CDZ Innocent until proven guilty.

[abu afak]

You do not seem to have any interest in discussing the larger issue here. To be fair, I have little interest in discussing the smaller issue. So, I guess that's where we are. I have little interest in discussing what you wish to, and you have little/no interest in discussing what I wish to.

As to who's analogy is more relevant, I suppose that depends on which issue one wishes to discuss.

The OP TOPIC is THE issue.
There is "NO larger issue" Since we All Already agree on "innocent until proven guilty" in CRIMINAL trials, not nominee hearings.
That's why the OP himself is not disputing my posts.

I had to initially explain, and then alas, repeat this due to continued last-wording.
`

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You do not seem to have any interest in discussing the larger issue here. To be fair, I have little interest in discussing the smaller issue. So, I guess that's where we are. I have little interest in discussing what you wish to, and you have little/no interest in discussing what I wish to.

As to who's analogy is more relevant, I suppose that depends on which issue one wishes to discuss.

The OP TOPIC is THE issue.
There is "NO larger issue" Since we All Already agree on "innocent until proven guilty" in CRIMINAL trials, not nominee hearings.

I have had to initially explain, and then alas, repeat this due to continued last-wording.
`

Wrong even the Prosecutor that questioned Ford STATED FOR THE RECORD that her accusations did not even pass the civil threshold of most likely to have happened. Ford LIED under oath about her door, about flying and about coaching people for the polygraph. She had NO corroboration, NOT A SINGLE person backed her up, the people she claimed were there ALL said that they had ABSOLUTELY NO RECOLLECTION of any such GATHERING. She told her shrink in 2012 it was 4 boys NOT two and she never named any names.. Her story was NOT believable. Her GIRLFRIEND at the time STATED for the RECORD that she did NOT KNOW Kavanaugh or Judge at that time.

Further there is NO pattern of behavior since to even suggest it MIGHT have happened.

Ford is a lefty that had a political axe to grind, if she was attacked her own story does not back her up.

You would deny someone a Job simply because someone claimed something, with no facts, NO corroboration, no witnesses, not one shred of testable fabric to lay the claim on, OTHER then a POLITICAL hit job.

 

[abu afak]

Wrong even the Prosecutor that questioned Ford STATED FOR THE RECORD that her accusations did not even pass the civil threshold of most likely to have happened. Ford LIED under oath about her door, about flying and about coaching people for the polygraph. She had NO corroboration, NOT A SINGLE person backed her up, the people she claimed were there ALL said that they had ABSOLUTELY NO RECOLLECTION of any such GATHERING. She told her shrink in 2012 it was 4 boys NOT two and she never named any names.. Her story was NOT believable. Her GIRLFRIEND at the time STATED for the RECORD that she did NOT KNOW Kavanaugh or Judge at that time.

Further there is NO pattern of behavior since to even suggest it MIGHT have happened.

Ford is a lefty that had a political axe to grind, if she was attacked her own story does not back her up.

You would deny someone a Job simply because someone claimed something, with no facts, NO corroboration, no witnesses, not one shred of testable fabric to lay the claim on, OTHER then a POLITICAL hit job.

So how was I "wrong".
Did I allege she passed ANY bar?

Of course, the prosecutor was Picked BY the Republicans, and allowed Very little Info. Based on that Lack OF INFO info alone, I too would have reached that stunted "conclusion". She would have had to further investigate to reach an informed conclusion. And that was NOT going to be allowed by the GOP. No way.

Of course, Ford passed a Lie detector test, which does make her story "More likely than not."
NOT, AGAIN, that that was issue here.

No one argued for a "more likley than not" either, just that "Beyond a reasonable doubt" Was NOT appropriate for this circumstance. That was the topic/issue.

So RIGHT I WAS, and RIGHT I still am.
`

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong even the Prosecutor that questioned Ford STATED FOR THE RECORD that her accusations did not even pass the civil threshold of most likely to have happened. Ford LIED under oath about her door, about flying and about coaching people for the polygraph. She had NO corroboration, NOT A SINGLE person backed her up, the people she claimed were there ALL said that they had ABSOLUTELY NO RECOLLECTION of any such GATHERING. She told her shrink in 2012 it was 4 boys NOT two and she never named any names.. Her story was NOT believable. Her GIRLFRIEND at the time STATED for the RECORD that she did NOT KNOW Kavanaugh or Judge at that time.

Further there is NO pattern of behavior since to even suggest it MIGHT have happened.

Ford is a lefty that had a political axe to grind, if she was attacked her own story does not back her up.

You would deny someone a Job simply because someone claimed something, with no facts, NO corroboration, no witnesses, not one shred of testable fabric to lay the claim on, OTHER then a POLITICAL hit job.

So how was I "wrong".
Did I allege she passed ANY bar?

Of course, the prosecutor was Picked BY the Republicans, and allowed Very little Info. Based on that Lack OF INFO info alone, I too would have reached that stunted "conclusion". She would have had to further investigate to reach an informed conclusion. And that was NOT going to be allowed by the GOP. No way.

Of course Ford passed a Lie detector test, which does make her story "More likely than not."
NOT, AGAIN, that that was issue here.

No one argued for a "more likley than not" either, just that "Beyond a reasonable doubt" Was NOT appropriate for this circumstance.

So RIGHT I WAS, and RIGHT I still am.
`

No you are not you are basically claiming that SIMPLY because she said it happened he should be denied. I showed that she is NOT CREDIBLE, that she had NO EVIDENCE to even support her claim a LITTLE BIT.

 

[abu afak]

No you are not you are basically claiming that SIMPLY because she said it happened he should be denied. I showed that she is NOT CREDIBLE, that she had NO EVIDENCE to even support her claim a LITTLE BIT.

Cooled off huh
Now that I explained it to you too.
I was NOT wrong.
You just Fabricated a new argument/position you tried to make me "wrong" about!

What I said was "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a Criminal standard not a hearings one
That's it.

The Senate can hear testimony from anyone they deem credible.
A PhD and fellow/contemporary Yale grad who passed a Lie Detector test would probably qualify to most.
`

 

[oldsoul]

You do not seem to have any interest in discussing the larger issue here. To be fair, I have little interest in discussing the smaller issue. So, I guess that's where we are. I have little interest in discussing what you wish to, and you have little/no interest in discussing what I wish to.

As to who's analogy is more relevant, I suppose that depends on which issue one wishes to discuss.

The OP TOPIC is THE issue.
There is "NO larger issue" Since we All Already agree on "innocent until proven guilty" in CRIMINAL trials, not nominee hearings.
That's why the OP himself is not disputing my posts.

I had to initially explain, and then alas, repeat this due to continued last-wording.
`

I find it laughable that you refuse to even admit that there may be a larger issue to discuss. However, I will allow you the last word. So have at it, I am done.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No you are not you are basically claiming that SIMPLY because she said it happened he should be denied. I showed that she is NOT CREDIBLE, that she had NO EVIDENCE to even support her claim a LITTLE BIT.

Cooled off huh
Now that I explained it to you too.
I was NOT wrong.
You just Fabricated a new argument/position you tried to make me "wrong" about!

What I said was "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a Criminal standard not a hearings one
That's it.

The Senate can hear testimony from anyone they deem credible.
A PhD and fellow/contemporary Yale grad who passed a Lie Detector test would probably qualify to most.
`

And I pointed out she meet NO STANDARD of believable on any level. She has ZERO corroboration, NOT ONE of her own stated people at the gather REMEMBER it happening, NOT ONE. She got caught lying about 3 specific things. In 2012 she said there were 4 boys and did NOT name a single name. Her story is so unbelievable even a 5 year old can see the holes in it.

You keep claim just because she said it happened it did and that we should deny Kavanaugh a seat based on unproven accusations tainted by proven lies.

 

[abu afak]

...

...You keep claim just because she said it happened it did and that we should deny Kavanaugh a seat based on unproven accusations tainted by proven lies.

What?
Who said we should deny Kavanaugh a seat based on her claim?
WHAT!

You just FABRICATED another claim.
'This is unaccepatable AND incoherent.
This really must stop.
Beyond NEVER saying he shoud be denied a seat.
In fact, I specifically said I agreed with the GOP-picked prosecutor, that based on the lack of evidence gathering, I would have reached the same conclusion she did.

AGAIN:
""The Senate can hear testimony from anyone they deem credible.
A PhD and fellow/contemporary Yale grad who passed a Lie Detector test would probably qualify to most.""
Gameover: Pt 526.

Further:
Pre-Trial Grand Jurys also call witnesses of this type to decide on indictment even without a polygraph prelim.
In fact, even formal criminal trials might call her as Witness in someone else's trial charging abuse to show a pattern.

And AGAIN..
Unlike most, this woman was a serious Ivy League PhD/professional who passed a Lie detector test.
Exceding many trial or grand jury witnesses.
The Washington Post would also not have published her story/fallen into a possible trap/libel without testing it with extensive conversation and that polygraph.

AND..
She did not want to go public. She was leaked by someone in the chain she told.
'
Go ahead make up some more claims!
EVERY post has a new mischaracterizon or fabrication.

`

 

[Leo123]

I wish Republicans and other assorted self-proclaimed conservatives had a scintilla of the amount of care for innocent blacks that have been killed by police as they have for this grown-up prep-kid Kavanaught that they've been weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over.

I hadnt thought about it in those terms but it really is the ultimate finger to innocent until proven guilty.

There have been cases where cops were considered guilty until proven innocent. In fact, it doesn't matter anymore because the radical left always blames law enforcement before the facts are in.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

AGAIN:
""The Senate can hear testimony from anyone they deem credible.
A PhD and fellow/contemporary Yale grad who passed a Lie Detector test would probably qualify to most.""

Gameover: Pt 526.

Further:
Pre-Trial Grand Jurys also call witnesses of this type to decide on indictment even without a polygraph prelim.
In fact, even formal criminal trials might call her as witness in someone else's trial charging abuse to show a pattern.

And AGAIN..
Unlike most, this woman was a serious Ivy League PhD/professional who passed a Lie detector test.
Exceding many trial or grand jury witnesses.
The Washington Post would also not have published her story/fallen into a possible trap/libel without testing it with extensive conversation and that polygraph.

AND..
She did not want to go public. She was leaked by someone in the chain she told.
`

Leaked MY ASS, She hired a lawyer and took a Polygraph WEEKS before any leak. Further as to the Polygraph we do not know what questions were asked and she has a HISTORY of teaching people to BEAT the polygraph, that was one of the LIES she got caught in.

But lets play your .little game shall we? In 2012 she told her shrink there were 4 boys in the room and she never named a single name.

She claimed that due to the stress and fear involved in the remembered incident she got a second front door added to her house. FACT, she did not remember till 2012 and the door was added in 2008. FACT, the door was added not to appease her fear BUT to allow entry into a private Business run from the Home.

She claimed she was AFRAID of flying. FACT, she flew across the Pacific routinely AND flew from California to Delaware EVERY YEAR.

FACT, she claimed Kavanaugh and Judge were so quiet they followed her upstairs with out her knowledge, THEN claimed they were so drunk a couple minutes later they were BOUNCING off the walls going downstairs.

FACT, her girlfriend from 1982 STATED for the record they did NOT know Kavanaugh and Judge in 1982.

FACT, of the 5 people she named as being at the gathering NOT ONE remembers any such gathering.

 

[abu afak]

I want an APOLOGY
You keep making stuff up in every new post.
It's incredible/Unacceptable

.

......You keep Claim just because she said it happened it did and that we should Deny
Kavanaugh a seat based on unproven accusations tainted by proven lies.

taxonomy26:
What?
Who said we should deny Kavanaugh a seat based on her claim?
WHAT!

You just FABRICATED another claim.
'This is unaccepatable AND incoherent.
This really must stop.
Beyond NEVER saying he shoud be denied a seat.
In fact, I specifically said I agreed with the GOP-picked prosecutor, that based on the lack of evidence gathering, I would have reached the same conclusion she did.

Also AGAIN:
""The Senate can hear testimony from anyone they deem credible.
A PhD and fellow/contemporary Yale grad who passed a Lie Detector test would probably qualify to most.""
Gameover: Pt 526.

Further:
Pre-Trial Grand Jurys also call witnesses of this type to decide on indictment even without a polygraph prelim.
In fact, even formal criminal trials might call her as witness in someone else's trial charging abuse to show a pattern.

And AGAIN..
Unlike most, this woman was a serious Ivy League PhD/professional who passed a Lie detector test.
Exceding many trial or grand jury witnesses.
The Washington Post would also not have published her story/fallen into a possible trap/libel without testing it with extensive conversation and that polygraph.

AND..
She did not want to go public. She was leaked by someone in the chain she told.
'
Go ahead make up some more claims!
EVERY post has a new mischaracterization or fabrication.

`​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I want an APOLOGY
You keep making stuff up in every new post.
It's incredible/Unacceptable
RETIREDGYSGT SAID: ↑
...

...You keep claim just because she said it happened it did and that we should Deny
Kavanaugh a seat based on unproven accusations tainted by proven lies.

...

...You keep claim just because she said it happened it did and that we should deny Kavanaugh a seat based on unproven accusations tainted by proven lies.

What?
Who said we should deny Kavanaugh a seat based on her claim?
WHAT!

You just FABRICATED another claim.
'This is unaccepatable AND incoherent.
This really must stop.
Beyong NEVER sqaying he shoud be denied a seat.
In fact, I specifically said I agreed with the GOP-picked prosecutor, that based on the lack of evidence gathering, I would have reached the same conclusion she did.

AGAIN:
""The Senate can hear testimony from anyone they deem credible.
A PhD and fellow/contemporary Yale grad who passed a Lie Detector test would probably qualify to most.""
Gameover: Pt 526.

Further:
Pre-Trial Grand Jurys also call witnesses of this type to decide on indictment even without a polygraph prelim.
In fact, even formal criminal trials might call her as witness in someone else's trial charging abuse to show a pattern.

And AGAIN..
Unlike most, this woman was a serious Ivy League PhD/professional who passed a Lie detector test.
Exceding many trial or grand jury witnesses.
The Washington Post would also not have published her story/fallen into a possible trap/libel without testing it with extensive conversation and that polygraph.

AND..
She did not want to go public. She was leaked by someone in the chain she told.
'
Go ahead make up some more claims!
EVERY post has a new mischaracterizon or fabrication.

`

What is untrue? You keep claiming a proven liar with out a shred of corroboration on ANY of her claims should have derailed Kavanaugh. And she was part of the plan to leak as proven by her hiring a lawyer weeks before the reveal and taking a polygraph weeks before the reveal.

 

[abu afak]

What is untrue? You keep claiming a proven liar with out a shred of corroboration on ANY of her claims should have derailed Kavanaugh. And she was part of the plan to leak as proven by her hiring a lawyer weeks before the reveal and taking a polygraph weeks before the reveal.

Your Latest Beauty (one in most of your posts) is that I said he should be denied a seat based on her allegation.
WHAT!
I Never said that, much less "Kept claiming" it.

The standard she met was merely the standard of credibility to be heard by the committee.
That's it.

I was so shocked at this Ridiculous and Blatantly False claim, I posted it and rebutted it, and re-posted that rebuttal at the top of this page.
READ IT
And that's just the latest in a series of things you fabricated but I never said.

You're so blindly partisan we can't have a coherent discussion, much less "CDZ".
`

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What is untrue? You keep claiming a proven liar with out a shred of corroboration on ANY of her claims should have derailed Kavanaugh. And she was part of the plan to leak as proven by her hiring a lawyer weeks before the reveal and taking a polygraph weeks before the reveal.

Your Latest Beauty (one in most of your posts) is that I said he should be denied a seat based on her allegation.
WHAT!
I Never said that, much less "Kept claiming" it.

The standard she met was merely the standard of credibility to be heard by the committee.
That's it.

I was so shocked at this Ridiculous and Blatantly False claim, I posted it and rebutted it, and re-posted that rebuttal at the top of this page.
READ IT
And that's just the latest in a series of things you fabricated but I never said.

You're so blindly partisan we can't have a coherent discussion, much less "CDZ".
`

And I repeat she has NO credibility at all, she was caught in 3 straight up PROVEN lies. Her story is so weak a 5 year old could see through it. And yes for pages now you have INSISTED this woman should be believed, why else would you post she should have been heard? But to the POINT she WAS heard and NOT believed.

 

[abu afak]

And I repeat she has NO credibility at all, she was caught in 3 straight up PROVEN lies. Her story is so weak a 5 year old could see through it. And yes for pages now you have INSISTED this woman should be believed, why else would you post she should have been heard? But to the POINT she WAS heard and NOT believed.

EVERYONE, including the GOP said she should be heard at the hearing.
And that's all I said aside from explaining 10 times that "innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for criminal trials only. We didn't need "proof" for her to be able to be heard.

Most, including the PRESIDENT, said her testimony was "credible", aftet the fact. UNQUOTE
Only later Flipping for his (WWE) Rally, and again for the swearing in ceremony.

Because of the rigged GOP format and no real investigation, it was always just going to be a "He said/she said" event with no conclusion possible....
Unless a Real investigation was allowed, and the GOP wa not about to allow that.
But everyone, including the GOP committee members agreed she should be heard

As to "Lying"... Kavanaugh lied about everything, especially his drinking, terms in his yearbook refering to it, etc,
Many Yale grads came forward to that affect.
So if he was indeed **** faced drunk and passing out, he could NOT be credible about what happened when he was.

NEVER has there been such a Combative, Evasive, Nonresponsive nominee before a congressional committee as Kavanaugh. Not even close.

And again, Almost everyone, including the President has said her testimony was "credible"
afterwards. (putting pressue on Kavanaugh)
Your charge of "Lies" is of course fabricated since, like all your Wacky Non-responsive zero-reading-comprehension posts, it was Fox-'news'-revisionism.

So.
What next for your Deluded parade?
I've not only had to refute you, but Correct your Deluded misstatements about what I actually said.
This really is beneath debate as you can't even quote or correctly characterize what I said in ANY reply.
BYE permanently.
`