Kavanaugh Accuser Christina Ford Linked To Big Pharma Abortion Pill Maker

a reply to: Sookiechacha

ummmmm its not , its testimony.............

Thats why its called testimony dude...........

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: CynConcepts

She didn't give out the names to her therapist in 2012.

Innocent until proven guilty should apply both to kavanaugh and christina.

What are you talking about?
Dr Ford is not being asked to prove her innocence, she is being asked to prove that her allegation are true.
It is only important, and right, that we presume Kavanaugh is innocent at this stage.

You mean she's being asked to prove that she's not a liar.

Nope, she is being asked to prove her accusation.
If she can not prove it, it doesn't mean she is lying.
We know for certain that either Kavanaugh or Ford are lying/mistaken. That is not the issue and requires no proof or effort to determine.
All that is required is proof that the accusations made by Dr Ford are true.
Until that time, it is only right to presume that Kavanaugh is innocent of what he is accused of doing.
Under no circumstance should a civilised society levy ANY punishment on an individual based solely on the accusations of another.
This is why Ford is being asked to testify, to determine if she really has anything that could corroborate her claims. If not, the Senate will move on to a vote.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”). In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.

en.wikipedia.org...

We don't convict people based on an accusation, or the testimony of a person, until it's proven to be FACTUAL.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It's like talking to a wall....

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


Good thing you're not a lawyer. LOL

Testimony IS evidence, and in criminal court, which this is not, it get's people convicted all the time.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Why dont you feel sorry for him? hes accused with absolutely NO evidence.

After the way Republican Congress ran the clock out on Garland, do you seriously think the Democrats would not try the same thing, given how soon the mid-terms are? Kavanaugh should have said "no, thank you." If he does get confirmed, he would need to recuse himself from any case the Trump administration is involved in or he would get impeached. Can you imagine what Trump would say about him if he did recuse himself?

a reply to: shawmanfromny


Again, you're talking about a court of law, that has the power to take away an individual's life and/or liberty. That's not where we are here. We are in a court of public opinion that is evaluating the fitness of this individual to be elevated to serve as a Supreme Court Justice for life, not whether or not he should serve time in prison.

a reply to: PainGod

You're innocent until proven guilty in COURT. If he actually did this he' s guilty in the here and now its just not proven. And its not ever going to court.
He is an imperfect candidate. Now there is doubt. Time to find a new nominee. This guy isnt it. Its not like hes the last judge in the world. There are others. There is no rush. Its a lifetime appointment. Find someone without the uncertainty.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: DJW001

No, you're an idiot for doing what the MSM and Liberal entertainers are doing....convicting him of a crime without due process and completely ignoring the fact, that in this country we are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. By the way, where is the outrage at CORY BOOKER who's still on the Senate, even though he admitted to trying to grope the breast of a girl? Is it because he's a Democrat and the Liberal press, including people like you, are giving him a free pass?

I am not "convicting him of a crime," I am pointing out that accepting this poisoned nomination showed poor judgement. Al Franken stepped down because of a single photograph taken in jest. Why won't Trump step down after being exposed as a sleazebag?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


Good thing you're not a lawyer. LOL

Testimony IS evidence, and in criminal court, which this is not, it get's people convicted all the time.

No........no its not..........no matter how much you want it to be.........

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Why dont you feel sorry for him? hes accused with absolutely NO evidence.

After the way Republican Congress ran the clock out on Garland, do you seriously think the Democrats would not try the same thing, given how soon the mid-terms are? Kavanaugh should have said "no, thank you." If he does get confirmed, he would need to recuse himself from any case the Trump administration is involved in or he would get impeached. Can you imagine what Trump would say about him if he did recuse himself?

So your excuse is "because Garland, so I dont feel bad at all for a potentially innocent man at all or his family"

This is the reason the democratic party is utterly destroying itself.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yeah...BASED ON THE TRUTH AND NOT SPECULATION AND HE SAID, SHE SAID BULLSH!T. How is it OK to ruin a person's reputation and character based on a UNPROVEN accusation. You still haven't answered my question on Cory Booker. Why is it OK for him to still have a Senate seat after ADMITTING to groping the breast of a 15 year old? Where's the "court of public opinion" on this FACT?

I see the thread has nothing to do with the pharmaceutical company. Its just devolved into yet another thread about he said she said. This is why I stay out of these conversations for the most part.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


Good thing you're not a lawyer. LOL

Testimony IS evidence, and in criminal court, which this is not, it get's people convicted all the time.

Dude, where is her official sworn testimony under penalty of perjury? She has not provided this to the Senate Committee at this time. The ONLY ones who have provided such is everyone that she has named. They all have immediately done so, Ms. Ford has not.

If she believes in her own truth of these allegations, why has she been delaying this? The others are now all facing penalties if they are found to have lied under oath. She at this point has not even stepped up and put her own integrity on the line! She has only made allegations and has NOT given nor provided any testimony!

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


Good thing you're not a lawyer. LOL

Testimony IS evidence, and in criminal court, which this is not, it get's people convicted all the time.

No........no its not..........no matter how much you want it to be.........

Yes...…..it is...……………….no matter how much you protest, there are people sitting in prison because of testimonial evidence.
………………………………………………………………………………..

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: PainGod

You're innocent until proven guilty in COURT. If he actually did this he' s guilty in the here and now its just not proven. And its not ever going to court.
He is an imperfect candidate. Now there is doubt. Time to find a new nominee. This guy isnt it. Its not like hes the last judge in the world. There are others. There is no rush. Its a lifetime appointment. Find someone without the uncertainty.

IF!

But there is no evidence...........none...........everyone she named as a witness denied it, she cant get her story straight, neither can her "therapist"

There IS NO EVIDENCE........

Sillyoleme, I was once at a house warming gathering wth you, and you molested my child when I was otherwise involved........prove me wrong.......

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


Good thing you're not a lawyer. LOL

Testimony IS evidence, and in criminal court, which this is not, it get's people convicted all the time.

No........no its not..........no matter how much you want it to be.........

Yes...…..it is...……………….no matter how much you protest, there are people sitting in prison because of testimonial evidence.
………………………………………………………………………………..

No they are sitting in prison (right or wrong) because it was corroborated by someone else..........there is absolutely NO corroboration..........none..........

a reply to: CynConcepts

Dude, where is her official sworn testimony under penalty of perjury? She has not provided this to the Senate Committee at this time.

Patience, Grasshopper. I'm pretty sure that they've set a date for that.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So your excuse is "because Garland, so I dont feel bad at all for a potentially innocent man at all or his family"

I specifically said "I feel sorry for Kavanaugh's family." It is not a question of innocence, it is a question of judgement. He was one of the "investigators" in the Clinton-Lewinski circus, so he should be more politically astute. As always, everyone Trump "hires" gets screwed.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


Not necessarily. When there is only one victim, that victim's testimony and ability to identify the perp, that's enough to put that person away. It happens every day, thankfully.