The public trial of the evil rapist Kavanaugh

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kharron

He is innocent.

Until.

Proven.

Otherwise.

Exactly, thank you for repeating what I already said multiple times.


Answer this please:

Do you have proof that she is lying?

Do you know for a fact he is not?

What is the normal procedure to do in such situations, legally?

a reply to: DBCowboy

a reply to: Kharron

we have all been saying he is innocent until proven not to be'

for some reason though it sure reads like his mind is already made up and really dont want her to speak

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kharron

He is innocent.

Until.

Proven.

Otherwise.

You are trying to tell liberals that the way law works in a civilized country, the burden of proof lies on the accuser.

They don't think that way. If they did, then they wouldn't be liberals.

I heartily agree with your rant, but they will never comprehend what you are trying to say.

After all, they have already been told by thier news sources what to think.

a reply to: TinySickTears
I have identified the lack of understanding and will attempt to clarify it. Senator Diane feinstein(please have this woman arrested my dearest Trump) received this accusation in a letter seven weeks prior to it being disclosed. The assumption being that the delay is politically motivated for the worst possible timing.

It is being done as a stall tactic to keep this man from obtaining the position he has been selected for. The reasoning for that being to prevent some conservative majority in one of our checks and balances as some imagined threat to non white Americans inside of the USA and women in general and possibly homosexuals for the next generation of our country.

Now many of our conservative friends here unfortunately are guilty of the same brain washing parrotting frequently accused onto current rabid liberals types. They attack or defend with sound bytes and talking points, but cannot themselves necessarily articulate the threat from their own perspective.

That covers the accusation itself and the hysteria over the timing. The hostility your sensing is from what can be seen as questionable motives of both the accuser and the senator, as well as the DNC itself for it's part in formenting this environment. The accuser was already offered a time and date to speak soon after the allegations came to light, but pursued alternative settings and times. The perceived goal of which is to create yet another delay in what is an endless series of them for all appointees of the current government by it's opposition party.

It also begs to question the motives of accusers and their backers as if they would stoop to such petty manipulation of the actual facts, what else are they capable of or already guilty of committing in a vein attempt to retain power??

I find the real live soap operas directed by Mr. Pompeo here on the domestic front to be quite lackluster, boring, and just bad writing altogether.

You got to hire better writers Mike, the guys you got at the GEC now just are not cutting it.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: DBCowboy


Isn't Kavanaugh speaking the truth until proven otherwise?

well yes

thats why there is an investigation and thats why testimony is being heard

so what am i missing?

You're missing the part about why this didn't happen 36 years ago. Or for that matter back in July when the Dems first got wind of this story, or why Fienstien is no releasing the information she supposedly has.

a reply to: TinySickTears

All of you huh. Before he was even sworn in 'they' were trying to impeach him. Dont you have to be guilty of something to be impeached??

a reply to: worldstarcountry

thanks

all makes sense

could be a stall tactic. im with you

it could also be true

so what should be done from here

just dismiss her cause hey, # it?

not asking you

thanks for the post

a reply to: Kharron


She has to prove that she is telling the truth and that he is lying.

a reply to: rollanotherone

i cant tell you why it didnt happen 36 years ago

might be a good reason
if so i don know what it would be

might all be bull#

im learning the ins and outs as i go

a reply to: DBCowboy

Prove to me that he is lying.

He's already proven to be liar in his hearings. He lied about receiving stolen emails from Leakey's office. He was dishonest with Kamala Harris and her questions about his buddy at the law firm that represents President Trump and their reference to his opinion in their briefs.

He omitted a crucial part of a transcript of one of his speeches, submitted to the Judicial Committee, where he talked about he and his buddies at his Catholic prep school and their motto "What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep".

So yeah, I think there's a good chance he's not being forthcoming in this incident.

Considering that, and his omission and lies, as well as his apparent gambling problem, I don't think he's fit for the office.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: DBCowboy


Presumption of innocence must conclude that she is, unless she has proof.

so lets give her a chance to prove it

what do you say?

Why hasn't she already done so?

She had 36 years what was she waiting for?

Yup. That is the whole argument. And Grassley is falling right in line with his RINO marching orders.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: TinySickTears

All of you huh. Before he was even sworn in 'they' were trying to impeach him. Dont you have to be guilty of something to be impeached??

all of who?

i have never once said i wanted him to be impeached or that he should be impeached so please dont lump me in with that

a reply to: Sookiechacha


Nice narrative, aren't you supposed to provide links to your talking points?

If she had proof, why wait 36 years?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy


This isn't about a presumption of innocence, it's about his fitness to serve on the highest court of the land.

Nobody is threatening to take Brett Kavanuagh's freedom away. But, put this on the street, where some random 15 year old girl accuses some random 17 year old boy of attempted rape. He'll get arrested, booked and finger printed and put in a jail cell until an arraignment before a judge. There's no presumption of innocence, really.

It's Kavanaugh's allies and the White House who have already decided that Ford is lying, or at best, confused. It's the Judicial Committee's response to Ford and her Attorney that are making Kavanaugh look guilty.

No. It's lack of evidence and an all too convenient sexual assault allegation at a time when Dems choose to thwart the will of the people. I know you don't see it this way since you lost in 2016.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DBCowboy

Public Trials are tedious affairs with prima donnas on very street corner gossiping loudly for attention.

I prefer a nice Show Trial in an Kangaroo Court, complete with a large revolver loaded with only one bullet.

I say they should just hang him now and impeach Trump.

Maybe that'll satisfy the ####ing leftist bastards.

Nope. Still have that pesky constitution and all those damn gun owners. They'll never be satisfied.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kharron

He is innocent.

Until.

Proven.

Otherwise.

You are trying to tell liberals that the way law works in a civilized country, the burden of proof lies on the accuser.

They don't think that way. If they did, then they wouldn't be liberals.

I heartily agree with your rant, but they will never comprehend what you are trying to say.

After all, they have already been told by thier news sources what to think.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: TinySickTears

All of you huh. Before he was even sworn in 'they' were trying to impeach him. Dont you have to be guilty of something to be impeached??

all of who?

i have never once said i wanted him to be impeached or that he should be impeached so please dont lump me in with that

Was speaking to:

originally posted by: TinySickTears

we have all been saying he is innocent until proven not to be'

I normally dont lump you in with the all too typical nutters.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: TinySickTears

All of you huh. Before he was even sworn in 'they' were trying to impeach him. Dont you have to be guilty of something to be impeached??

all of who?

i have never once said i wanted him to be impeached or that he should be impeached so please dont lump me in with that

Was speaking to:

originally posted by: TinySickTears

we have all been saying he is innocent until proven not to be'

I normally dont lump you in with the all too typical nutters.

all meaning the other people in this thread saying he is in fact presumed innocent

i dont mean everyone in the world

DC said she is presumed innocent
i said it
Kharron said it

i have yet to see anyone on here say he is not

thats what i meant

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kharron


She has to prove that she is telling the truth and that he is lying.

And how is that to be done without an investigation? She provided transcripts of therapy sessions; people close to her vouched that she talked about Kavanaugh and brought up his name years before.

I don't know how to explain to you that this will not be resolved without what is normal in these cases -- an investigation.

If she lied and if her witnesses lie and if the therapist lied, then they all need to feel the repercussions of such behavior. But there is enough proof to warrant an investigation or this would have ended on day one, you realize that right?

Or are you saying because he denied it, it's all said and done?


Just like cops never start an investigation once an alleged murderer says they didn't do it:

Oh he said he didn't do it? Well, what are we doing here, let's go get some donuts and shoot some dogs.

That's how it goes, right?