If the Kavanaugh accusations are true...

[Aldebaran]

And upon what do you base that conclusion? As of yet not one single shred of evidence has been produced which supports the claim any event took place at all, let alone Kavanaugh had anything to do with it.

Seriously, then. What do you base your conclusion on?

Time machine?

Remote viewing?

Psychic readings?

Really, I would like to know.

Public opinion, personal opinion, the belief that the woman is always truthful and correct, the idea that people are presumed innocent unless accused, and political bias. Oh yeah, and the idea that the end justifies the means when it comes to protecting Roe vs. Wade.

 

[Speedwell]

These leftists just need to go away.

What would you suggest? Deportation? Camps?

 

[wonderkins]

She’s passed a lie detector test and Kavanaugh so far hasn’t offered to take one.

She’s asked the FBI to investigate, something guilty people don’t do. He’s avoiding that.

She’s come out despite knowing she’d be crapped on.

He has a history of misogyny.

Those are just the ones that come to mind. I know someone who could give a list as long as your arm.

If I was a juror in such a case, the evidence is strong. Conviction seems highly likely.

None of that is evidence. It definitely doesn't prove anything.

If this is how you come to judgments concerning the law and a person's life, please don't serve as a juror.

 

[John 12:25]

What would you suggest? Deportation? Camps?

They already do have camps, they’re called safe spaces. They were also claiming they’d self-deport to Canada if Trump won office. Still waiting on them to make good on that promise. I’m just curious why they said they’d go to Canada instead of Mexico, since they insist on allowing illegals from Mexico stay in America despite breaking the law. Leftists are an odd bunch.

 

[Speedwell]

None of that is evidence. It definitely doesn't prove anything.

If this is how you come to judgments concerning the law and a person's life, please don't serve as a juror.

No, but it's sufficient grounds to look into the matter a little more, rather than just brushing it off.

 

[Speedwell]

They already do have camps, they’re called safe spaces. They were also claiming they’d self-deport to Canada if Trump won office. Still waiting on them to make good on that promise. I’m just curious why they said they’d go to Canada instead of Mexico, since they insist on allowing illegals from Mexico stay in America despite breaking the law. Leftists are an odd bunch.

If you think Leftists are odd, take a look at the Christian Right

 

[DavidPT]

“If” they’re true?

I have no doubt they are.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't she take a lie detector test performed by the FBI, and that she passed it? If yes, has Kavanaugh taken one as well? But if he hasn't, would he be willing to? And what if he did take one, and that he passes it as well, could that not lend credence to the present theory circulating via Ed Whelan, that maybe she was almost raped By his doppelgänger instead, apparently meaning Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmate, Chris Garrett? Apparently it was in Chris Garrett's home where this took place, according to the theory circulating.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, but it's sufficient grounds to look into the matter a little more, rather than just brushing it off.

It's not being brushed off. The Senate is giving her the chance to say what she wants, even though she insists that they change the rules about how it all works. She now wants to have Kavanaugh give a defense before she makes her accusation. But since they seem to be bending over backwards to give her a chance to make her case, she certainly isn't being brushed off.

 

[Archivist]

If he is guilty of this then he should not confirmed by the Senate. However, one thing about this bothers me--the last I heard Ford was demanding that the committee agree to not to have Kavanaugh present during her testimony. Our Constitution requires that a defendant be given the opportunity to face his accuser. Granted that this is not a criminal case, but shouldn't that same standard apply here?

 

[AirPo]

If he did it, and there's enough evidence to be able to prove it (depending on the specific accusation), then he shouldn't be confirmed if it's something serious enough. If there isn't enough (or any) real evidence, then he should be presumed innocent since he hasn't been proven guilty, and he should be confirmed.

He's not on trial, so presumed innocence is a stupid distraction.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I've head some pretty disturbing defenses, both on the news and around here re: Kavanaugh. Not so much "She's lying"; I expected that. It's the "It doesn't matter" defenses that concern me. "Boys will be boys," "just a kid," "Nothing actually happened," "just a little groping..."

I'm curious about which way the wind is blowing on this one.

Thoughts?

If he is convicted in a court of law of a crime, then he should not be confirmed.

If he is not convicted in a court of law of a crime, then he should be confirmed.

A criminal conviction is the measure we have in this country for whether or not someone is a criminal guilty of a crime. Not accusations, not opinions. Either a conviction or we must treat him as if he is absolutely innocent.

 

[Aldebaran]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't she take a lie detector test performed by the FBI, and that she passed it? If yes, has Kavanaugh taken one as well? But if he hasn't, would he be willing to? And what if he did take one, and that he passes it as well, could that not lend credence to the present theory circulating via Ed Whelan, that maybe she was almost raped By his doppelgänger instead, apparently meaning Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmate, Chris Garrett? Apparently it was in Chris Garrett's home where this took place, according to the theory circulating.

This Is the Most Meaningless Proof of Christine Ford’s Truthfulness Out There Right Now

 

[John 12:25]

That's nice -- so, if he did it,, should he be on SCOTUS?

Depends on what he did. If he raped her then no he shouldn’t be on the court. All I’ve heard is he is accused of ‘sexual assault’ or ‘attempting to force himself on her’ which could mean anything. Maybe all he did was attempt to put his arm around her, that’s all it would take for a 5th wave feminist to cry sexual assault. But if he did a serious sexual crime then Trump should appoint someone else.

If he didn’t do anything, should his accuser be allowed to keep her job? Pretty serious accusations, and this drunken party girl lifestyle that was embraced by her Alma mater is quite damaging to her credibility. This whole thing just stinks of more leftist fabrication to me.

 

[John 12:25]

If you think Leftists are odd, take a look at the Christian Right

Are they the ones wringing their hands demanding for 40 year old men to be able to pee in the women’s bathroom and share locker rooms with women? Are they the ones pushing sodomy on to little 8 year old grade school children?

 

[Desk trauma]

Depends on what he did. If he raped her then no he shouldn’t be on the court. All I’ve heard is he is accused of ‘sexual assault’ or ‘attempting to force himself on her’ which could mean anything. Maybe all he did was attempt to put his arm around her, that’s all it would take for a 5th wave feminist to cry sexual assault. But if he did a serious sexual crime then Trump should appoint someone else.

Her account is not of some trivial actions that could be misconstrued but of a clear attempted rape. The actions are inexcusable if her story is accurate which I have no special insight into.

Pretty serious accusations, and this drunken party girl lifestyle that was embraced by her Alma mater is quite damaging to her credibility.

How so? Consent does not become optional no matter how often someone parties.

 

[Tree of Life]

If they have taken ownership of said act and do not deny it I take no issue with it. If the accusations are true that is not the case here.

Yes lying would compound the issue.

 

[NotreDame]

She’s passed a lie detector test and Kavanaugh so far hasn’t offered to take one.

She’s asked the FBI to investigate, something guilty people don’t do. He’s avoiding that.

She’s come out despite knowing she’d be crapped on.

He has a history of misogyny.

Those are just the ones that come to mind. I know someone who could give a list as long as your arm.

If I was a juror in such a case, the evidence is strong. Conviction seems highly likely.

Yeah well, some of what you reference above would never be admitted at trial.

 

[Desk trauma]

Yes lying would compound the issue.

In my eyes it would make him totally unfit for the seat on the court as he would either be getting there via perjury of an attempted rape is something that he could forget. The complication is in establishing the truth of the Drs claims and as I have said I have no special insight into the matter

 

[TuxAme]

I'll have an answer if this is proven to be true (but, how is something from almost four decades ago, which wasn't reported to any authorities until very recently, going to be proven? How could it be?). Cross the bridge when we get there.

 

[NotreDame]

None of that is evidence. It definitely doesn't prove anything.

If this is how you come to judgments concerning the law and a person's life, please don't serve as a juror.

Agree. But much of what they referenced wouldn’t be admitted at trial.

Regardless, the basis by the poster to think Kavanaugh did this act isn’t evidence. It’s troubling some will believe in the veracity of a serious allegation on the basis of vapor.