Do you think Judge Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent? (anonymous POLL)

[Peaceful]

Yes, we could, but one or two accusations should not be a problem. In this case, however, things are piling up.

As does horse manure. The difference in this matter is, horse manure is proof in itself of horse crap.
Whereas the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are not supported by one scintilla of credible proof.

 

[Peaceful]

Why don't this woman, Ford, file a criminal complaint against the man, and have it brought before a grand jury.
If there is enough evidence, take it to trial.
Until then, we have no right to judge him.
I believe the Bible says something about judging others.

Ms.Ford cannot do this. The statute of limitations is long expired. And with the proof thus far against her claims, like the supposed witnesses that were there and the named persons state they were not, would even preclude her prevailing in a civil trial. As would the same decades long distance between the offense and now when she's claiming these things occurred.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

I see no evidence you are well aware of that process. Reason being, your accusation, 'caught lying'.
Prove it. Keeping in mind, the person or person's claiming in this case Judge Kavanaugh lied has to have proof and be credible.

Who is reliable here?

The cold, hard facts are that there is no proof one way or the other.

A Justice can’t secure his appointment on the grounds of reasonable doubt. He must be impeccable. Would you, hand over heart, say that he is?

 

[SpoonJuly]

To all who have already judged the man guilty, are you ready to suffer the same fate if some accused you tomorrow.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

As does horse manure. The difference in this matter is, horse manure is proof in itself of horse crap.
Whereas the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are not supported by one scintilla of credible proof.

Neither is his defense.

 

[Peaceful]

Who is reliable here?

The cold, hard facts are that there is no proof one way or the other.

A Justice can’t secure his appointment on the grounds of reasonable doubt. He must be impeccable. Would you, hand over heart, say that he is?

Clarence Thomas committed perjury during his hearing. He sits on SCOTUS today and is known as silent Thomas. Because he rarely speaks during court.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. Kavanaugh is not guilty.

 

[SpoonJuly]

Who is reliable here?

The cold, hard facts are that there is no proof one way or the other.

A Justice can’t secure his appointment on the grounds of reasonable doubt. He must be impeccable. Would you, hand over heart, say that he is?

If this is the new standard, we will never have another justice on the court.
There is always someone willing to cause "reasonable doubt".

 

[1ofthem]

Why is the Honorable Mr Brett Kavanugh so important to you?

Why did they stop appointing Protestants to the court?

Justice is what matters. If this sham is allowed, then justice has totally failed.

I mean just think about....How about I bring up an accusation of (whatever) on you. Should your employer just go ahead and fire you because I said you did whatever to me without any proof or corroboration.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

To all who have already judged the man guilty, are you ready to suffer the same fate if some accused you tomorrow.

I’m not saying he is guilty. I’m saying that the standards required by the SCOTUS are being challenged by his candidacy.

 

[Peaceful]

Neither is his defense.

A defendant has no Constitutional obligation to proffer a defense. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case with credible evidence.

How does someone prove a negative?

 

[Jennie-Mae]

Clarence Thomas committed perjury during his hearing. He sits on SCOTUS today and is known as silent Thomas. Because he rarely speaks during court.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. Kavanaugh is not guilty.

You are confusing criminal law with the procedure of appointing Justices.

 

[Peaceful]

FOX News 10/3 GOP lawmakers demand 'immediate' ethics probe into leak of Ford's Kavanaugh letter

 

[Jennie-Mae]

A defendant has no Constitutional obligation to proffer a defense. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case with credible evidence.

How does someone prove a negative?

I have already answered this.

 

[Peaceful]

You are confusing criminal law with the procedure of appointing Justices.

I'm not confused in the least. I'm rebutting your use of the terms you've employed in your rebuttal so as to afford their relevance in matters pertaining to the Kavanaugh case.

 

[Peaceful]

I have already answered this.

Wrongly, I'm sure.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

I'm not confused in the least. I'm rebutting your use of the terms you've employed in your rebuttal so as to afford their relevance in matters pertaining to the Kavanaugh case.

But they are irrelevant to his case. It’s not a criminal case.

 

[SpoonJuly]

Neither is his defense.

The law requires he be proven guilty. It is not up to him to prove himself innocent.

 

[Peaceful]

If this is the new standard, we will never have another justice on the court.
There is always someone willing to cause "reasonable doubt".

The panel members are each entitled to weigh what's been accused against Judge Kavanaugh and render their decision as to his fitness for court.
What many watchers of these proceedings don't realize is that there are lawmakers who are educated in the law. They're lawyers or attorneys. Therefore, their opinion of the allegations against this man would be reviewed likely under their understanding of law as well.

 

[Peaceful]

But they are irrelevant to his case. It’s not a criminal case.

OK, then you won't be bringing up such terms in your future posts? So as to afford address of those terms as you thought they pertained to this case?

 

[Jennie-Mae]

Wrongly, I'm sure.

Please elaborate.