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

[Locutus]

I wouldn't put too much "stock" in the afraid of flying statement - I'm apprehensive when it comes to jet travel although I've done lots in the past - over the years my "apprehension" has gotten worse over time. Last flight I took was over 10 years ago.

I still think he's guilty - the FBI has not contacted people that have recently spoken out on Bart O' Kavanaugh's barfing college days.

 

[UnderGrace]

We don't know if the ex boyfriend is lying or not UG.

Bart was evasive about being the barfer in his buds book:



His room mate stated he was a boozer:

I think you are missing the whole legal point. The burden of proof is on the accuser period.

If he lied under oath that is a separate issue. It is the allegation that must have proof, as in corroborating testimony, of which there is none. He does not even have to present a defense. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around...... capisci?

If you cannot see the holes in her story please be sure to not sit on a jury.....ummmm I do not remember the house, I do not remember how I got home, I am afraid of flying but I flew all the time prior to this hearing...... but I know I had one beer and that was 36 years ago.

I find it interesting that you want neutrality, yet you are biased in this and are not looking at the facts through a legal lens, but rather a CNN lens.

 

[UnderGrace]

I wouldn't put too much "stock" in the afraid of flying statement - I'm apprehensive when it comes to jet travel although I've done lots in the past - over the years my "apprehension" has gotten worse over time. Last flight I took was over 10 years ago.

I still think he's guilty - the FBI has not contacted people that have recently spoken out on Bart O' Kavanaugh's barfing college days.

That proves nothing absolutely nothing it is not even connected to the allegations.
The FBI have found nothing six times in there back ground check.
Being drunk is not crime.

If this was a real court none of that nonsense would even occur.

Drinking behaviour is not related to sexual offender behaviour.

Drugs and alcohol cause sexual offenses to occur.
False. While drugs and alcohol are often involved in sexual assaults, drugs and alcohol do not cause sexual offenses to occur. Rather, drug and alcohol use may be a disinhibitor for the offender, while being under the influence may increase a potential victim's vulnerability.
MegansLaw State of California

 

[Jennie-Mae]

This is not a trial. The burden of proof rule doesn’t apply.

A candidate for the Supreme Court that has been admitted because he wasn’t proven guilty, is not my candidate. A Justice in the highest of positions should not be measured by the same standards defendants on trial in a criminal case are. What’s next? OJ Simpson for SCOTUS?

A Supreme Court Justice candidate should not, under no circumstances, be caught lying about his drinking habits. He should not be lying at all.

 

[Peaceful]

This is not a trial. The burden of proof rule doesn’t apply.

A candidate for the Supreme Court that has been admitted because he wasn’t proven guilty, is not my candidate. A Justice in the highest of positions should not be measured by the same standards defendants on trial in a criminal case are. What’s next? OJ Simpson for SCOTUS?

A Supreme Court Justice candidate should not, under no circumstances, be caught lying about his drinking habits. He should not be lying at all.

The burden of proof rule doesn't apply? So Kavenaugh should be denied a seat on SCOTUS just becasue he's accused of wrong doing? No proof necessary?

It would help you quite a lot to learn about the SCOTUS confirmation process. Look here:http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

 

[1ofthem]

No this definitely wasn't a trial, there wouldn't have been enough evidence for a trial...

This has just been one big Democratic game.

If people can't see that then GOD help them.

If this type of thing is allowed then you might as well forget justice in this country because you will probably never see it again...

 

[Jennie-Mae]

The burden of proof rule doesn't apply? So Kavenaugh should be denied a seat on SCOTUS just becasue he's accused of wrong doing? No proof necessary?

It would help you quite a lot to learn about the SCOTUS confirmation process. Look here:http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

I am well aware of that process.

But for the record, would you be so kind to elaborate in what manner you find that the link you provided gives a candidate caught lying access to the highest court?

Or would you like to contradict that? In that case, on what grounds?

 

[MichaelOwen]

I am well aware of that process.

But for the record, would you be so kind to elaborate in what manner you find that the link you provided gives a candidate caught lying access to the highest court?

Or would you like to contradict that? In that case, on what grounds?

When you say for the record, you are speaking like you're a journalist or a reporter trying to trap someone....are you?

 

[SpoonJuly]

This is not a trial. The burden of proof rule doesn’t apply.

A candidate for the Supreme Court that has been admitted because he wasn’t proven guilty, is not my candidate. A Justice in the highest of positions should not be measured by the same standards defendants on trial in a criminal case are. What’s next? OJ Simpson for SCOTUS?

A Supreme Court Justice candidate should not, under no circumstances, be caught lying about his drinking habits. He should not be lying at all.

So if any Senator does not like a candidate all he has to do is get someone to make an accusation of misconduct and that candidate should not be considered.
Great way to stop those who you don't like.
Would you feel the same if it was you?

 

[SpoonJuly]

I am well aware of that process.

But for the record, would you be so kind to elaborate in what manner you find that the link you provided gives a candidate caught lying access to the highest court?

Or would you like to contradict that? In that case, on what grounds?

Where is the proof of lying?

 

[Jennie-Mae]

When you say for the record, you are speaking like you're a journalist or a reporter trying to trap someone....are you?

No, I’m not a journalist nor a reporter.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

So if any Senator does not like a candidate all he has to do is get someone to make an accusation of misconduct and that candidate should not be considered.
Great way to stop those who you don't like.
Would you feel the same if it was you?

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

Why did they stop appointing Protestants to the court?

 

[SpoonJuly]

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

Why did they stop appointing Protestants to the court?

I do not know the man. Never heard of him until recently.
I would feel the same way no matter who he was.
It is just wrong and we are heading down a dangerous road if this continues.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

Where is the proof of lying?

To my knowledge some of his contemporaries have stepped forward saying that his statements on his drinking habits weren’t accurate. In fact, they most likely could be considered contradicting the truth.

 

[Locutus]

I find it interesting that you want neutrality, yet you are biased in this and are not looking at the facts through a legal lens, but rather a CNN lens.

I watched the whole thing UG - nothing biased here - I believe the woman.

 

[SpoonJuly]

To my knowledge some of his contemporaries have stepped forward saying that his statements on his drinking habits weren’t accurate. In fact, they most likely could be considered contradicting the truth.

Those senators should be careful. I would bet most of them have a drinking issue and deny it.

 

[Peaceful]

I am well aware of that process.

But for the record, would you be so kind to elaborate in what manner you find that the link you provided gives a candidate caught lying access to the highest court?

Or would you like to contradict that? In that case, on what grounds?

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.

 

[Jennie-Mae]

I do not know the man. Never heard of him until recently.
I would feel the same way no matter who he was.
It is just wrong and we are heading down a dangerous road if this continues.

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

 

[Peaceful]

No this definitely wasn't a trial, there wouldn't have been enough evidence for a trial...

This has just been one big Democratic game.

If people can't see that then GOD help them.

If this type of thing is allowed then you might as well forget justice in this country because you will probably never see it again...

With regard to the Ford woman the statute of limitations for her accusations today ran out after a year from the date of the alleged occurrence.

 

[SpoonJuly]

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.