No comments on Kavanaugh???

[Philip]

DB: The Democrat's behavior towards both Kavanaugh and Ford has been pathetic.

Agreed. Their attitude seems to be to achieve their objectives "By any means necessary!" And whatever really happened with the Ford lady, she was very unnecessarily put through this nightmare because her name was leaked and because her accusation wasn't immediately forwarded to the committee. Obviously someone on Feinstein's staff leaked it. Because not only did they not give a damn about the judge, but neither did they truly care about Ford! It could have been investigated very quietly - but that wouldn't suit the purposes of the anti-conservative crowd.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I'm not sure what is going on other same some big whig has been accused and people are saying that is it a setup and there is evidence of it.

[Philip]

Read Rachel Mitchell's report to the committee investigating the Kavanaugh accusations - it shows just how pathetic the case against him is for these many accusations. And note, she is a long-time and passionate advocate of victims of sexual crimes. Wikipedia: "She's spent 12 years in charge of the sex-crimes bureau, which prosecutes crimes including adult sexual assault and child molestation. Currently, Mitchell is the Chief of the Special Victims Division and leads the bureau involved with sex crimes and family assault."

Here's her devastating summation to those supporting Dr. Ford: https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-r ... 9a711.html

Then read this about the other two accusers: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/ ... ollapsing/

Yeah, there's a pattern alright - of highly dubious, and totally unprovable claims. God help the person so naive or that is so politically / emotionally driven to see them as credible evidences!

[PaulSacramento]

I am stating that one of our legal ( and inalienable) rights is the presumption of innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.
This isn't a communist or fascist regime in which one is guilty until proven innocent.

In a court of law, during a trial, yes. But where does that apply in this context? What Constitutional right is Kavanaugh being denied during this hearing? How does what you're claiming work outside of a trial? What are you talking about?

Ah, so you believe that a person does NOT have the right of presumption of innocence?

[Philip]

The other question is related to the presumption of innocence. Let's say you just don't know the truth, can't know the truth, but FEEL that it's plausible a person is guilty of whatever crime. So, are you going to insist someone be found guilty of a crime based upon your mere feelings that you think something is plausible? You know of their KNOWN, long and unblemished record as an adult with no scandal or criminal actions, and you know you don't know the truth of their youth, can't possibly know the truth behind mere, unsubstantiated accusations - and yet you'd vote guilty???!!! To me, that's truly scary! Not to mention, the precedence it sets for those willing to lie for political reasons or other objectives to smear or ruin someone. Isn't that exactly the kind of tactics the good-ole boys did in many situations to innocent blacks across the South, back in the darkest days of racial hatred and oppression? They said, "that boy is guilty and we know it - you know how their kind is!" Really, such people politically motivated will lie in a heartbeat, because the truth of an individual's guilt doesn't really matter to them. What is important to them is winning their ultimate / political objective at all costs. And so they winked at the sheriffs and the judges, stacked the jury with racist whites, And then whenever differences crop up amongst those who think like this occurs - they'll turn each other with the very same tactics. Look at the French Revolution - soon the murderers were killing each other to achieve their desired outcomes. Scary stuff, this attitude and tactic, when it spreads across a nation or judicial system!

[PaulSacramento]

And this is why innocence is to be assumed, regardless of how we feel, when we just have allegations:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/cou ... las-vegas/

Prosecutors dropped charges Monday against four California dentists, including three brothers, who defense attorneys said were falsely accused of raping a woman at a Las Vegas Strip hotel.

“After review of the facts of the case, it was clear that the allegations were completely fabricated,” lawyers for the men wrote in a prepared statement before a court appearance. “The evidence confirmed the men’s innocence, and the state has cleared them of all charges.”

None of the dentists, all of whom were already free on their own recognizance, appeared in Las Vegas Justice Court for a hearing that took about 30 seconds, just long enough for a prosecutor to tell Justice of the Peace Eric Goodman the charges were dismissed.

In early August, after the allegations were reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, attorneys for Ali Badkoobehi, 30, Saman Edalat, 39, Sina Edalat, 34, and Poria Edalat, 30, said video evidence contradicted the rape claim.

Badkoobehi’s attorneys Robert Draskovich and Michael Horvath said video showed that the allegations were false and the sex was consensual.

Craig Hendricks, who represents Poria Edalat, said prosecutors were presented exculpatory video evidence that showed “extremely different” circumstances than what was initially reported to authorities.

Jess Marchese, the attorney for Saman Edalat, said his client did not have a sexual encounter with the woman. Gary Guymon, who represents Sina Edalat, pointed out in August that a prosecutor did not object to releasing the men without bond.

The men were arrested in late July after the woman told Wynn Las Vegas security that she was sexually assaulted in a suite while intoxicated.

In a statement that referenced the #MeToo movement, the men thanked their lawyers, family and friends for support during a “horrific ordeal,” which included media reports of the allegations.




“We are so grateful to the justice system for recognizing that we were the victims in this case,” the statement said. “We knew when the facts came out that the vicious allegations would be exposed as lies and our good names would be cleared. At this sensitive moment in our history, we believe that women should be respected and heard and believed. But as this case shows, it is also important to keep a critical eye on those willing to use the movement for their own selfish motives and remember that innocent until proven guilty is one of our country’s bedrock principles.”

[edwardmurphy]

Ah, so you believe that a person does NOT have the right of presumption of innocence?

I believe that I've asked you three times what you're talking about, and you've yet to respond. Whatever. Here are my thoughts:

The Constitution gives Kavanaugh the right to the presumption of innocence and a trial by jury if he's accused of a crime. He also has the right to seek redress in court if he feels that he's been slandered or defamed. As far as I can tell, that pretty much covers his rights.

You seem to be saying that he has the right to have everyone give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not seeing how that can possibly work. Arguing that Kavanaugh has the right to the presumption of innocence - outside of a court of law - is pretty much meaningless. There's no law governing personal opinions, and if there was it would be unenforceable. The right to voice our own opinions is protected by the First Amendment. I haven't decided if I think that Kavanaugh is lying, but I have the right to conclude as much and to share that conclusion with anyone who will listen. Kavanaugh doesn't get a vote.

You can certainly claim that everyone deserves the presumption of innocence, but it's a pretty poor argument to make about a political matter (which this absolutely is). If Kavanaugh deserves the presumption of innocence then so does Hillary Clinton. Clinton has had a team of GOP investigators up her backside for 30 years but has never been charged with a crime, so obviously she deserves the presumption of innocence. You know damned well that a sizable chunk of Republicans would never, ever admit that. For that matter, Obama had the right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice and Merrick Garland deserved a hearing, but I've never heard a Republican admit either of those facts. So really, even if this entire thing is just one big smear campaign - and we don't know that it is - the GOP has absolutely nothing to complain about. They've spent 30 years smearing Hillary Clinton. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

And finally, even if Kavanaugh did have the right to be presumed innocent in the court of public opinion, that whole argument is a red herring. He hasn't been jailed, or disbarred, or even withdrawn as a SCOTUS nominee. The allegations are being investigated, and Brett Kavanaugh still has a decent chance of getting on the Supreme Court. None of his rights, be they well-defined or vaguely asserted, seem to have been taken away, and the overall situation doesn't seem to have changed much. Liberals were going to hate Kavanaugh anyway - he represents a direct attack on a lot of things that we hold dear. The majority of conservatives will love him - he's sure to cause liberal tears and a history of sexual impropriety is no longer a disqualifying character flaw for a Republican, so he's golden.

What's the big deal?

[Philip]

Ed: The majority of conservatives will love him - he's sure to cause liberal tears and a history of sexual impropriety is no longer a disqualifying character flaw for a Republican, so he's golden

Very disingenuous comment, Ed, especially the underlined - because you morphed an unproven assumption about his past into how conservatives would consider him. I for one, if I knew he was guilty of some serious sexual crime, would not want him on the court. He's not the only conservative around. But those asserting he's guilty without proof - c'mon, they should just admit to themselves that facts or proof doesn't even enter their thinking - as they simply don't want another conservative on the court, and so if he's innocent, they could care less. Expedient political thinking - not so good for determining truth!

[PaulSacramento]

Ah, so you believe that a person does NOT have the right of presumption of innocence?

I believe that I've asked you three times what you're talking about, and you've yet to respond. Whatever. Here are my thoughts:

The Constitution gives Kavanaugh the right to the presumption of innocence and a trial by jury if he's accused of a crime. He also has the right to seek redress in court if he feels that he's been slandered or defamed. As far as I can tell, that pretty much covers his rights.

You seem to be saying that he has the right to have everyone give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not seeing how that can possibly work. Arguing that Kavanaugh has the right to the presumption of innocence - outside of a court of law - is pretty much meaningless. There's no law governing personal opinions, and if there was it would be unenforceable. The right to voice our own opinions is protected by the First Amendment. I haven't decided if I think that Kavanaugh is lying, but I have the right to conclude as much and to share that conclusion with anyone who will listen. Kavanaugh doesn't get a vote.

You can certainly claim that everyone deserves the presumption of innocence, but it's a pretty poor argument to make about a political matter (which this absolutely is). If Kavanaugh deserves the presumption of innocence then so does Hillary Clinton. Clinton has had a team of GOP investigators up her backside for 30 years but has never been charged with a crime, so obviously she deserves the presumption of innocence. You know damned well that a sizable chunk of Republicans would never, ever admit that. For that matter, Obama had the right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice and Merrick Garland deserved a hearing, but I've never heard a Republican admit either of those facts. So really, even if this entire thing is just one big smear campaign - and we don't know that it is - the GOP has absolutely nothing to complain about. They've spent 30 years smearing Hillary Clinton. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

And finally, even if Kavanaugh did have the right to be presumed innocent in the court of public opinion, that whole argument is a red herring. He hasn't been jailed, or disbarred, or even withdrawn as a SCOTUS nominee. The allegations are being investigated, and Brett Kavanaugh still has a decent chance of getting on the Supreme Court. None of his rights, be they well-defined or vaguely asserted, seem to have been taken away, and the overall situation doesn't seem to have changed much. Liberals were going to hate Kavanaugh anyway - he represents a direct attack on a lot of things that we hold dear. The majority of conservatives will love him - he's sure to cause liberal tears and a history of sexual impropriety is no longer a disqualifying character flaw for a Republican, so he's golden.

What's the big deal?

Ed, to make this simple:
Do YOU believe that presumption of innocence is an inalienable right?

[PaulSacramento]

And you do understand the difference between a case with ONLY allegation between two parties and one with collaborating evidence?

With allegations ONLY, we just have the credibility of BOTH parties and as such, BOTH parties will have EQUAL credibility UNLESS collaborating evidence or FACTUAL history is a factor.

In this case, it is NOT a case if wither the accuser is credible BUT if the accuser is credible enough ( more than the accused) to change the presumption of innocence to one of guilty ( which is what MUST happen) and when all you have is allegations then that is NOT possible ( unless there is prior history or , again, collaborating evidence/allegations from others).

[edwardmurphy]

Ed, to make this simple:
Do YOU believe that presumption of innocence is an inalienable right?

Within the context of a trial, sure, I believe that the presumption of innocence is a right. With a trial there are rules, and those rules can be followed an enforced. Juries can be instructed to follow those rules, inflammatory testimony can be excluded, tainted or false evidence can be thrown out, and so forth.

Without that context - when we're talking about the court of popular opinion - then the inalienable right to the presumption of innocence runs smack into the inalienable of every individual to form their own opinion. It seems to me that the former is effectively nullified by the latter. I don't see how it could possibly be otherwise. The only way to make presumption of innocence in the court of popular opinion into an inalienable right would be to suppress all speech that runs counter to that expectation. So does Kavanaugh's right to the presumption of innocence trump the First Amendment? If not then how do you propose to protect Kavanaugh's rights without infringing on ours?

And to be clear, Paul, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the form of government, or the type of economy, or my personal preferences, or anything else. It's just reality. As long as people can form their own opinions they'll do so, and that means that, right or wrong, there will be instances when an accused person is presumed guilty before he has a chance to defend himself. I'm not rooting for that outcome any more than I root for plane crashes or economic recessions. I'm just saying that they're inevitable.

If you have a counterargument I'd love to hear it.

[edwardmurphy]

Very disingenuous comment, Ed, especially the underlined - because you morphed an unproven assumption about his past into how conservatives would consider him.

That wasn't my intention. What I meant was that the majority of Republican voters don't care whether or not the accusations are true.

I know that you do and I know that you're not the only one, but I also know that Donald Trump enjoys 85% approval among Republicans despite multiple extramarital affairs, multiple payoffs to his mistresses, getting caught on a hot mic bragging about his history of sexual assault, and having nearly 20 women come forward to say that he practiced what he preached. Oh, and bragging about walking backstage during his pageants - including Miss Teen USA - to check out the goods. I forgot that one. I also know that when he ran for Senate Roy Moore got 49% of the vote, despite credible allegations that he was a pedophile and serial sexual harasser.

Add it all up and it seems like the majority of GOP voters no longer gives a damn about morality, family values, or even sexual harassment and sexual assault. So I don't think these accusations will matter, regardless of their veracity. That's what I was saying.

[PaulSacramento]

Ed, to make this simple:
Do YOU believe that presumption of innocence is an inalienable right?

Within the context of a trial, sure, I believe that the presumption of innocence is a right. With a trial there are rules, and those rules can be followed an enforced. Juries can be instructed to follow those rules, inflammatory testimony can be excluded, tainted or false evidence can be thrown out, and so forth.

Without that context - when we're talking about the court of popular opinion - then the inalienable right to the presumption of innocence runs smack into the inalienable of every individual to form their own opinion. It seems to me that the former is effectively nullified by the latter. I don't see how it could possibly be otherwise. The only way to make presumption of innocence in the court of popular opinion into an inalienable right would be to suppress all speech that runs counter to that expectation. So does Kavanaugh's right to the presumption of innocence trump the First Amendment? If not then how do you propose to protect Kavanaugh's rights without infringing on ours?

And to be clear, Paul, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the form of government, or the type of economy, or my personal preferences, or anything else. It's just reality. As long as people can form their own opinions they'll do so, and that means that, right or wrong, there will be instances when an accused person is presumed guilty before he has a chance to defend himself. I'm not rooting for that outcome any more than I root for plane crashes or economic recessions. I'm just saying that they're inevitable.

If you have a counterargument I'd love to hear it.

So you don't agree that presumption of innocence is an inalienable right.
Ok, fair enough.
So, are there ANY inalienable rights?

[PaulSacramento]

I also know that when he ran for Senate Roy Moore got 49% of the vote, despite credible allegations that he was a pedophile and serial sexual harasser.

If the allegations were credible, why was he not prosecuted ??

[B. W.]

Ed, to make this simple:
Do YOU believe that presumption of innocence is an inalienable right?

Within the context of a trial, sure, I believe that the presumption of innocence is a right. With a trial there are rules, and those rules can be followed an enforced. Juries can be instructed to follow those rules, inflammatory testimony can be excluded, tainted or false evidence can be thrown out, and so forth.

Without that context - when we're talking about the court of popular opinion - then the inalienable right to the presumption of innocence runs smack into the inalienable of every individual to form their own opinion. It seems to me that the former is effectively nullified by the latter. I don't see how it could possibly be otherwise. The only way to make presumption of innocence in the court of popular opinion into an inalienable right would be to suppress all speech that runs counter to that expectation. So does Kavanaugh's right to the presumption of innocence trump the First Amendment? If not then how do you propose to protect Kavanaugh's rights without infringing on ours?

And to be clear, Paul, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the form of government, or the type of economy, or my personal preferences, or anything else. It's just reality. As long as people can form their own opinions they'll do so, and that means that, right or wrong, there will be instances when an accused person is presumed guilty before he has a chance to defend himself. I'm not rooting for that outcome any more than I root for plane crashes or economic recessions. I'm just saying that they're inevitable.

If you have a counterargument I'd love to hear it.

So If I understand you correctly public mob lynchings are perfectly acceptable?

Threatening peoples lives is acceptable - destroying their character, career's is acceptable as long as you win in the court of public opinion - truth be d#mnd ...

Soon someone will get hurt - probably killed, maybe even disemboweled over this this

Ed, this is called insurrection - Ricin attacks already - senators lives threatened and chased out of public gatherings. One senator calling on harassment of violence -- will not end well - really Ed?

Is this the world you like to live in - no objective truth or morality accept the beautiful rule of unruly mob?

How would you like to live as a target of such mob rule?
-
-
-