Well...there is that.
Democrats Destroying the Most Important Principles of Justice in the USA
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Well...there is that.
I don't consider myself a Libertarian.
And if Ford's allegations are true I would say it's disqualifying. But she's managed to make an un-falsifiable claim. Since she doesn't know where or when this happened Kavenaugh can't refute it by showing he was out of town that day for example.
I didn't say "Libertarian", I said "Civil Libertarian" which is to say you are thinking unbiased based upon the premises of the law, and the individual liberties we share in this country which include the presumption of innocence & the burden of proof to prove that we are guilty of something. These pillars are being eroded for a political reason and it is disgusting to watch really.
Kavenaugh is being "Moored".
not true.
Leland Keyser said she does not remember the party in question. Keyser has also said that she believes FOrd.
also not true. None of the people identified by Ford has said it didn't happen.
If we are talking about truth then you might want to start by having your claims here reflect the truth.
Further Ford's claims are just as reliable as Kavanaugh's. which is why there needs to be an investigation.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
not if you believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty
in that case, the only way your statement would be true would be if Kavanaugh had corroborated Ford's claims
of something that may or may not have happened 36 years ago, of which the accuser has trouble recollecting key details?
what would you investigate?
who would you question that hasn't already been questioned?
what evidence is there that hypnosis was involved at all?
Reliable, as in both parties have made claims and neither party can do much to back their statements up.
the FBI will be doing just that, investigating a very old claim. It's something they do regularly.
Actually it is true because she still has not corroborated Ms Ford's Story. Ms Keyser can say she "believes in Ms Ford's story to the moon and back, she can say she believes in the tooth fairy too, it doesn't change the statement her lawyer released Saturday Sept 19th which said thus:
| On Saturday, Keyser said through her lawyer in a letter to the committee that she was willing to "cooperate fully with the FBI's supplemental investigation" into Kavanaugh. "However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," the letter from Howard Walsh, Keyser's attorney, said. It continued that Keyser "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account." "However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question," the letter continued. |
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christ...ent-about-alleged-assault-by-brett-kavanaugh/
It is a big semantics game here but, even though Ms Keyser does not openly refute her friend's testimony her statement refutes it.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
EXACTLY!
But don't expect the liberals to understand that because it is way above their pay grade!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why won't her lawyers release the information concerning how she supposedly recovered her memory?
I thought that they want everything about this matter to be investigated.
The libs begged for an FBI investigation and if you think she will not be investigated also, I think you would be mistaken. Ms. Ford may get more than she bargained for hitching her wagon to these politicians and they will kick her to the curb just as fast if anything nefarious is found...count on it.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I know enough about the basic principles of law in free countries to know that the accuser has to prove the accusations and the one being accused does not have the burden of proof.
The Democrats seem confused about this because they say that Kavanaugh has the burden.
What say you?
This is true. in their world, Capitalism would be replaced by Socialism, and several amendments to the Bill of Rights would be destroyed. It would literally be a new Soviet Union. They are the embodiment of evil in today's society.
(link went bad)
Last edited by a moderator:
The presumption of innocence only exists in a criminal prosecution. The reason for that presumption is that the state is a moving party, the accusing party, and that carries with it the authority and resources of the state. The only chance you or I have of standing against that begins with the presumption and a very hard standard for the prosecution to meet.
It's a great idea. But it isn't a great idea for a hearing where we don't have the state as an actor, where what we have are two competing narratives and a powerful outcome. It isn't a kangaroo court, or any kind of court. The end of the process wasn't a conviction, but a promotion or the denial of a job opportunity.
Sadly, the Committee decided to act like attorneys for the disparate sides of the narrative.
Now on to a few other ideas in this piece.
Kavanaugh's High School years inquiry.
The questions about his conduct and even the annual were aimed at providing insight into the character and conduct of Judge Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged incident. That's probative. The accusations go to that period and who he was at that time has direct bearing on both narratives.
I agree the Committee was an embarrassing and partisan group of bickering children. And agendas were readily apparent, largely aimed at midterms and by both sides of the aisle. It's telling that the author here doesn't appear to see more than one agenda, leaving off the at-the-ready narrative by the right advanced first by Graham and then by everyone along the talking points line of the Republican Party and its media outlets, that the dems are dangerous and should not be given any real measure of power.
Then the author goes on an irrational, partisan screed about one party, the party with literally no real power at all at present, charging them with trying to destroy basic American principles and managing to work in communism in the attempt. That's almost as embarrassing as the hearings were and about as thought out. Then the trotting out of the "mainstream media" as part of the author's conspiracy theory put an exclamation on his train wreck of a critique.
lain:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So if someone tells your wife that you have been having an affair with another woman behind her back then how will the matter be resolved?
Do you have to prove that you haven't or does the accusing party have to give proof that you have been having an affair?
WizardofOz
New member
[MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION] [MENTION=13042]rocketman[/MENTION] [MENTION=4370]fool[/MENTION] [MENTION=15148]CatholicCrusader[/MENTION]
Do you believe that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick?
Why or why not?
Do you believe that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick?
Why or why not?