• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brett Kavanaugh: Sexual assault accuser 'needs more time'

ClaraD said:
They don't dispute it, not remembering something is quite different than saying it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Even she is not 100% certain, called classmates and said she wasn't sure it was him, and only remembered it was him after 6 days of thinking about it and meeting with an attorney. I realize you are probably partisan on the issue, but really? How does this not raise flags.

The other witnesses not remembering this situation or saying this is not the Brett we knew, certainly doesn't look good or help her case and casts further doubt.
 
ClaraD said:
I already cited it, not my fault you are in denial.
Click to expand...
You did not. Nowhere in your citation was what you claimed McConnel said. Now, I happen to think he's a fairly scummy fellow, so it wouldn't surprise me if he thought it, but you claimed he said it, and failed to demonstrate that claim.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
ClaraD said:
Marke, Anita Hill was telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the FBI investigators handling it wrote a statement saying she misled the Committee?

However, that didn't matter to the right wing. Sexual assault isn't as important as your agenda apparently.
Click to expand...

Dunno, seems to me I can think offhand of quite a few cases of leftist men being allowed to get away with mistreating women because they were the Right Sort Of People or because they were Important To The Agenda.

It wasn't Rightists who promoted the "One Free Grope" standard, or that support to the Party's position on abortion justified defending them regardless of the collateral damage to the individual women they abused, it was "feminists" defending Democrats.


Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
ClaraD said:
Marke, Anita Hill was telling the truth. However, that didn't matter to the right wing. Sexual assault isn't as important as your agenda apparently.
Click to expand...

Leftist playbook: Bring down conservative candidates with unprovable lying accusations.
 
upsideguy said:
Right now, he does not have the required impeccable record to proceed. If they can't clear his name; he is disqualifed..... and, of course, we are now hearing of a second allegation that should cook his goose. See my revisions to post 528.
Click to expand...

that's one of the silliest things I have ever seen. because her claims are so nebulous and since she won't even say when and where it happens you want him to PROVE It did not happen and if he doesn't he's tainted in your biased view. the second allegation is even more bogus nonsense. but honest people would say that when Ford names several people she avers will support her and they all deny her claims, it time to ignore her as a liar or a fraud
 
marke said:
Leftist playbook: Bring down conservative candidates with unprovable lying accusations.
Click to expand...

yep and we have several who claim unless her charges are PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE, Kavanaugh should be disqualified. How do you prove something untrue when ever witness the twit names denies it ever happened? or she is too dishonest or deluded to say when where it happened.
 
ludin said:
NO really you agreed that he is innocent glad to hear it you can avoid the rest of the nonsense going on here.

now if you think he is guity of something please provide evidence that something occured.

I say so is not evidence by the way.
Click to expand...


'Innocent until proven guilty' applies to the court of law, not a justice nomination.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Are you trying to tell me that Mr. Kananaugh has been a "pending appointment" to the Supreme Court of the United States of America since 2012 when Ms. Ford first mentioned the incident while in "couples therapy"?
Click to expand...

She did not mention Kavanaugh then. Instead, it was a story (she since changed) apparently as a pity-me excuse for her committing adultery in marriage counseling?
 
cpwill said:
Why do you think the FBI investigators handling it wrote a statement saying she misled the Committee?



Dunno, seems to me I can think offhand of quite a few cases of leftist men being allowed to get away with mistreating women because they were the Right Sort Of People or because they were Important To The Agenda.

It wasn't Rightists who promoted the "One Free Grope" standard, or that support to the Party's position on abortion justified defending them regardless of the collateral damage to the individual women they abused, it was "feminists" defending Democrats.


Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Um, where do you see that they ever said that?

Here is what I found

In 1991, Hill submitted a confidential statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that Thomas had sexually harassed her 10 years earlier, when they were both single. The FBI had already investigated the charges and given the committee what was called an inconclusive report. The committee decided not to pursue the matter. But two days before the full Senate was expected to confirm Thomas, Hill's statement was leaked to reporters.
 
marke said:
Leftist playbook: Bring down conservative candidates with unprovable lying accusations.
Click to expand...

Um, I don't care what side of the fence they are on...if as a frat boy or in whatever capacity, you sexually assault someone, you are disqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice...period. Franken deserved to be forced to resign...
 
Geoist said:
'Innocent until proven guilty' applies to the court of law, not a justice nomination.
Click to expand...

actually it applies everywhere no matter what you do.
the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.

it would be wise to understand the founding principles of our country and the freedoms that exist.
 
ludin said:
it would be wise to understand the founding principles of our country and the freedoms that exist.
Click to expand...

It would be wise for you to understand the rest of the country does not operate like a courtroom.
 
Geoist said:
It would be wise for you to understand the rest of the country does not operate like a courtroom.
Click to expand...

actually it does which is why the police can't arrest me for just walking down the street stop me for no reason.
doesn't have to be a court room.

people are innocent until proven guilty they do not have to prove themselves innocent against accusations.
the burden of proof lies with the accuser not the accused.

this is just simple logic sorry you are having a hard time understanding it. not my issue.
 
ClaraD said:
Um, I don't care what side of the fence they are on...if as a frat boy or in whatever capacity, you sexually assault someone, you are disqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice...period. Franken deserved to be forced to resign...
Click to expand...

Any member of any mob, whether fraternal or otherwise, who denies the possibility that Kavanaugh's accuser might be lying has an unjustifiable and immoral bias.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
actually it does which is why the police can't arrest me for just walking down the street stop me for no reason.
doesn't have to be a court room.

people are innocent until proven guilty they do not have to prove themselves innocent against accusations.
the burden of proof lies with the accuser not the accused.

this is just simple logic sorry you are having a hard time understanding it. not my issue.
Click to expand...

Your boss doesn't have to presume you are innocent...nor does an interviewer
 
marke said:
Any member of any mob, whether fraternal or otherwise, who denies the possibility that Kavanaugh's accuser might be lying has an unjustifiable and immoral bias.
Click to expand...

Yet, it's ok for you to assume he is innocent and smear the women
 
ClaraD said:
Your boss doesn't have to presume you are innocent...nor does an interviewer
Click to expand...

in this case the boss is the government then they do.
unless they have accusations i have a chance to be heard as well.

so yea i am innocent until i am proved guilty even in an interview.

again the burden of proof lays on the accuser no the accused.
i suggest you learn this or you will pretty much fail at every debate you try to enter.

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

the perceived status quo in this case is that kavanaugh has done nothing wrong.
 
ClaraD said:
Yet, it's ok for you to assume he is innocent and smear the women
Click to expand...

he is innocent it is up to her to prove him not.
this is very simple to understand.

you see we got rid of witch accusations a long time ago for good reason.
 
ClaraD said:
Um, where do you see that they ever said that?
Click to expand...

NPR's Nina Totenberg, one of the two reporters who broke the story of Hill's charges against Thomas, admitted as much in 1992: "Who told the truth?" she asked a Stanford audience. "I have a tentative opinion .  .  . but I don't know and neither do you."

In fact, it was less "he said, she said" than "they said, she said." Not a single colleague of Hill’s came forward to support her allegations. In stark contrast, the very last panel heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee featured eight women, seven of whom had worked with Thomas at the EEOC, the Department of Education, and in Senator John Danforth’s office. . . .

Each was given three minutes to speak, and each of them forcefully rejected the charges. Johnson, herself the victim of sexual harassment at a previous job, offered the most powerful testimony. . . .

In her initial meeting with FBI agents, she omitted many of the salacious details that later exploded in the Senate confirmation hearings. As Hill presented a much more scandalous story to the Senate Judiciary Committee, senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, and Arlen Specter had questions about why her story had changed so dramatically. “I did not tell the FBI all of the information,” Hill replied to Specter, because the “FBI agent made clear that if I were embarrassed about talking about something, that I could decline to discuss things that were too embarrassing, but that I could provide as much information as I felt comfortable with at that time.”...

But her account was immediately disputed by both of the FBI agents who had interviewed her, Special Agents Jolene Smith Jameson and John B. Luton, who observed her Senate testimony and then filed statements detailing what they described as Hill’s untruthfulness.​





....Or were you referring to the Leftists promoting the "One Free Grope" rule, and arguing that you had to protect sexual predators so long as they had the right policy on abortion?
 
ClaraD said:
Yet, it's ok for you to assume he is innocent and smear the women
Click to expand...

Democrats are not interested in allowing Kavanaugh the presumption of innocence because they are not interested in equal civil rights but in destroying anyone representing to them a threat to the democratic party and agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom