as opposed to Blasey-Ford, who couldn't do any of those things. Futher, the Lt. Gov. actually confirmed that a sexual encounter took place. Why don't Democrats believe her?
The accused is innocent until proven guilty with evidence, not emotional accusations alone.
I understand the temptation to see the Dems get payback, but while they richly deserve it for their hypocrisy, this guy’s life and future is at stake. Thus far, there is no supportive evidence that I have seen that would make this person’s claim any more legitimate than Blasy Ford’s, and like Blasy Fod’s accustaions, there is also strong political motivation.
I refuse to accept that accusation = guilt without any evidence, and if this guy is blocked from elevation to gov, that is exactly what would happen unless more evidence comes out down the road.
Yes. The accused enjoys the presumption of innocence in a criminal case unless and until the prosecution can meet its burden of proof, establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury with all 6th Amendment protections afforded to the accused.
Such protections are not afforded to a Supreme Court nominee or a candidate for office or an elected official.
Nevertheless, the public should indeed be suspect of allegations that surface in the political arena that have not been properly vetted or fairly scrutinized, particularly when the timing of the allegation is ripe with motive to smear, and/or the individual denies it.
However, there is not a requirement that the allegation be proven BRD in a courtroom before it can be given any weight as to one’s fitness to serve in office or on the bench.
(no message)
(no message)
However I have one point of contention. Women who have been assaulted are more likely to not immediately report that fact. If they wait to report an assault, it actually makes their claim more credible. It is not a situation where if you were robbed you call the police. Women will decide whether they were at fault, or whether they want to affect the life of their assailant. They will decide whether they want to go through with the allegation. I take the side of women much more than I do men at times.
Everyone deserves the right to due process.
Kavanaugh got his - they had a full hearing, we were able to judge the demeanor of the witnesses and the accused, and other evidence. That we didn't necessarily all come to the same conclusion is fine. I don't really have a definitive answer like you do, but he got his chance. In this case, I have no idea if this Lt. Gov. did anything, because like his racist boss, I had never heard of the guy until a day or two ago.
I would hope that there would be a full hearing so that we could actually have some process. My guess is that it will never happen.
I agree 100%.
(no message)
story for politics.
I have no doubt that something inappropriate happened between Bart and Blasey Ford when she was 15. I doubt this victim just made it up either. Or that the 17 women that Orange assaulted all made it up. Or that Wiley, Jones and Broadrick made it all up.
If I were an attorney, you and Cole would be the first dismissals from the jury pool.
(no message)
(no message)
Hate IT geeks on juries.
Of course you don't realize it, but you're proving my point.
them. So would I by the way.
You, I would fear would have another agenda.
conundrum, right?
You're both true believers influenced by your pre-concieved notions and biases, unconvinced by facts to the contrary. You also both resort to whataboutism or false equivalency when put on the spot. Birds of a feather.
Also, it's unfortunate you're unable to see the irony in your romanticizing Cole's alternative truth flaws after calling him a moron before I responded.
First of all guys like you that criticize everyone else for preconceived notions and biases without acknowledging their own are completely full of shit. If you have ever selected a jury which I doubt you have, you know that everyone in the box has those notions or biases. What you are looking for are those that are either biased toward you or those that will set theirs aside and follow the law and the instructions. People like you have them, but won’t admit them. That’s why you would be the worst juror because you would hide them rather than being open about them. I would know where Cole is coming from right quick. I would also know what job he holds and if i’m right, he would be someone I would want just about every time. Or, if I didn’t want him, I would know that right away. People like you are the problem, those that have them but try to cover it up.
P.S. How do you know we would come to different conclusions? That’s your own preconceived notion that all potential jurors follow what they want to be the result rather than what the law and facts allowed in dictate. Another reason why you would be a quick strike.
Maybe a bit of self-reflection required in that rant? If so, mission accomplished.
But you're right I would be a terrible lawyer, because I am interested in truth and justice more than scoring points or winning cases.
Most reasonably honest people will freely admit that. So the self reflection there isn’t so hard.
You on the other hand will keep up your facade.
Funny, what a snide remark would reveal, but I can tell you that you would be a very quick strike for me.
Because you would necessarily want bias in one direction or the other.
People like you are how we got Orange.
You don’t select a jury, you eliminate jurrors and in a civil case in Federal Court you only get three preempts.
Most times I don’t have the luxury of choosing those who I think would be inclined to my side. I need to decide who is going to do their job or disregard the instructions for what they want it to be.
That’s why I would get you out quickly as you have a false facade of impartiality. They are the worst and hardest to spot.