Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.
Tell me if this sounds familiar? “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!!”. Righties are such hypocrites.
And Kav ain’t up on criminal charges . He’s up for a job .
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.
Tell me if this sounds familiar? “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!!”. Righties are such hypocrites.
And Kav ain’t up on criminal charges . He’s up for a job .
Laughing.....the 'presumption of innocence' schpeel from a conservative is adorable. Its like when they try to talk about 'fiscal responsibility' or 'family values'. Each recitation should be accompanied by a rimshot and a slide whistle.
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.
His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.
This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.
The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.
I was reading that there is nothing in the United States Constitution that says The Senate even HAS to have ANY Confirmation Hearings on nominees, that they can get the nominee and just IMMEDIATELY have the vote to Confirm them. So after the Brett Kavanaugh Witch Hunt Character Smear Job, I would suggest that the Republicans in future do NOT have ANY Confirmation Hearings on ANY nominee to ANYTHING and that they just IMMEDIATELY have the vote to Confirm them.
Also the Brett Kavanaugh situation is EXACTLY WHY The Donald instead should have chosen Amy Coney Barrett for the USSC.
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.
BINGO!
Judge Kavanaugh was put into a difficult position having to deny over something he didn't do.
Republicans have absolutely NO room to speak about Morality, morals, or anything similar ever again.
Not after electing the most immoral, corrupt, lying, deceitful, philandering SOB this side of the Western Hemisphere.
Close this thread...NOW!!!
`You know that I am far, far from a fan of Trump, that has been made very clear by me on this forum.But Ford has the burden of proof and she has failed totally. You complain about people that think Ford is a lying POS, yet you have no issue believing that Kavanaugh is. You are no better than that you rant against.If this were you, would you want your life ruined by the word of a single person from 35 or 36 or who knows how long ago?Nothing she has put forth has been credible or supportable.
Republicans have absolutely NO room to speak about Morality, morals, or anything similar ever again.
Not after electing the most immoral, corrupt, lying, deceitful, philandering SOB this side of the Western Hemisphere.
Close this thread...NOW!!!
Yeah many have seen that you don't care about evidence, just shoot someone down with vague un substantiated allegations you don't like and cheer.
That is ugly of you.
`You know that I am far, far from a fan of Trump, that has been made very clear by me on this forum.But Ford has the burden of proof and she has failed totally. You complain about people that think Ford is a lying POS, yet you have no issue believing that Kavanaugh is. You are no better than that you rant against.If this were you, would you want your life ruined by the word of a single person from 35 or 36 or who knows how long ago?Nothing she has put forth has been credible or supportable.
Not really, to quote;
`
`The Senate lacks guidelines or rules to assess the testimony that is expected today from Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh and one of the women who has accused him of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford. It’s largely about politics.
But there are standards of proof inherited from the justice system — preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. And a debate has unfolded, alongside the contest over the allegations themselves, about the suitability of these principles, and about who has the burden to prove what. In a hyperpartisan climate, views tend to split according to preexisting positions on the nominee.
“There are not clear rules on the burden of proof in a congressional investigation,” said David J. Leviss, a Washington-based lawyer with O’Melveny & Myers who has significant experience with Senate inquiries.
Instead, he said, lawmakers tend to rely on a “gut standard based on their own barometers. If I had to put a name to it, maybe the standard is what offends the sensibilities. It’s a loose standard of behavior for what doesn’t seem right, and they’re making a judgment that the public will agree with them.” - Source
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.
BINGO!
Judge Kavanaugh was put into a difficult position having to deny over something he didn't do.
How do you know he didn't do it? Again, Ford says otherwise. She's a credible witness. And she's passed a polygraph test finding her odds of being deceptive at 0.05%.
You're beginning with the assumption that Kavanaugh is innocent. And then condemning his accusor accordingly.
Has Kavanaugh passed a polygraph?
`You know that I am far, far from a fan of Trump, that has been made very clear by me on this forum.But Ford has the burden of proof and she has failed totally. You complain about people that think Ford is a lying POS, yet you have no issue believing that Kavanaugh is. You are no better than that you rant against.If this were you, would you want your life ruined by the word of a single person from 35 or 36 or who knows how long ago?Nothing she has put forth has been credible or supportable.
Not really, to quote;
`
`The Senate lacks guidelines or rules to assess the testimony that is expected today from Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh and one of the women who has accused him of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford. It’s largely about politics.
But there are standards of proof inherited from the justice system — preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. And a debate has unfolded, alongside the contest over the allegations themselves, about the suitability of these principles, and about who has the burden to prove what. In a hyperpartisan climate, views tend to split according to preexisting positions on the nominee.
“There are not clear rules on the burden of proof in a congressional investigation,” said David J. Leviss, a Washington-based lawyer with O’Melveny & Myers who has significant experience with Senate inquiries.
Instead, he said, lawmakers tend to rely on a “gut standard based on their own barometers. If I had to put a name to it, maybe the standard is what offends the sensibilities. It’s a loose standard of behavior for what doesn’t seem right, and they’re making a judgment that the public will agree with them.” - Source
His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.
This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.
The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.
Yes usually the VICTIM has an agenda-to stop the "PERP"-You Trump tards say some of the dumbest things.
This is a window into their reasoning, to be sure.
The claims precede the confirmation process by about half a decade. Eliminating politics as the motive for the claims. So even by the internal logic of this moral dumpster fire of an argument, she shouldn't be ignored.
His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.
This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.
The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.
Yes usually the VICTIM has an agenda-to stop the "PERP"-
This is a window into their reasoning, to be sure.
The claims precede the confirmation process by about half a decade. Eliminating politics as the motive for the claims. So even by the internal logic of this moral dumpster fire of an argument, she shouldn't be ignored.
After watching her testimony today, I doubt she'll be ignored. She seemed highly credible to me, and all the hollering Lindsey Graham did won't make a bit of difference. Republicans have a lot to lose here, if they confirm Kavanaugh without a thourough non partisan investigation of him first.
Brett should never be a judge again. He is unfit for that job.His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.
This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.
The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.
BINGO!
Judge Kavanaugh was put into a difficult position having to deny over something he didn't do.
How do you know he didn't do it? Again, Ford says otherwise. She's a credible witness. And she's passed a polygraph test finding her odds of being deceptive at 0.05%.
You're beginning with the assumption that Kavanaugh is innocent. And then condemning his accusor accordingly.
Has Kavanaugh passed a polygraph?
Brett should never be a judge again. He is unfit for that job.His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.
This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.
The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.
How has or would Kavanaught's life be ruined? Nobody has been able to explain this to me.You know that I am far, far from a fan of Trump, that has been made very clear by me on this forum.
But Ford has the burden of proof and she has failed totally. You complain about people that think Ford is a lying POS, yet you have no issue believing that Kavanaugh is. You are no better than that you rant against.
If this were you, would you want your life ruined by the word of a single person from 35 or 36 or who knows how long ago?
Nothing she has put forth has been credible or supportable.
His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.
This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.
The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.
Yes usually the VICTIM has an agenda-to stop the "PERP"-
This is a window into their reasoning, to be sure.
The claims precede the confirmation process by about half a decade. Eliminating politics as the motive for the claims. So even by the internal logic of this moral dumpster fire of an argument, she shouldn't be ignored.
After watching her testimony today, I doubt she'll be ignored. She seemed highly credible to me, and all the hollering Lindsey Graham did won't make a bit of difference. Republicans have a lot to lose here, if they confirm Kavanaugh without a thourough non partisan investigation of him first.
Graham wasn't performing for the Senate. He was performing for Trump.
And insisting that they should have come to the Senate about a FBI investigation when this same Senate has refused to call for an FBI investigation is just comic.
Kavanaugh didn't do anything to her. It couldn't be more obvious that she's lying. Every witness she named said she's lying. She lied about a almost all the details. She lied about being afraid of flying. Lie, lie, lie, and you believe her.His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.
This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.
The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.
She does not believe that someone who did what was done to her should be on the Supreme Court. I agree and most Americans agree with me not you. This is not a court of law so there is no presumption of innocence. Moral character is relevant and necessary as he could be ruling on the very things he is accused of.
