Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought for a minute that you were being sarcastic. After what we have watched the dems just pull you actually point fingers at the right?
Does lady justice call guilty before any evidence is presented? The dems did that with Kavanaugh. Does lady justice call guilty when there is no evidence and the witnesses for the accuser deny that it happened? Does lady Justice call guilty before there is even a trial?
In the America I loved we were presumed innocent until proven guilty. Can you even pretend that Kavanaugh was afforded that presumption? Now be honest.
I think the Democrats applied the same standards Republicans have been using on the Clintons for years. Assuming they are guilty of every crime that is possible for the last 30 years
I hope both sides have learned their lesson about being more cautious about throwing accusations.
Originally Posted by Ringo1 There's no 'presumed innocent' when it comes to a job interview.
Nor when it is an inquisition.
That testimony wasn't an interview and you know it.
The weeks of verbal assaults and slanders that led up to it are not part of any job interview.
The democrat party all but calling him a rapist based upon a very very weak story, a story the witnesses denied, and different than Ford's own therapist reported.
Is "It was a job interview" the new talking point? Is that how the left is justifying it's third world behavior and approach to justice? Is this how the left will react the next time a black male is accused of a crime and there is no evidence, credible witnesses, and the accuser can't even name a time or date?
Yes, I agree with this. She was used - and conveniently not told about the California option.
The latter didn't happen. She became their pawn.
NO - not based on the history because she beganthe process long before Brett was nominated.
This he did. I truly believe it happened exactly as she describes
But, it doesn't matter TODAY. He was a sex-obsessed immature 17 y/o - trying to be older than his years. I forgive him for that. I'm so old I barely remember being 15 - but I do know that even in my 20's I was pretty darn immature. I wouldn't today want to be held accountable for some of the stupid stuff I said and did then.
That said, he revealed at the hearing he still has a way to go in the immaturity department. We need better on the SC.
She kept changing her story. Her therapist notes don’t agree with her current story. She even said late 80s, then mid-80s, then ‘82. No one has corroborated it. I’d say the circumstances of having her friend disappear would make it very memorable for her friend Leland.
I think the Democrats applied the same standards Republicans have been using on the Clintons for years. Assuming they are guilty of every crime that is possible for the last 30 years
I hope both sides have learned their lesson about being more cautious about throwing accusations.
You think we'll see either side change?
Nope they will only do what they have been doing. Ratcheting it up.
The Clinton scandals with women. Many were paid off. Most from what we can gather had some plausibility in their accusations. Add to this his history of having to pay off accusers.
Clinton's lie and lie often. Hillary more than Bill. That said they also are surrounded by a lot of coincidence. That is if you trust in coincidences. Are they guilty of every innuendo? Every crime they are accused of? Veery doubtful. Are they guilty of some? We need a court to find out and that will never happen.
Well, you are just wrong. The judicial committee was NEVER going to rule on 'guilty vs not guilty'. That's not their role; perhaps you need a civics refresher.
It absolutely was a job interview and no one knows it more than Bart O'Kavanaugh (ring a bell?). I see he's now written an Op Ed wherein he reassures all to disregard his outburst that he'll be fine and impartial, even-keeled fella
I believe her because I found her testimony credible on its face. She was only 15 y/o and very impressionable - and clearly scared out of her mind.
Further, to bring this accusation today - knowing there was no way she could prove it and further knowing how hideous the process might become - isn't anything any female willingly subjects herself to. That is also the reason I've always believed Anita Hill. She didn't make any of that up. It was all true.
Fwiw, I was assaulted by a superior at my workplace about 15 years ago - no witnesses, of course. It wasn't quite as serious as what Ford experienced - groping, grabbing, but not attempting to rip off clothes. Of course, I was a lot older and shrugged it off. I told NO ONE except one co-worker and would NEVER report it because the trouble which would follow would be all out of proportion to the actual event
- which is what has now occurred to Christine Ford - all manner of repercussions all out of proportion to the actual event.
Ford, because of her young age, was much more severely affected - although, imo, she remains immature if this event is still so indelibly imprinted she is compelled to bring all this trouble on herself and her family.
I found absolutely nothing credible about her testimony. Ask anyone who has extensive education and experience in kinesic interview and interrogation techniques what they think. She lied. Repeatedly.
Just a reminder to everyone, Ford notified - I can't remember who - of her concerns about Kavanaugh when his name first arose on the list of SC candidates
- and long before he was nominated.
She couldn't get anyone's attention.
She continue to make efforts to voice her concerns - wrote the WaPo several times - and eventually got through to her Representative and then Feinstein. All of this was recited in her testimony last week.
That said - and I'll repeat again - a 36 y/o allegation about stupid immature high school and college behavior has no business being adjudicated now. Feinstein should have stopped it - because it was unprovable. And the Democrats have hurt themselves badly with this circus.
That said - I believe Ford - but at the same time Brett was a kid when this happened - and pretty immature one at that judging from his antics at Yale. At the same time, stupid bad behavior when so very young shouldn't haunt one their entire life.
That said - during this horrendous process we learned a lot about Brett's suitability for the SC. Nasty, rude, disrespectful, extremely partisan (which he's been accused of for some years, now) - and vengeful.
So, we have an opportunity to dodge a bullet here.
He does not belong on the SC.
He is a man who has lied under oath multiple times--not just evaded the intent of the question but flat out lied.
He is the perfect candidate for Trump--
A kindred spirit so to speak
He will be the most tarnished Supreme Court Justice since Roger Taney
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
