We may never find out. But the fact that most Americans oppose Presumption of Innocence for men accused of Sexual Misconduct is troubling.
"Presumption of Innocence" is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. In the case of a Supreme Court nominee, an accusation can be made and denied, and relative credibility assessed. If doubts remain, the Senate Judiciary Committee determines whether they are of sufficient concern to decline to send the nomination to the full Senate.
It is extremely troubling that many or most Americans support the practice of firing of hundreds of thousands of men over unproved allegations of Sexual Misconduct. Each year, thousands of students are expelled by College Tribunals which grossly violate their Due Process Rights.
Where do you get your numbers? Hundreds of thousands fired? Thousands expelled? Nonsense. Again, it is not a matter of "due process." It is one of credibility.
Utterly stupid poll, but what is expected from the ignorant. Kavanaugh did not do it. This is just a last minute attempt to delay the process, its a made up, fake story presented by sleazebags.
He may well not have done it, but on what basis do you so confidently assert that it is fact he did not do it?
Cavvy is being publicly vetted for a lifelong position as an honest arbiter for the most important and impactful issues that face the American people. This process needs to be very open and complete before he is confirmed....PERIOD. There are indications he has not been open and honest as well as subterfuge to prevent all needed data from being part of the process which when combined with the extreme rush job makes me and others question ulterior motives in play. For these and other reasons he is tainted and damaged goods at this point and confirmation would undermine the very concept of SCOTUS.
Despite the hyper-partisanship that makes some pretend they know whether the charge is true or false, both accuser and denier must be heard and relative credibility assessed.
We the public do not have to see and hear the woman testify if its only her word with no evidence to back her up
If you are imagining a conspiracy that involves either the accuser or the denier, yes, the conspirators should be identified and held to account.
The American public supports both an accuser's right to state her case and the accused's right to respond to it. Both appear to be credible individuals in this case and, unless the charge is withdrawn or the accused confesses, assessing their relative believability during questioning under oath is an essential part of the process.
"orchestrated" is precisely the correct term. we've seen this move by the democrats a few too many times. they wait until the eleventh hour, pull a bogus claim out of the hat and try to smear whoever it is that's in their sights. guilt or innocence doesn't matter. as with everything else about the party, it's all about that superficial image. make a claim, any claim, and back it up with 24/7 news coverage asserting its validity. well, most people aren't very bright (as evidenced by our many far left posters) and this tactic has been working for quite a while. we all know that everyone has at least one skeleton in their closet that they'd rather not let out and most of the drones are perfectly willing to believe the worst if it is backed up with constant coverage.
As I wrote elsewhere. For the New Democratic Party, the honest mission/value statement is: "Toe the line, believe as instructed, hold no non-approved values, or be destroyed".
Whenever it is a matter of a "he said/she said" equilibrium, the pursuit of a better understanding of the matter is imperative. Knowledge is good.
Imagined conspiracies should have no place in assessing credibility, indeed. The need to determine the truth to the extent that is possible, and a judicious discernment in that pursuit is vital. Despite knee-jerk hyper-partisans of any ilk, American values dictate that the accuser be heard and questioned as well as the accused.
Ok. So, in this case, there is no information. Just an allegation. What additional understanding of that do you require? The woman is a liberal operative who works against Trump, her parents were on the losing end of a foreclosure judgment handed down by Kavanaugh's mom. She cannot remember where, or when the alleged misconduct was done. But, she's convinced it happened, as a minor at a party where she can't even remember if she drank or not, This story just has a lot of holes that frankly make it virtually impossible to lend credence to. She might be very sincere. She might actually believe in her story. There just isn't anything that might be actually weighed. And I'd say that is on purpose. There isn't supposed to be any actual evidence, only the allegation. And for the #metoo movement, that should be enough... right? Because we should chuck the 4th amendment, right?
Under the circumstances, I'm sure you understand that no level of verifiable proof will be forthcoming. That fact alone identifies the true objective of this effort.
