The Presumption of Guilt The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down.

[Maccabee]

He's on trial?

Isn't that what the hearing about this accusation is?

One can choose not to vote him in because they're not satisfied. Too bad. We could find someone just as qualified and they weren't a drunk fool in college. Fine with me. It will be a conservative no matter what. He's not my buddy, I don't care.

Ok

It's not politics if one is dissatisfied with the nominee.



I'm above that. I don't swim in the sewer. He can go. He shouldn't have compromised himself in college. It happens. Next.

What evidence do you have that he compromised himself in college?

 

[1751Texan]

It's not even "believe the accuser". It's "Garland didn't get appointed so whatever we choose to do is wholly justified". It's PURE politics and it's exposing the utter contempt for the Constitution that Democrats (and no small number of Republicans) hold.

Politics is what Congress deals in. It is in their wheel house. Nothing the Democrats did or are doing...same for Republicans...is against the constitution.

So why all the consternation?

This is the political process and constitutional. 99.05% of the governance is mundane.

Why let the .05% of governance give you an unset stomach?

 

[1751Texan]

It does when you're under oath. Besides, presumption of innocence is more than just a legal standard, it's the very basis in how we run our country. If I accused you of sexually assaulting me, why should you have to prove that you didn't? BTW, I'm black.

Evidence that I think because he's white, he should get the job?

No youve come to the crux of the modern day problem of people coming forward with claims of sexual assault. Assaults happen not out in the open...and not with more the the two persons.

What would the standard of proof in a case involving Dr. Ford and the Judge in a case in which she would claimed Dr. Ford and the Judge were involved other than ...he said, she said.

Maybe now we see the reason so many women do not come forward...if it is a case of He said-she said.

all those women not coming forward are lying.

 

[jmotivator]

Dear WSJ:

This isn’t a criminal trial you dumb ****s

Then why do dumb****s keep demanding the FBI conduct a criminal investigation?

 

[ultmd]

Then why do dumb****s keep demanding the FBI conduct a criminal investigation?

Only a conservative dumb*** would say this.

No one was asking the FBI to launch a criminal investigation. They were asking the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh's background check, and to evaluate and THOROUGHLY look into every credible allegation of misconduct against Kavanaugh. That's not what we got. To date, there are "more than 40" people who have attempted to contact the FBI with corroborating stories and/or evidence related to the allegations made by Ford and Debra Ramirez.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/dozens-potential-sources-information-have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146

More than 40 people with potential information into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have not been contacted by the FBI, according to multiple sources that include friends of both the nominee and his accusers.

The bureau is expected to wrap up its expanded background investigation as early as Wednesday into two allegations against Kavanaugh — one from Christine Blasey Ford and the other from Deborah Ramirez.

But sources close to the investigation, as well as a number of people who know those involved, say the FBI has not contacted dozens of potential corroborators or character witnesses.

More than 20 individuals who know either Kavanaugh or Ramirez, who has accused the nominee of exposing himself to her while the two attended Yale University, have not heard from the FBI despite attempts to contact investigators, including Kavanaugh’s roommate at the time and a former close Ramirez friend.

A senior U.S. official and two other sources briefed on the details of the FBI investigation confirmed to NBC news that the FBI’s work on the Brett Kavanaugh matter remains significantly limited in scope, and that it’s unlikely agents will be allowed to interview many, if any, additional witnesses before the probe wraps up this week.

One current and two former FBI officials confirmed to NBC News that dozens of witnesses have come forward to FBI field offices who say they have information on Brett Kavanaugh, but agents have not been permitted to talk to many of them. To the extent that any interviews have been done, the officials say, it’s not clear the information will be considered as part of the FBI’s limited scope inquiry.

Internally, the bureau is concerned that the constraints of the investigation could damage its reputation for finding the truth, the officials said.

 

[jmotivator]

Only a conservative dumb*** would say this.

No one was asking the FBI to launch a criminal investigation. They were asking the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh's background check, and to evaluate and THOROUGHLY look into every credible allegation of misconduct against Kavanaugh. That's not what we got. To date, there are "more than 40" people who have attempted to contact the FBI with corroborating stories and/or evidence related to the allegations made by Ford and Debra Ramirez.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/dozens-potential-sources-information-have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146

And that is exactly what they did. The FBI just has a better grasp of what constitutes "credible allegation" than you do.

And no, the way you all talk about what the FBI should have done is more in line with a criminal investigation. Good thing it wasn't, though, since if it was then Ford would be charged with obstruction.

Also, this FBI investigation was a supplementary investigation to the one that is already done and as a addendum to the chief investigatory authority in the conformation process: The Senate. The FBI will not redo interviews that have already been completed. What the FBI will do is interview people they view as credible, and who have not already been interviewed in the Senate process. The FBI found 8 people who met that criteria, interviewed those who agreed to an interview, and submitted the results of those interviews.

It is not the FBI's job to interview every crackpot that has something they want to say, especially when their comments are regarding topics that the FBI finds pointless to their role in support of the Senate... like how much Kavanaugh might have had to drink in college (while still managing to graduate with honors), or an ice throwing incident.

Also, "potential sources" is a two word phrase, but that first word seems to be invisible to Democrats and their supporters. That you put some credence in an anonymous source doing a bogus headcount of potential sources is just plain sad...

 

[jnug]

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

There is nothing about the circumstance of a SC Justice nomination that has anything to do with issues like due process and accusations. The Senate is not a court of law so the "editorial board" of the WSJ could have stopped writing their "story" before they ever started it.

If they want to write about due process and accusations and accusers, pick a pending case before the courts and have at it.

 

[trixare4kids]

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

It sure did backfire in their general direction to weaponize feminism, and the #metoo movement. An insult to self-respecting women everywhere.

 

[TurtleDude]

Cut the Stalin crap... where was all of this "presumption of innocence" during the Starr Investigation? You want to explain to me exactly how the investigation of a failed land deal in Arkansas from the 1970's eventually became all about impeaching a President for lying about a blowjob in the Oval Office?

So give it a break... Judge Kavanaugh gets just as much "presumption of innocence" as he gave President Clinton. The man is getting hoisted on his own petard.

ah here is what we have-a hard core Clintonista upset that republicans investigated Clinton for dozens of claims that he was a sexual predator. Now that hillary lost the election, the clintonistas are madder than cats dropped into an oil well and want revenge.

 

[ultmd]

And that is exactly what they did. The FBI just has a better grasp of what constitutes "credible allegation" than you do.

No one cares about your opinions. Unlike yours, my feelings are not part of my remarks. There are now multiple news sources confirming that the FBI was NOT allowed to conduct a thorough investigation of all leads and potential witnesses to Kavanaugh's behavior. It doesn't really matter what you might want to THINK happened. Read the article.

And no, the way you all talk about what the FBI should have done is more in line with a criminal investigation. Good thing it wasn't, though, since if it was then Ford would be charged with obstruction.

Wrong. Dead wrong. You're making things up again. Interviewing, under oath, all of the 40+ people who have been attempting to contact the FBI to give evidence and/or testimony about Kavanaugh is EXACTLY what should have been done...and it would NOT be " more in line with a criminal investigation". Again, you need to stop trying to present your OPINIONS as objective facts.

Also, this FBI investigation was a supplementary investigation to the one that is already done and as a addendum to the chief investigatory authority in the conformation process: The Senate. The FBI will not redo interviews that have already been completed. What the FBI will do is interview people they view as credible, and who have not already been interviewed in the Senate process. The FBI found 8 people who met that criteria, interviewed those who agreed to an interview, and submitted the results of those interviews.

Nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about. A credible allegation is determined by interviewing and investigating...not by judgment. Of course the FBI would re-interview Kavanaugh if its hands were not tied by the client. The WH is the client. The WH is dictating the terms of the renewed background check. The FBI can only interview the people approved by the WH. The FBI operates with a mantra of "no such thing as too much evidence". You're either confused, or blindly partisan, if you honestly think that interviewing Ford, and a new a interview with Kavanaugh to question them directly about their previous public statements on the issue is not something the FBI would have done if allowed to do so.

It is not the FBI's job to interview every crackpot that has something they want to say, especially when their comments are regarding topics that the FBI finds pointless to their role in support of the Senate... like how much Kavanaugh might have had to drink in college (while still managing to graduate with honors), or an ice throwing incident.

WRONG. Again, you're confusing your personal opinions for reality. It is ABSOLUTELY the FBI's job to investigate any/everything pertaining to the history of a person seeking a high level government appointment.

Also, "potential sources" is a two word phrase, but that first word seems to be invisible to Democrats and their supporters. That you put some credence in an anonymous source doing a bogus headcount of potential sources is just plain sad...

:lamo Oh please. There are numerous sources confirming that the WH has handcuffed the FBI by severely restricting the people that could be interviewed. That is just not arguable, at this point. Neither you, nor any other Trump supporter, can defend what has happened with any credibility, and I think you know it.

 

[jmotivator]

No one cares about your opinions.

Nor should they. The issue here is the FBI's opinion regarding the Kavanaugh accusations.

Their opinion: No credible evidence.

 

[ultmd]

Nor should they.

And yet, you continue to misrepresent them (i.e. your unsubstantiated and overtly biased personal opinions) as facts in all of your arguments.

The issue here is the FBI's opinion regarding the Kavanaugh accusations. Their opinion: No credible evidence.

More unsubstantiated personal opinions being presented as objective facts.

You just can't help yourself, I see. After all, you are a Trump acolyte. So I guess I'm asking too much of you in this discussion.