And then there were Three....Correction....FIVE...!!

[Ana the Ist]

One has to investigate before one finds...

I'm guessing that you don't understand the "investigation" part of "background investigation". The FBI already spent months combing through family, friends, associates, acquaintances, coworkers, teachers, employers, and basically anyone else who claimed to know him. Of course, as a federal investigation, everyone interviewed is made aware that lying to investigators is a federal crime.

They turned up nothing questionable.

fortunately, Flake and Murkowski have managed to force an investigation by threatening to withhold their votes.

Well I wouldn't be surprised if it's rather short and turns up no real evidence against Kavanaugh.

Hopefully, it doesn't turn up anything against Ford, Feinstein, or the other accusers...that could turn disastrous for Democrats in November.

Let that be a lesson in the importance of doing it right the first time.

Who says they didn't? Anyone can make an accusation these days...

 

[LostMarbels]

Clearly such impediments to the will of Donald must be swept away...

The "will of Donald" doesn't really matter. Or yours. Or mine.

That would be redundant.

Hence 2 different references for clarification of a single point.

Or true allegations. Nothing short of the threat of failure has convinced those in power to seek the truth.

Their truth... not The (thee) truth. Ford cannot stand trial. Nevermind the circus put on for optics. She cannot go to the police in MD and face deposition, detective investigation, and trial. Her only hope is political and public spotlight.

There is no statute of limitations on this accusation. Lets see if her 'civic duty' is so compelling she files real charges.

Considering how Christianity wouldn't exist without it, I'd say it worked out pretty well for all involved.

Hind sight is 20/20. At the time, as it is now, the blind obsession to destroy what we disagree with overtakes the ability to reason or notice what the actions are actually bringing about. The people at the time just wanted to shut Jesus up. He was a threat to their customs, ways of life, and even religion. So he had to be stopped.

This is why I am so adamant about this having nothing to do with fact or truth. All they want is dissenters to shut up and let them have their own way. They will destroy you, your family and everything their target holds dear to obtain the upper hand.

Are you suggesting that Donald and/or Kavanaugh are chosen by God to fulfill a purpose?

Trump, yes. Kavanaugh, I don't know as fact.

If so, would you suggest that that purpose is to restore Israel and raise it to power and prominence in the world?

No. The purpose is to bring world peace. Trump desperately wants that feather for his cap. His intentions are genuine, even if they are only for the benefit of his pride. He wants to prove he can actually pull it off where others have failed.

Trump wants to be the greatest President ever in the history of America. Loved by all. He honestly wants to do everything he can to make this nation great, and instill a populist democracy for the people, and of the people. Which is what he believes to be the greatest form of government on the earth. He is far too prideful to allow this nation, that he loves dearly, to be second to anyone.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well I wouldn't be surprised if it's rather short and turns up no real evidence against Kavanaugh.

Agreed -- Anita Hill's investigation only took 3 days... I'd be surprised if Kavanaugh's lasts that long...

Hopefully, it doesn't turn up anything against Ford, Feinstein, or the other accusers...that could turn disastrous for Democrats in November.

Oh, I have no doubt it will...

 

[TLK Valentine]

The "will of Donald" doesn't really matter. Or yours. Or mine.

It matters quite a bit to Donald.

Their truth... not The (thee) truth. Ford cannot stand trial. Nevermind the circus put on for optics. She cannot go to the police in MD and face deposition, detective investigation, and trial. Her only hope is political and public spotlight.

You seem sure of what's in her heart.

Hind sight is 20/20.

That doesn't apply to God's plan -- He's the one who set it all in motion, is He not?

At the time, as it is now, the blind obsession to destroy what we disagree with overtakes the ability to reason or notice what the actions are actually bringing about. The people at the time just wanted to shut Jesus up. He was a threat to their customs, ways of life, and even religion. So he had to be stopped.

He was a threat to their very lives -- never forget that everything Israel done was under Roman occupation... if they couldn't control the stiuation, Rome would have -- and everyone knew that the Romans preferred to "control" a situation by sending in the troops and slaughtering everyone involved.

This is why I am so adamant about this having nothing to do with fact or truth. All they want is dissenters to shut up and let them have their own way. They will destroy you, your family and everything their target holds dear to obtain the upper hand.

Yes, yes... the left is evil and out to get us... I've heard it all before.

Trump, yes. Kavanaugh, I don't know as fact.

Donald is anointed by God... got it.

No. The purpose is to bring world peace. Trump desperately wants that feather for his cap.

Who wouldn't?

His intentions are genuine, even if they are only for the benefit of his pride. He wants to prove he can actually pull it off where others have failed.

He wants to be praised for his deeds -- whether he actually commits them or not.

You call that "genuine"? I don't.

Trump wants to be the greatest President ever in the history of America. Loved by all.

No -- he thinks he already is -- there's a difference.

He wants everyone to see him as great as he sees himself.

He honestly wants to do everything he can to make this nation great, and instill a populist democracy for the people, and of the people.

Not for it's own sake, but as an extension of his own greatness. He's a populist because the people praise him for all the great deeds he says he's done...

... except for the UN, who, not composed of his devoted disciples, laugh at his claims.

Which is what he believes to be the greatest form of government on the earth. He is far too prideful to allow this nation, that he loves dearly, to be second to anyone.

Far too prideful to allow himself, that he loves dearly, to be second to anyone. The nation is a means to an end.

 

[LostMarbels]

You seem sure of what's in her heart.

I cannot and do not judge her heart only her actions. After seeing her testimony I have no doubt she is deceitful. I still cant figure out if she is doing this on her own or being handled.

She doesn't know who paid for the poly? Ohh thats right, that is what she was told to say after her lawyers turned off the mic. Who got her the lawyers? Another question she didn't know how to answer and she look right at the dems when the question was asked 'like what do you mean.' She is not quite sure if Kavanaugh's name was brought up in the poly. She has no idea how she got to the party or got home. on and on.

She cannot stand trial. I want her to stand before a detective under oath so bad.

 

[DaisyDay]

What does any of that have to do with the presumption of innocence?

Just what I said before - the theoretical presumption of innocence doesn't do them a damn bit of good if they are incarcerated, presumption not withstanding, simply because they can't afford the bail and because they don't want to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit. If they were to plead guilty, then that stands even if it subsequently turns out that the police department, sheriff or prosecutors had a history of railroading innocent people into pleas.

No....just his professional reputation, his marriage, and his current and future career have been put in jeopardy.

Are his professional reputation, marriage and current career really in jeopardy? His future career as a Supreme Court Justice is at stake - but that's what this process is all about. Presumed innocent doesn't mean ignoring allegations and not investigating them in a timely fashion as they arise. This is a lifetime appointment.

No...I don't know that he's allowed to interrupt or filibuster a Senate hearing.

Whether "allowed" to or not, he did interrupt and filibuster, repeatedly, belligerently, arrogantly. Each senator had five minutes and he repeatedly interrupted questions he didn't like and wouldn't let the senator finish asking. I take it you haven't watched or listened to much of it.

This isn't an actual criminal proceeding.

You're absolutely correct about that. It's not a criminal proceeding at all. It's a job interview for a lifelong appointment to a top judicial spot. Part of the process to assess his temperament - is his concern with the truth of the matter or with the insult and threat to himself?

Arguably, if this was a criminal investigation, it wouldn't have gotten this far....as it's unlikely any prosecutor would actually take these accusations to court. These accusations would be dismissed outright for lack of evidence. So, given that he has to endure accusations even the average citizen wouldn't have to face, he deserves the presumption of innocence.

He has the presumption of innocence, but that doesn't mean that the allegations should not be investigated - even the American Bar Association has called for that. And the average citizen isn't interviewing for a job that will affect the lives of everyone else in the country and a great many who aren't in the county.

Question for you - what does the "presumption of innocence" mean to you in regards to Kavanaugh's Senate judicial hearing and the several allegations against him? Does the presumption, in your eyes, mean that these allegations should be dismissed out of hand and not considered for this process?

I say, as Reagan did: trust but verify; presume he's innocent, but make sure he is as far, as can be done.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just what I said before - the theoretical presumption of innocence doesn't do them a damn bit of good if they are incarcerated, presumption not withstanding, simply because they can't afford the bail and because they don't want to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit. If they were to plead guilty, then that stands even if it subsequently turns out that the police department, sheriff or prosecutors had a history of railroading innocent people into pleas.

You're engaging in "whataboutism". I fully agree that people who aren't real flight risks shouldn't be held in jail simply because they cannot afford bail.

That has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence though.

Are his professional reputation, marriage and current career really in jeopardy? His future career as a Supreme Court Justice is at stake - but that's what this process is all about. Presumed innocent doesn't mean ignoring allegations and not investigating them in a timely fashion as they arise. This is a lifetime appointment.

His professional reputation and career? Definitely. I read an article arguing that his current position as judge is damaged by this.

As for his marriage, I think it would be naive to think that it hasn't put any strain on it.

I totally agree with you that these allegations should have been investigated as they arose....that's why it looks like dirty politics for the Democrats to sit on Ford's allegations for 40 days before bringing it to the Senate.

Whether "allowed" to or not, he did interrupt and filibuster, repeatedly, belligerently, arrogantly. Each senator had five minutes and he repeatedly interrupted questions he didn't like and wouldn't let the senator finish asking. I take it you haven't watched or listened to much of it.

I didn't watch his testimony....just Ford's and the Democrats who took the opportunity to grandstand.

You're absolutely correct about that. It's not a criminal proceeding at all. It's a job interview for a lifelong appointment to a top judicial spot. Part of the process to assess his temperament - is his concern with the truth of the matter or with the insult and threat to himself?

I assume that he knows the truth, and if these allegations are false, I would expect him to be very angry and upset.

He has the presumption of innocence, but that doesn't mean that the allegations should not be investigated - even the American Bar Association has called for that.

What does the Bar Association have to do with anything? You might as well have told me the Elks Lodge believes they should be investigated.

My question is this....where are you going to draw the line? Let's say that these get investigated and they turn up nothing more to support the allegations than they already have. As soon as that happens, three more equally vague allegations with just as little evidence are made against him by three new women...do we hold everything up until those are investigated as well?

At what point do we say "enough is enough" and we won't consider anymore allegations that have no evidence?

And the average citizen isn't interviewing for a job that will affect the lives of everyone else in the country and a great many who aren't in the county.

Question for you - what does the "presumption of innocence" mean to you in regards to Kavanaugh's Senate judicial hearing and the several allegations against him? Does the presumption, in your eyes, mean that these allegations should be dismissed out of hand and not considered for this process?

I think that if any criminal allegations are made (doesn't have to be sexual) they should be given to a bipartisan group of 3 DAs for an evaluation of merit (once an investigation has been completed). If the DAs wouldn't charge someone based on the evidence they have...then yes, the allegations should be dismissed as if they never happened.

If the DAs would charge someone based on that evidence....the confirmation should be denied and if possible, the nominee should be charged.

I say, as Reagan did: trust but verify; presume he's innocent, but make sure he is as far, as can be done.

I agree....but what I don't understand is what people think the FBI will uncover. Everyone that she named as being involved has denied her version of events. What exactly is left to investigate? Even if the FBI had a magical time machine, they wouldn't even know when it happened or where.

At best, they can get warrants for computers and phones of those involved and see if anyone's story changed or if anyone was coached on what to say. That's about it.

 

[NotreDame]

You know that isn't what I said. The whole problem is that the judge does NOT determine how much a person can afford before setting the bond and so it gets routinely set far above what working-poor people can afford.

Of course it does just that.

The point of bail to to ensure the person shows up. Setting it so high that the person remains incarcerated before trial is a violation of their right to liberty.

Furthermore, it is coercive as a person who can't afford bail stands to lose their job, housing and custody of their children - everything - while they await trial which if they are not guilty means they are nonetheless punished, so a bad deal if they accept a plea bargain to save what they have, but too big a gamble not to. People of wealth don't face this dilemma.

The whole problem is that the judge does NOT determine how much a person can afford before setting the bond and so it gets routinely set far above what working-poor people can afford.

So what? Nobody is entitled to a bond they can afford.

Furthermore, the suggestion people are entitled to a bond they can afford would lead to the absurd result of releasing people on the basis they can’t afford any bond for those who say they can’t post bond.

The point of bail to to ensure the person shows up. Setting it so high that the person remains incarcerated before trial is a violation of their right to liberty.

Liberty doesn’t require the suspected and charged murderer, child rapist, receive a bond they can afford. Liberty is protected by requiring probable cause to arrest and detain someone, the subject appearing before a neutral judge to ensure PC to arrest, and set bond. Liberty doesn’t require a bond one can afford. Liberty requires the bond to be reasonable and common sense says whether a bond is reasonable is not attached to whether someone can pay the bond amount.

 

[DaisyDay]

So what? Nobody is entitled to a bond they can afford.

Why not? What is a bond for? It's not supposed to be punitive. Surely it's unconstitutional to punish someone before they're found guilty.

Furthermore, the suggestion people are entitled to a bond they can afford would lead to the absurd result of releasing people on the basis they can’t afford any bond for those who say they can’t post bond.

And why is that so absurd in most cases? California has ruled its bail system unconstitutional (Source) and other states, including New York, are considering following suit.

California Becomes First State To End Cash Bail After 40-Year Fight

Liberty doesn’t require the suspected and charged murderer, child rapist, receive a bond they can afford. Liberty is protected by requiring probable cause to arrest and detain someone, the subject appearing before a neutral judge to ensure PC to arrest, and set bond. Liberty doesn’t require a bond one can afford. Liberty requires the bond to be reasonable and common sense says whether a bond is reasonable is not attached to whether someone can pay the bond amount.

How do you define "liberty" then? Is there an unacceptable length of time a suspect can be held without trial? 90 days for a misdemeanor, which is not murder or child rape, but will surely lose a person their job, their house and their kids. If you can't pay the bond solely because you don't have the means to pay, then how is that reasonable?

 

[DaisyDay]

You're engaging in "whataboutism".

No, I'm not; I'm going off on a tangent.

I fully agree that people who aren't real flight risks shouldn't be held in jail simply because they cannot afford bail.

Well then.

That has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence though.

Actually, it does. It has to do with how an innocent person is treated. Is an innocent person locked up such that he loses his job, his house, his possessions and custody of his children while awaiting to prove his innocence or is he asked mean questions in front of everyone?

His professional reputation and career? Definitely. I read an article arguing that his current position as judge is damaged by this.

What article and damaged in what way? Is he going to be fired or demoted? Not cited as often? If, as the Republicans have stated already, the confirmation is a done deal, then his current position really doesn't matter as he will get his promotion he is entitled to.

As for his marriage, I think it would be naive to think that it hasn't put any strain on it.

I don't, but I guess that depends on how it was going in. My husband is a landlord, and I've had disgruntled former tenants try to harm him by starting a whisper campaign to me, but I know him. I suppose if they said things I believed could be true, it might cause a strain but lies don't.

I totally agree with you that these allegations should have been investigated as they arose....that's why it looks like dirty politics for the Democrats to sit on Ford's allegations for 40 days before bringing it to the Senate.

I didn't watch his testimony....just Ford's and the Democrats who took the opportunity to grandstand.

You missed a show of temperament - yelling, weeping, arrogance.

I assume that he knows the truth, and if these allegations are false, I would expect him to be very angry and upset.

Would you expect him to accuse the Democratic Senators of being part of a Clinton Conspiracy or would you expect calm exasperation?

And if they're not false, what kind of show would you expect then?

What does the Bar Association have to do with anything? You might as well have told me the Elks Lodge believes they should be investigated.

It's usual and customary (well, until poor, unfortunate Donald) for the ABA to vet candidates for the judicary - I've never heard of the Elks Lodge doing that.
Federal Judiciary | Standing Committee / Federal Judiciary

The Standing Committee evaluates the professional qualifications of Supreme Court Nominees on a post-nomination basis.

Click here for a summary of the Committee's Supreme Court evaluation procedures.

Click here for information on each Supreme Court nominee from the 103rd Congress to the present.​

Elks.org :: Who Are the Elks?

The Elks organization was founded in New York City on February 16, 1868 under the name "Jolly Corks" by 15 actors, entertainers and others associated with the theater. In ensuing years, membership expanded to other professions...The Order is a non-political, non-sectarian and strictly American fraternity.

Elks Lodges bring so much more to their communities than just a building, golf course or pool. They are places where neighbors come together, families share meals, and children grow up.

Elks invest in their communities through programs that help children grow up healthy and drug-free, meet the needs of today’s veterans, and improve the quality of life.​

My question is this....where are you going to draw the line? Let's say that these get investigated and they turn up nothing more to support the allegations than they already have. As soon as that happens, three more equally vague allegations with just as little evidence are made against him by three new women...do we hold everything up until those are investigated as well?

It's a slippery slope! Why don't we investigate these allegations first - has Judge given a statement under oath or just through a spokesman that he remembers nothing?

At what point do we say "enough is enough" and we won't consider anymore allegations that have no evidence?

They don't have "no" evidence. You may think they have insufficient evidence to even investigate, but it is not "no" evidence.

I think that if any criminal allegations are made (doesn't have to be sexual) they should be given to a bipartisan group of 3 DAs for an evaluation of merit (once an investigation has been completed). If the DAs wouldn't charge someone based on the evidence they have...then yes, the allegations should be dismissed as if they never happened.

If the DAs would charge someone based on that evidence....the confirmation should be denied and if possible, the nominee should be charged.

Yes, I understand why you think that. However, others of us think that if he is lying about his past actions now, in the present, then he is not entitled to be a Supreme Court justice.

I agree....but what I don't understand is what people think the FBI will uncover. Everyone that she named as being involved has denied her version of events. What exactly is left to investigate? Even if the FBI had a magical time machine, they wouldn't even know when it happened or where.

Under what circumstances has anyone, let alone everyone, been questioned? It was my understanding that Mark Judge hadn't been questioned at all.

At best, they can get warrants for computers and phones of those involved and see if anyone's story changed or if anyone was coached on what to say. That's about it.

People might change their story under direct questioning or if questioned about inconsistencies. Or they won't. That's what investigations are for - to find out.

 

[jgarden]

The problem with all of this is.... Trump isn't going anywhere. And this entire argument about Kavanaugh is moot. I believe the aggressive attacks on Trump, and Kavanaugh are nothing more than the worlds attempt to thwart God.

...This temple will be the 3rd temple. I do not know for a fact that Kavanaugh will be confirmed. But I believe he will be, and will be used to help bring God back into America. A time of prosperity. That is just a hunch, but Trump is going nowhere. You're banging heads with God on that one.

And then there were Three....Correction....FIVE...!!

To claim that "aggressive attacks on Trump, and Kavanaugh are nothing more than the worlds attempt to thwart God" boggles the mind, given that 1 John 1:10 is quite explicit in stating that "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

As a "narcissist," this President has stated publically that he sees no need to seek God's forgiveness from sin because he is capable of self-correcting his own mistakes - thus making Christ out to be a "liar!"

 

[NotreDame]

Why not? What is a bond for? It's not supposed to be punitive. Surely it's unconstitutional to punish someone before they're found guilty.

And why is that so absurd in most cases? California has ruled its bail system unconstitutional (Source) and other states, including New York, are considering following suit.

California Becomes First State To End Cash Bail After 40-Year Fight

How do you define "liberty" then? Is there an unacceptable length of time a suspect can be held without trial? 90 days for a misdemeanor, which is not murder or child rape, but will surely lose a person their job, their house and their kids. If you can't pay the bond solely because you don't have the means to pay, then how is that reasonable?

Why not? What is a bond for? It's not supposed to be punitive. Surely it's unconstitutional to punish someone before they're found guilty.

A bond amount set by the court that a person cannot afford hardly renders the bond punitive. A $50-150 bond for felony theft, where perhaps the value of the stolen item/items is over $500, is hardly punitive, regardless of whether the suspect can post the bond. There is such a low dollar amount that the bond couldn’t be punitive despite the fact the person cannot afford the bond. I’m touching upon a perhaps subtle but important point, there are many factors your argument ignores in setting a bond.

Your argument, despite its appealing simplicity, is flawed because it is too simplistic. The argument that generally setting a bond in an amount the person can afford and a bond amount they cannot afford is punitive and infringement on liberty ignores several other rational factors germane to setting a bond, including an unattainable bond.

Based on your simple equation of X person cannot afford bond=punitive bond and violation of liberty, would result in the pretrial release of a lot of people that may not return given the severity of the criminal charges but minimal bond amount needed to be released from custody. Your argument would also result in the pretrial release of people needed to remain in custody, given the severity of the offense, until their case is resolved.

The fact is, your argument could plausibly undermine, in some instances, a purpose of bond, which is to ensure appearance.

The absurdity of your argument is it ignores many factors germane to setting a bond.

A poor man arrested for murder shouldn’t receive bond in the amount of $100 on the basis he’s destitute, and can only afford a $100, or else his liberty is violated, this view is untenable. Murder is a very serious offense, perhaps the most serious offense, and given the severity, a high bond is needed and justified, even if it’s unaffordable, to ensure he/she reappears and to protect the public.

A subject arrested for the felonies of rape, burglary, felon in possession of a firearm, aggravated battery, child molestation, felony domestic battery, etcetera, aren’t necessarily having their liberty violated when the court sets a bond they cannot afford, given the severity of the charges.

A repeat theft offender, arrested for their fourth felony theft offense in 2 years, shouldn’t be released on their own recognizance when they cannot post any bond, or on a $25 bond they could afford, given their a repeat offender and their priors are close in time to their latest felony arrest. Their prior criminal history can plausibly increase their risk of flight, and their demonstrated inability to restrain their urges for a five finger discount justifies a bond, even if its a meager $75 and they cannot afford it.

A person on probation or serving a sentence when arrested for committing a felony, isn’t necessarily having their liberty violated when a bond amount is posted they cannot afford.

A person with no prior felony convictions but is homeless is not necessarily having their liberty violated when court sets the bond amount the homeless person cannot afford.

My point is the nature of the offense is germane in setting a bond and the bond amount, along with criminal history, whether they are serving a sentence when arrested again for another criminal offense, input from victims, recent criminal history, etcetera, and those factors may result in a bond the person cannot post, but that doesn’t necessarily result in a violation of liberty, and rightfully so.

Infringement on liberty to enforce the criminal code is unavoidable and necessary. There’s no violation of liberty when a person is arrested for a crime and probable cause exists to support the arrest.

Neither is setting a bond violative of liberty as imposition of a bond is a reasonable infringement on liberty, even a bond amount they cannot afford, for the foregoing reasons, when those reasons and factors are applicable.

And why is that so absurd in most cases? California has ruled its bail system unconstitutional (Source) and other states, including New York, are considering following suit.

So what? The substance of the argument matters, and not whether there is a popular trend developing.