Dems are officially a national disgrace.

If there was a 50% chance someone (hypothetical person) was a rapist, then he shouldn't go to jail. But I wouldn't nominate him to the Supreme Court. The burden of proof is lower for Supreme Court nominations because the nominee has a burden to show they are worthy.

 

So what? Being accused of serious crimes is being accused of serious crimes. Kavanaugh is a judge. That is worse to accuse a judge of serious crimes.

 

And many rapes are actual rapes.

 

Was there a call for a hearing?

Last I checked, there was actually a photo of him being a bit... too nonchalant when it came to dealing with that chick's right to say "no means no".

That's called "evidence" son. Something that you don't seem to hold particularly relevant here.

 

If there was a 50% change that a man was a rapist that isn't enough to throw him in jail. But that chance is too much to nominate him to the Supreme Court for life. My point is that the burden of proof for Supreme Court nominations is lower than in criminal courts because the nominee needs to show that are good candidates and therefore share the burden of proof.

 

Then I would strongly advise you to vote no.

lol!!!!!

 

No, it isn't any different. No evidence means (I know the math is tough for dems, but...) no evidence.

 

What shall they investigate when she doesnt know exactly when or where or how she got there or how she left... and all the people she named witnesses deny her story? There is nothing to investigate except maybe why she lied about not flying to delay the procedures when its come out shes flown to Hawaii, Tahiti, France, etc... and flew to DC from Calif.

 

So you agree? (that was too easy)

 

As we discussed enough times that was a posed photo.

Tweeden's pinching men's rumps or sticking her tongue into their mouths and spreading saliva wasn't posed. It was authentic.

And where was all the Republican condemnation of all the Republican sexual deviants?

 

All the witnesses she named said they did not know what she was talking about....BOOM! He has more than 50% in his favor. Case closed.

 

I suggest the FBI interview people how knew Brett from high school and college and people who went to these parties. They are probably going to be tight lipped though because these parties could seriously ruin their professional reputations in front of the nation.

 

Democratic money all over this

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2132564513669847

 

Try to stay on topic, ok? We could talk about leftwing perverts all day, but the subject is trumped up accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.

 

What if they are tight lipped because they did some things illegal and they don't want to ruin their reputations in front of the nation?

 

What if bigfoot is involved?

 

So you think people being tight lipped about poor past behavior is like bigfoot?

 

You mean like they investigated Hillarys lost emails? Whatta joke.

So you think the FBI should question 50 year old people about one night, 35 years ago when they were in high school? Did you vote for Hillary?

 

What-ifs are not just cause to destroy the justice system. try as seditionists may.

 

I didn’t know it was against the rules for men to cry. Should we revoke his man card?

 

apparently the Usual Suspects' definition of a 'fair hearing' is one that bears out their preconceptions.

mind you, these are the people who hold themselves out as the 'sciencey' ones.

 

Well in this case there is more evidence that bigfoot exists than your claim.

 

What happened to logic and reason?

 

the prospect of more free stuff won out.

 

Not a liberal, and do you have evidence?