Trial by Media: Do you believe in equally treating Kavanaugh and Ford as truthful until proven not?

Should Ford and Kavanaugh be treated equally as assumed truthful until proven otherwise?

  • No, I assume Ford is lying and agree with judging and slamming her publicly without proof either way

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, I assume Kavanaugh is guilty of perjury and agree with judging and slamming him publicly too

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, I agree with the idea in the letter and that both people deserve due process protections

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Yes and No, I believe more needs to be done to protect due process for one but not the other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No and No, I believe in free speech and anyone can slam anyone in the media, this isn't a courtroom

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other: Please explain your thoughts and views, what you see wrong or right going on

    Votes: 2 66.7%

  • Total voters
    3
  • Poll closed .

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Jan 21, 2010
23,669
4,178
290
National Freedmen's Town District
Below is my letter I have sent by email to Senators Corker, Manchin and others who seem open to both sides concerns about the Kavanaugh hearings.

Do you believe it is fair to make disparaging statements insinuating either Kavanaugh or Ford is lying without proof for either one by admission?

Some people seem to be okay with assuming Ford is guilty and slamming her for lying about the charges, when all that was proven was she was inconsistent about issues of delays (flights or offers to go to her location).

Others seem to be okay with slamming Kavanaugh even though he had corroborated testimony by a second witness, Mark Judge, both under oath; while Ford only had her own testimony and didn't meet the same standards.

Both camps accuse the other of either pushing or delaying the confirmation, as the reason for either pushing or rejecting Investigations. So why not separate the two processes?

If you take one side over the other, please show by vote, and also please explain in a post why you think it's okay for you to do that without proven guilt lying about charges, but not okay for the other side to assume guilt without proof. Do you think it's justifiable for one side to slam opponents but not the other? Don't they contradict their own arguments against judging witnesses as lying without proof?

Here's my letter below, which you are free to copy and email to Senators or any others you would ask to stop bullying either Ford or Kavanaugh by assuming guilt without proof, instead of assuming they are both honest and will admit to faults if given the chance to correct the record (which I hope fuller investigation will allow).

========

OPEN LETTER to Senators Bob Corker and Joe Manchin et al:

Dear Senator Joe Manchin:

To protect due process for both Kavanaugh and Ford, both of whom I fully believe and support as a Democrat and Constitutionalist,
please urge and vote for the confirmation, as well as require a full investigation of the issues and charges so there is no time limit or pressure put on the process.

Both Ford and Kavanaugh spoke truthfully with full integrity and deserve due process without deprivation of liberty; they both deserve to receive what they request and petition for.

Please allow both to receive what they ask.
Because I believe both Kavanaugh and Ford and believe she deserves a full investigation which can take place after confirmation.

Please confirm Kavanaugh under the condition that he resign immediately should an investigation prove that he perjured himself.

This would be the fairest solution I see that would treat and protect them both equally.
I believe them both, and support both Democrats and Republicans in respecting the due process of both Kavanaugh and Ford.

Please be fair to both and deprive neither one of what they request for themselves.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Democratic Precinct 30
Freedmen's Town National Historic District

www.freedmenstown.com
www.ethics-commission.net
 
They have been treated equally in committee.

The burden of proof is on Ford. She presented none.
 
I also think republicans would be making a huge mistake if they allow democrats an opportunity to delay this any longer than 1 week.
 
I also think republicans would be making a huge mistake if they allow democrats an opportunity to delay this any longer than 1 week.
I believe that is exactly what is going to happen. What other choice will they have when the next 10 rent-a-victims come forward with their wild stories? We simply HAVE to believe them because they are women. It's not like they could have any other motivation like money, fame, revenge, etc.
 
I also think republicans would be making a huge mistake if they allow democrats an opportunity to delay this any longer than 1 week.
---------------------------------------------- repub rinos fecked up the first time they gave ANY Special consideration to this woman with 36 year old accusations Tycho . --------------------- and hey , this might all be by design as rinos and dems work together Tycho ,
 
Both Ford and Kavanaugh spoke truthfully with full integrity and deserve due process without deprivation of liberty; they both deserve to receive what they request and petition for.
You are assuming that they spoke truthfully. The FBI may clarify this issue.
 
QUESTION
I have a question that begs to be answered - ford says in her letter ‘Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.”
This would mean that after just being “sexually assaulted” she left her other female friend at the house without warning her about what had supposedly just happened to her. She would’ve just left her to fend for herself. Is this plausible? What would this say about ford & her care about another female - her intimate friend, Leland Ingham?
SECOND QUESTION
If ford was so scared that she left the house without warning leland about what allegedly just had happened to her- then when they (ford & leland) next met or talked on the phone - which could’ve even been the next day - why was leland not at least then told about this purported foiled savaging of her? For ford not to have talked to leland about such a fearful experience surpasses any level of credibility.
I find it impossible to believe that ford would’ve left leland to be the next (as she was the only other female there) to be brutalized.
 
Below is my letter I have sent by email to Senators Corker, Manchin and others who seem open to both sides concerns about the Kavanaugh hearings.

Do you believe it is fair to make disparaging statements insinuating either Kavanaugh or Ford is lying without proof for either one by admission?

Some people seem to be okay with assuming Ford is guilty and slamming her for lying about the charges, when all that was proven was she was inconsistent about issues of delays (flights or offers to go to her location).

Others seem to be okay with slamming Kavanaugh even though he had corroborated testimony by a second witness, Mark Judge, both under oath; while Ford only had her own testimony and didn't meet the same standards.

Both camps accuse the other of either pushing or delaying the confirmation, as the reason for either pushing or rejecting Investigations. So why not separate the two processes?

If you take one side over the other, please show by vote, and also please explain in a post why you think it's okay for you to do that without proven guilt lying about charges, but not okay for the other side to assume guilt without proof. Do you think it's justifiable for one side to slam opponents but not the other? Don't they contradict their own arguments against judging witnesses as lying without proof?

Here's my letter below, which you are free to copy and email to Senators or any others you would ask to stop bullying either Ford or Kavanaugh by assuming guilt without proof, instead of assuming they are both honest and will admit to faults if given the chance to correct the record (which I hope fuller investigation will allow).

========

OPEN LETTER to Senators Bob Corker and Joe Manchin et al:

Dear Senator Joe Manchin:

To protect due process for both Kavanaugh and Ford, both of whom I fully believe and support as a Democrat and Constitutionalist,
please urge and vote for the confirmation, as well as require a full investigation of the issues and charges so there is no time limit or pressure put on the process.

Both Ford and Kavanaugh spoke truthfully with full integrity and deserve due process without deprivation of liberty; they both deserve to receive what they request and petition for.

Please allow both to receive what they ask.
Because I believe both Kavanaugh and Ford and believe she deserves a full investigation which can take place after confirmation.

Please confirm Kavanaugh under the condition that he resign immediately should an investigation prove that he perjured himself.

This would be the fairest solution I see that would treat and protect them both equally.
I believe them both, and support both Democrats and Republicans in respecting the due process of both Kavanaugh and Ford.

Please be fair to both and deprive neither one of what they request for themselves.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Democratic Precinct 30
Freedmen's Town National Historic District

www.freedmenstown.com
www.ethics-commission.net
Sorry, Em – but your letter is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The Senate confirmation process is a political – not legal – process.

There is no ‘right’ to ‘due process,’ no ‘presumption of innocence,’ and requirement to ‘prove’ anything.

The Senate hears testimony from those with relevant information concerning the person nominated, in this case Ford’s accusation of sexual assault and Kavanaugh’s denials.

Senators will determine whether Ford’s statements are credible; those who find the statements credible are at liberty to vote ‘no’ to confirm.

That’s it – nothing more, nothing less.
 
Below is my letter I have sent by email to Senators Corker, Manchin and others who seem open to both sides concerns about the Kavanaugh hearings.

Do you believe it is fair to make disparaging statements insinuating either Kavanaugh or Ford is lying without proof for either one by admission?

Some people seem to be okay with assuming Ford is guilty and slamming her for lying about the charges, when all that was proven was she was inconsistent about issues of delays (flights or offers to go to her location).

Others seem to be okay with slamming Kavanaugh even though he had corroborated testimony by a second witness, Mark Judge, both under oath; while Ford only had her own testimony and didn't meet the same standards.

Both camps accuse the other of either pushing or delaying the confirmation, as the reason for either pushing or rejecting Investigations. So why not separate the two processes?

If you take one side over the other, please show by vote, and also please explain in a post why you think it's okay for you to do that without proven guilt lying about charges, but not okay for the other side to assume guilt without proof. Do you think it's justifiable for one side to slam opponents but not the other? Don't they contradict their own arguments against judging witnesses as lying without proof?

Here's my letter below, which you are free to copy and email to Senators or any others you would ask to stop bullying either Ford or Kavanaugh by assuming guilt without proof, instead of assuming they are both honest and will admit to faults if given the chance to correct the record (which I hope fuller investigation will allow).

========

OPEN LETTER to Senators Bob Corker and Joe Manchin et al:

Dear Senator Joe Manchin:

To protect due process for both Kavanaugh and Ford, both of whom I fully believe and support as a Democrat and Constitutionalist,
please urge and vote for the confirmation, as well as require a full investigation of the issues and charges so there is no time limit or pressure put on the process.

Both Ford and Kavanaugh spoke truthfully with full integrity and deserve due process without deprivation of liberty; they both deserve to receive what they request and petition for.

Please allow both to receive what they ask.
Because I believe both Kavanaugh and Ford and believe she deserves a full investigation which can take place after confirmation.

Please confirm Kavanaugh under the condition that he resign immediately should an investigation prove that he perjured himself.

This would be the fairest solution I see that would treat and protect them both equally.
I believe them both, and support both Democrats and Republicans in respecting the due process of both Kavanaugh and Ford.

Please be fair to both and deprive neither one of what they request for themselves.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Democratic Precinct 30
Freedmen's Town National Historic District

www.freedmenstown.com
www.ethics-commission.net
Sorry, Em – but your letter is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The Senate confirmation process is a political – not legal – process.

There is no ‘right’ to ‘due process,’ no ‘presumption of innocence,’ and requirement to ‘prove’ anything.

The Senate hears testimony from those with relevant information concerning the person nominated, in this case Ford’s accusation of sexual assault and Kavanaugh’s denials.

Senators will determine whether Ford’s statements are credible; those who find the statements credible are at liberty to vote ‘no’ to confirm.

That’s it – nothing more, nothing less.
no presumption of innocense ???!! did I just read that correctly?
 
Below is my letter I have sent by email to Senators Corker, Manchin and others who seem open to both sides concerns about the Kavanaugh hearings.

Do you believe it is fair to make disparaging statements insinuating either Kavanaugh or Ford is lying without proof for either one by admission?

Some people seem to be okay with assuming Ford is guilty and slamming her for lying about the charges, when all that was proven was she was inconsistent about issues of delays (flights or offers to go to her location).

Others seem to be okay with slamming Kavanaugh even though he had corroborated testimony by a second witness, Mark Judge, both under oath; while Ford only had her own testimony and didn't meet the same standards.

Both camps accuse the other of either pushing or delaying the confirmation, as the reason for either pushing or rejecting Investigations. So why not separate the two processes?

If you take one side over the other, please show by vote, and also please explain in a post why you think it's okay for you to do that without proven guilt lying about charges, but not okay for the other side to assume guilt without proof. Do you think it's justifiable for one side to slam opponents but not the other? Don't they contradict their own arguments against judging witnesses as lying without proof?

Here's my letter below, which you are free to copy and email to Senators or any others you would ask to stop bullying either Ford or Kavanaugh by assuming guilt without proof, instead of assuming they are both honest and will admit to faults if given the chance to correct the record (which I hope fuller investigation will allow).

========

OPEN LETTER to Senators Bob Corker and Joe Manchin et al:

Dear Senator Joe Manchin:

To protect due process for both Kavanaugh and Ford, both of whom I fully believe and support as a Democrat and Constitutionalist,
please urge and vote for the confirmation, as well as require a full investigation of the issues and charges so there is no time limit or pressure put on the process.

Both Ford and Kavanaugh spoke truthfully with full integrity and deserve due process without deprivation of liberty; they both deserve to receive what they request and petition for.

Please allow both to receive what they ask.
Because I believe both Kavanaugh and Ford and believe she deserves a full investigation which can take place after confirmation.

Please confirm Kavanaugh under the condition that he resign immediately should an investigation prove that he perjured himself.

This would be the fairest solution I see that would treat and protect them both equally.
I believe them both, and support both Democrats and Republicans in respecting the due process of both Kavanaugh and Ford.

Please be fair to both and deprive neither one of what they request for themselves.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Democratic Precinct 30
Freedmen's Town National Historic District

www.freedmenstown.com
www.ethics-commission.net
Sorry, Em – but your letter is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The Senate confirmation process is a political – not legal – process.

There is no ‘right’ to ‘due process,’ no ‘presumption of innocence,’ and requirement to ‘prove’ anything.

The Senate hears testimony from those with relevant information concerning the person nominated, in this case Ford’s accusation of sexual assault and Kavanaugh’s denials.

Senators will determine whether Ford’s statements are credible; those who find the statements credible are at liberty to vote ‘no’ to confirm.

That’s it – nothing more, nothing less.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
I mean "due process" in the
* general sense as in not making racist or sexist judgments either that violate this principle
* administrative sense as in "requiring CORROBORATING evidence or testimony"
WITHIN the rules of the Senate process in this case.

In your past messages, you have also been very careful
about distinguishing between Judicial/Legal vs. Administrative due process.
Examples:

  1. Post
    Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy
    Correct. Due process is either administrative or judicial, a law-making entity cannot conduct ‘due process’ upon itself.
    Post by: C_Clayton_Jones, Jul 27, 2013 in forum: Politics

  2. Post
    Drug tests for unemployment benefits approved
    ...law, not criminal; and those terrorists targeted are afforded due process, that you disapprove of the form of that dueprocess is subjective,...
    Post by: C_Clayton_Jones, May 27, 2013 in forum: Politics

  3. Post
    Boston bombing suspect charged, will not be treated as enemy combatant
    According to whom? Case citation? The Constitution requires due process, it neither requires due process to be judicial nor prohibits...

A. I agree with you that the Senators can vote their conscience, including reading a political bias
in Kavanaugh's judicial record they feel is not Constitutionally impartial enough to be fair to all sides.

B. However according to the RULES as I believe Grassley pointed out last Friday(and again after the next round of FBI investigations failed to obtain CORROBORATING evidence or testimony):
It is because Kavanaugh's sworn statement and Mark Judge's sworn testimony count as TWO sources,
but Ford's sworn testimony only counts as ONE
(and unlike Kavanaugh, she was not able to obtain a SECOND sworn testimony from her best friend and witness,
as Mark Judge provided for Kavanaugh to meet Senate requests and requirements)

Then THIS is why those Senators who applied these rules to the testimonies of Kavanaugh and Ford
weigh his account more than hers. Had she obtained a second witness to give sworn statement and testimony
as Judge did, they would have been equal by the rules.

Are you okay with this rule by which I would define "administrative" DUE PROCESS in the Senate Hearing process?

I also AGREE with you that fuller investigation should still be allowed and pursued
in order to obtain equal number and weight of sworn testimony for both sides to be fair.

I would not stop the investigation here, but seek full resolution of issues brought forth.
In the meantime, if Senate rules are not met, the Senators have the choice to vote and move forward.

I just wish the vote had been returned to 3/5 or 2/3 instead of 51 majority,
so this manipulation and complications would not have been such an issue,
fighting to sway just 1-3 votes. With the previous standards on voting for cloture,
the rules used to require a much higher margin. And for something
as important as a lifelong appt to Supreme Court, you'd think 2/3 or 3/5 should be required!

Thank you C_Clayton_Jones
It's clear we both care about "due process" but define it
in different situations in different ways. Since you are against
judging and denying equal rights to LGBT, or to others on the
basis of race or gender, I hope you might understand the
GENERAL meaning and principle of "due process" in terms of
not depriving ANY such person of equal liberty and rights
in ANY circumstance if they are not committing a crime or have any such intent,
for which there is a PRESCRIBED law that does involve "depriving or denying"
that person's liberty compelling them otherwise. Is there any way we can
reach an agreement on what you would call respect for persons who are
not proven or convicted of any violation or unlawful intent? Because
that's what I "mean by due process" in the GENERAL sense. The closest
I can think of, is it is similar to your complaints about racism or sexism
or discrimination against LGBT. Would it help to explain it in these terms? Thanks!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top