Who is being punished? Judge Kavanaugh, his wife, his children, his family, his supporters and the entire country.
Lol. Who is being punished? You do understand how investigations work and the point of them, right? This isn't just another example of your complete and utter stupidity on a subject, is it?
I'd be OK with the vote on Kavanaugh taking place on Mon. Nov. 5thYou're putting words in Flake's mouth. He didn't say what he'd do if there was no testimony. He's the perfect guy to take the hit & take the heat off the GOP in the run up to the election. They can all go on about how the dirty Democrats smeared a good man & yada, yada, yada.
The Democrats won't blink first, bet on that. It would seem unwise for McConnell not to. The unintended consequences are incalculable.
Who is being punished? Judge Kavanaugh, his wife, his children, his family, his supporters and the entire country.
He also knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is innocent of the charges.His participation in this GOP power play is entirely voluntary. He knows who he is & he knows that the Dems will fight his confirmation tooth & nail. The fact that he'd accept the appointment under the current circumstances means he's not fit to serve.
Who is being punished? Judge Kavanaugh, his wife, his children, his family, his supporters and the entire country.
He also knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is innocent of the charges.
The burden of proof is not on the accused. We do not require investigations to prove innocence but to prove guilt.Perfect! Then any investigation into this matter should support that, right? Why would you or him not want this, if it will lead to his innocence?
How is he being punished? Do you think supreme court nomination hearings are supposed to be formalities and butt kissing?
That aside, how does one price their innocence or guilt without an investigation? Apparently, to you, innocent until proven guilty means you don't do investigations if the accused says they are innocent. I don't think I need to tell you how fucking dumb that is. I don't think I need to remind you of your position on Hillary and the 10 investigations she dealt with. Surely you aren't a hypocrite and a partisan hack.
Dipshit, he is innocent, what part of the rule of law don't you understand? Or do you think we're under the Napoleonic Code?Perfect! Then any investigation into this matter should support that, right? Why would you or him not want this, if it will lead to his innocence?
Kavanaugh is not a constitutionalist as he would allot far more power to the President than the Constitution allows. What is lurking in the Bush administration files that has the Republicans so worried? What did Kavanaugh write about Bush's abuses that the Republicans don't want dragged into the light of day?Right....to a liberal, anyone who is a constitutionalist is a radical. It might just be the left that is radical. There are extremists on both sides of the aisle, but think the vast collection of them, on the radical left, are right here, while the extreme right is on some shit llke stormfront. lol
In criminal cases, sure.The burden of proof is not on the accused. We do not require investigations to prove innocence but to prove guilt.
Again with your silly allusions to trial procedures. This isn't a trial.The burden of proof is not on the accused. We do not require investigations to prove innocence but to prove guilt.
In criminal cases, sure.
Once again, this isn't one of those.
Again with your silly allusions to trial procedures. This isn't a trial.
The burden of proof is not on the accused. We do not require investigations to prove innocence but to prove guilt.
You're the only one trying to conflate the two.Well we need to make up our minds. Is this a criminal case or a job interview. The narratives keep shifting with every goal post move.
Perfect! Then any investigation into this matter should support that, right? Why would you or him not want this, if it will lead to his innocence?
Except we said the same thing. It's not a criminal trial. No goalposts are moving except on your end.Well we need to make up our minds. Is this a criminal case or a job interview. The narratives keep shifting with every goal post move.
Dipshit, he is innocent, what part of the rule of law don't you understand? Or do you think we're under the Napoleonic Code?
By investigation, what do you mean?
There isn't going to be an FBI investigation, for two reasons:
Statute of Limitations
Allegations, even if true, would not be a federal crime.
Therefore, any investigation would be done in congress, using testimony from the accuser, and or witnesses. If the accuser can't recall the exact date, place, time, purpose of the party, etc., where does that leave us? If she refuses to testify, where does that leave us?
It leaves us where she has not demonstrated by sworn testimony that this happened and absence of facts, or having foggy memory, will destroy her credibility when she is deposed under oath. All she remembers is that something happened and she dropped a name. Who administered the polygraph and what was the line of questioning? I don't know...do you? Do you believe a polygraph to be a lie detector, where the results are an absolute true or false?
Except we said the same thing. It's not a criminal trial. No goalposts are moving except on your end.
#BenghaziThe burden of proof is not on the accused. We do not require investigations to prove innocence but to prove guilt.
The burden of proof is not on the accused. We do not require investigations to prove innocence but to prove guilt.
Except this isn't a job interview, if it was the President would just appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the position.So if I apply for a job I don't have to prove I deserve it, rather the employer has to prove I don't? Wow, that should make interviews a lot easier.