in.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

There's no reason it can't have been a character assassination during a job interview.

 

[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.

There's no reason it can't have been a character assassination during a job interview.

It didn't have to be presented as it was. They could have privately vetted the letter without smearing
his good name if it wasn't true.
Presentation was everything.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

So you want to release Bill Cosby, Jerry Sandusky & Dr Nassar from prison.

Some crimes are committed where there are no outside witnesses.

These are prosecuted & people covicted

Cosby was accused by more than 30 women. All but three were tossed for the same reason, cloudy memories of 40 year old accusations.

 

[Clementine]

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?

No, we should not change a thing.

The left was playing games with the hearing. They said it wasn't a criminal trial and, therefore, did not require any protection for the alleged victim or any proof to go after the alleged perpetrator.

It was just a vetting process so none of the rules or rights to a fair trial applied.

It didn't go their way when Ford's story was fuzzy and unsubstantiated.

Then they wanted the FBI to investigate- after Kavanaugh was tried in the court of liberal opinion. Only thing the FBI found was that a witness named by Ford, her long-time friend, told investigators that she felt pressured to change her story after saying nothing happened that night 36 years ago. Hmmm.

So, the left is now crying foul and claiming the FBI didn't do their job correctly. It's just more whining because they didn't get their way- again. These temper tantrums are getting real old.

The investigation now should focus on Feinstein for sitting on "evidence" and not bringing it out till the last minute.

It should also focus on Ford's ex-FBI friend who contacted the witness regarding changing her story.

The accuser always has burden of proof. That should not change ever. Not that some leftists give a damn about any of our rights.

Feinstein should have turned the letter over so the FBI could have done the investigation out of public view and protecting Ford's identity in the process. The way Feinstein did it was purely intended to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation and stop him. That is why she did not follow protocol.

 

[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?

No, we should not change a thing.

The left was playing games with the hearing. They said it wasn't a criminal trial and, therefore, did not require any protection for the alleged victim or any proof to go after the alleged perpetrator.

What 'protections' would prevent a witness testifying at a hearing? And the 'presumption of innocence'?

Does "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" ring any bells? What's next, babble about family values and fiscal responsibility?

 

[depotoo]

I guess you failed to read the sex crimes prosecutors notes...
Mitchell Memo | Dianne Feinstein | Witness

Democrat Party's 2018 platform is based entirely on "Guilt by accusation".

Republicans are running on: Rape & sexual assault os OK if there are no witnesses.

Lying under oath is permissible if you are a Republican.

--------------------------------------- i don't think so , i think that rape and sex assault should be reported in timely fashion to proper authorities and whatever evidence should be gathered in a timely fashion RDave .

What you think is worthless. What counts is what psychiatrists think. They know the trauma & how it affects people.

All Ford was doing is letting people know what Kavanaugh had done. She didn't realize so many of you don't give a shit.

You voted for Trump. Accused by 18 women. Accused of Child rape Accused of Spousal Rape.., An admitted Groper.

'Hell, you probably wanted Kavanaugh even more after Ford told her story.


Republicans have proven that women don't matter. Grassley called them weak, Trump, Kavanaugh & you think sexual assault should be rewarded.

 

[Tilly]

Republicans have proven that women don't matter.

Don't matter much to Bill and Hillary did they?

Nor the Democrats that gave him a pass on impeachment.

But, keep posting your hypocrisy
for everyone to see.


Makes reading threads a pleasure

So you think it was proper to prosecute Bill for lying under oath but not Kavanaugh for lying under oath. Who are you calling a hypocrite here?

Bull supposedly lied about a consensual sexual affair while Kavanaugh was lying about attempted Rape.

Sill you can't see the difference.

She did not know what happened, where it happened, how it happened, and she has no proof... you silly little fucker

She knows what happened. Is attempted rape different depending on which house it is in???? Does it not exist unless there are witnesses?

Does a women get assaulted in the middfle of the forrest if no one is there to see?

So you’d be happy to be accused of raping a woman 36 years ago without any evidence to back it up so you can’t even provide an alibi?
Retard.

 

[Tilly]

Ever hear of Crystal Gail Mangum?

Your drag name?

look it up

or

I'll make it easier on you.

Crystal Mangum - Wikipedia

perfect reason to claim ALL women should be believed.

I knew who she is. Because one woman lying about it makes Kavanaugh & Trump innocent. I get it.

If you knew who she was, why are you so adamant about Ford being credible?

The D behind her name?

Did Crystal have a D behind her name?

Jesus fuck. I know there are false accusations made. It does NOT MEAN KAVANAUGH IS INNOCENT, you stupid SHIT.

Crystal lied therefore no man EVER EVER EVER EVER assaulted anyone. Really. You are really this fucking stupid?

I believe Ford because of who she is, a well known college professor. She presented a credible testimony.

Kavanaugh ranted drooled & acted like a deranged person as he lied under oath.

Hush now, RD.
This apoplectic rage and ignorance is not good for you.

 

[candycorn]

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?

I didn’t see Kavanaugh convicted of anything......did you?

The new mod doesn’t seem to know that the court of law and the court of public opinion are two different things.

Doesn’t bode well for the message board.

 

[Tilly]

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!

Great post, but you have misunderstood where the OP is coming from!