I have one question: would Ford's testimony convict kavanaugh in a court room?

[Wyatt earp]

Says the guy who gets his "news" from SNL

Satirical news viewers are infinitely better informed that those who get their "news" from Fox

by "better informed" they mean the people polled swallowed leftwing propaganda.

No, I mean better informed.

Yet Another Study Shows US Satire Programs Do A Better Job Informing Viewers Than Actual News Outlets

More loaded questions, who the **** are you fooling?


.

Were you home skooled my furry friend?

On what liberals get their news from comedy shows like you? Indoctrination at it's finest .


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Says the guy who gets his "news" from SNL

Satirical news viewers are infinitely better informed that those who get their "news" from Fox

by "better informed" they mean the people polled swallowed leftwing propaganda.

No, I mean better informed.

Yet Another Study Shows US Satire Programs Do A Better Job Informing Viewers Than Actual News Outlets

I recall the study. They asked a lot of questions that required the subjects to agree with leftwing propaganda to have it scored as "correct."

The study was just another example of sleazy leftwing propaganda.

No you hopeless idiot - These are questions like:

Who is your governor?
Who is the president of Russia?
Name one Supreme Court Justice

You know, questions you'd be likely to flub.
Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions | Pew Research Center

So comedy shows give you those answers??? Since when?

 

[DrLove]

Satirical news viewers are infinitely better informed that those who get their "news" from Fox

by "better informed" they mean the people polled swallowed leftwing propaganda.

No, I mean better informed.

Yet Another Study Shows US Satire Programs Do A Better Job Informing Viewers Than Actual News Outlets

I recall the study. They asked a lot of questions that required the subjects to agree with leftwing propaganda to have it scored as "correct."

The study was just another example of sleazy leftwing propaganda.

No you hopeless idiot - These are questions like:

Who is your governor?
Who is the president of Russia?
Name one Supreme Court Justice

You know, questions you'd be likely to flub.
Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions | Pew Research Center

So comedy shows give you those answers??? Since when?

There have been no less than ten studies which all came to more or less the same conclusions.
Go Google the questions for yourself. It is very basic political and world knowledge.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If nothing else we got a look at Kavanaugh and that was all that was needed for many Americans. It was a new low for Republicans and Trump.

Kavanaugh isn't fit for dog catcher

That's the best argument you have. Isn't it?

How's this bri? Imagine a lady or a black person speaking with the disrespect and anger with bs tears in their eyes,in the same position as Kavanaugh? He' or she'd be voted down so quickly it'd make your head spin Now this LIMITED investigation is BS Hopefully some Republicans realize it and vote accordingly

There’s no evidence. Zero. Charges couldn’t even be brought.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If it did make it to court, would Fords Husband show up?

So far he’s a no show

Why is that?

Embarrassment?

 

[Lakhota]

I have one question: would Ford's testimony convict kavanaugh in a court room?

Not applicable. Kavanaugh is not facing any civil or criminal charges. He is simply being interviewed for a lifetime job on the U.S. Supreme Court. So far - he has failed the interview.

 

[easyt65]

If you say yes you go by feelings and not by the rule of law and the constitution


If you say no then you go by rule of law and the constitution.


Let's see what side these sentators are on ..


Prosecutor tells wavering senators she wouldn't charge Kavanaugh, as vote looms

The sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's hearing told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, sources told Fox News—guidance that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.

The prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, spoke at an overnight meeting where all 51 Republican senators were present, two people briefed on the session said.

“Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn't even seek a search warrant.

Mitchell’s opinion could sway fence-sitting senators ahead of a critical Senate Judiciary Committee vote set for Friday afternoon.

THE PROSECUTOR THERE ALREADY SAID 'NO WAY'

 

[Lysistrata]

This is a nomination proceeding intended to examine the nominee's qualifications to be on the court, including character. It is not the same thing as a criminal proceeding, to which different standards apply.

Moreover, the statute of limitations for any criminal proceedings has run. All of this nonsense about whether criminal standards can be met in this instance is pure hot air.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If you say yes you go by feelings and not by the rule of law and the constitution


If you say no then you go by rule of law and the constitution.


Let's see what side these sentators are on ..


Prosecutor tells wavering senators she wouldn't charge Kavanaugh, as vote looms

The sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's hearing told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, sources told Fox News—guidance that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.

The prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, spoke at an overnight meeting where all 51 Republican senators were present, two people briefed on the session said.

“Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn't even seek a search warrant.

Mitchell’s opinion could sway fence-sitting senators ahead of a critical Senate Judiciary Committee vote set for Friday afternoon.

I have one question: would Ford's testimony convict kavanaugh in a court room?


There is no such standard in this process, dope.

 

[easyt65]

Zero evidence...would not even make it into a courtroom.

 

[easyt65]

You wouldn't even be able to file a police report with her testimony.

Hence, Fake Outrage over a Fake Accusation.

Mmaybe that's why she refused / refuses to...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You couldn't even get a search or arrest warrant based on so little evidence. It really boils down to this:

When somebody accuses you of something, should the rest of us believe it or give you the chance to refute it? Forget the court of law crap, just consider the question. Do you have the right to defend yourself or not, not just in a court of law but everywhere else? What if it's at your job and somebody accuses you of lying or stealing, should you be fired without being given a chance to say anything or offer any alibi to show you didn't do it? What if it's in your neighborhood, somebody accuses you of doing something with the teenage girl or boy next door. Should we automatically say you did it?

Most people I think would say no, in this country we do not presume guilt, whether it's in a court of law or not. Most of us would say hey, I know that guy and that's not like him, or maybe I'm not surprised cuz he's such a jerk and he's been in trouble before. Suppose it's your dad, husband, son, brother? Aren't you going to want to hear the whole story and see what the evidence is? What are you going to think when the accuser can't tell you where or when and her witnesses all say it didn't happen or I don't remember?
Some say well it's court of law and nobody gets convicted. Maybe Kavanaugh won't go to prison if the confirmation is denied, but his reputation is forever destroyed and his career as a jurist is over. So he faces serious consequences anyway even if it isn't a court of law. Is it fair then to do that to somebody when there is nothing but an accusation against him?

NO. In this country we have or should have a sense of fairness. If I accuse you of something as heinous as rape or attempted rape then don't you think I should have SOMETHING to support my story? Frankly, I see no reason to adopt a different standard for a SCOTUS nominee than I do for you or me who is accused of messing around with the next door neighbor's kid. Justice requires that facts rather than emotions should rule the outcome, and if it's you in the chair facing your accusers, wouldn't you like to know exactly where and when the alleged attack took place, so maybe you could prove you were somewhere else? Of course you would, IMHO we should always extend that right to everyone is accused of something, in or out of court.

You couldn't even get a search or arrest warrant based on so little evidence. It really boils down to this:

No, it boils down to this:

No one was trying to get a warrant or prosecute anyone, dope.

There are no such standards in this process.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nope. You would never get a grand jury to take that case to court.

I also doubt an honest lawyer would try to take it to court.

No witnesses. No proof and a case that's 30+ years old??

Not in a million years.

True....but a court of law (which this was not) would never REFUSE to call a witness such as Ford.

Ford was never a "witness". She can't even remember the most important details that was asked to her. How would she even be a "witness"?
Even if she was made to appear as a "witness"; she would try to lie her way out of her testimony. Why would she try to perjure herself?

Ford was never a "witness"

Derp..........I guess that's why she testified.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If you say yes you go by feelings and not by the rule of law and the constitution


If you say no then you go by rule of law and the constitution.


Let's see what side these sentators are on ..


Prosecutor tells wavering senators she wouldn't charge Kavanaugh, as vote looms

The sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's hearing told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, sources told Fox News—guidance that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.

The prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, spoke at an overnight meeting where all 51 Republican senators were present, two people briefed on the session said.

“Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn't even seek a search warrant.

Mitchell’s opinion could sway fence-sitting senators ahead of a critical Senate Judiciary Committee vote set for Friday afternoon.

of course not!
there had not even been a law enforcement investigation....

this was not even close to a trial and was not suppose to be...

if it was a trial, Kavanaugh would have been in contempt of court

as rightwinger said, it's vetting for a job, the highest and most powerful job in the country... that is not an elected position.

Kavanaugh's lack of cool temperament. lack of candor when questioned, and partisan rants and disrespect shown in the hearing, disqualified him, for the SC Justice position.... you don't even need Ford and his incident with her.

pick another conservative nominee worthy to serve the entire nation in an unbiased manner and you could have a Justice seated by December.

Acording to what I read he has been investigated 6 times ..


So is this a


Court case/ criminal case


Or a

Job interview and just want to know about his character?



.

This six times thing is nonsense

Six times over his 27 year carreer. Never once were these allegations investigated.

 

[bripat9643]

If you say yes you go by feelings and not by the rule of law and the constitution


If you say no then you go by rule of law and the constitution.


Let's see what side these sentators are on ..


Prosecutor tells wavering senators she wouldn't charge Kavanaugh, as vote looms

The sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's hearing told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, sources told Fox News—guidance that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.

The prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, spoke at an overnight meeting where all 51 Republican senators were present, two people briefed on the session said.

“Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn't even seek a search warrant.

Mitchell’s opinion could sway fence-sitting senators ahead of a critical Senate Judiciary Committee vote set for Friday afternoon.

I have one question: would Ford's testimony convict kavanaugh in a court room?


There is no such standard in this process, dope.

There's no standard whatsoever, douchebag. If there is one, it's "guilty until proven innocent." It's the standard of a witch trial.

 

[bodecea]

If you say yes you go by feelings and not by the rule of law and the constitution


If you say no then you go by rule of law and the constitution.


Let's see what side these sentators are on ..


Prosecutor tells wavering senators she wouldn't charge Kavanaugh, as vote looms

The sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's hearing told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, sources told Fox News—guidance that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.

The prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, spoke at an overnight meeting where all 51 Republican senators were present, two people briefed on the session said.

“Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn't even seek a search warrant.

Mitchell’s opinion could sway fence-sitting senators ahead of a critical Senate Judiciary Committee vote set for Friday afternoon.

I have one question: would Ford's testimony convict kavanaugh in a court room?


There is no such standard in this process, dope.

There's no standard whatsoever, douchebag. If there is one, it's "guilty until proven innocent." It's the standard of a witch trial.

This was not a trial, it was a job interview....for a government position. Trumpanzees are so easily confused.

 

[Windparadox]

`

I have one question: would Ford's testimony convict kavanaugh in a court room?

`
I would have to agree, this "what if" question is so far off the reality of the situation (this being a job interview) it's like comparing apples and oranges. However, for the sake of discussion I will argue the difference between a criminal court and a civil court. In the OJ trial, he was found innocent in the criminal court but guilty in the civil court. Why?

While there are many differences between the two, the biggest one is burden of proof and rules of evidence. In criminal hearings, the prosecutor must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." (98%) In a civil court, all the plaintiff needs is a "preponderance of evidence" (above 50%) to make their case.

Given the length of time between the incident of alleged rape, I would be hard pressed to say any criminal prosecutor could convict Kavanaugh based on the rules of evidence. However, in a civil court, based on those same rules of evidence, I think Kavanaugh could be convicted of rape.

Now mind you, the rules of evidence are almost non-existent in a job interview. All an employer needs is to do is think you are too ugly in order to disqualify you. And, since these congressional hearings for job positions are based merely on tradition, nothing really formal in writing, it's all a damn farce.
`

 

[Wry Catcher]

All this hate piled on a women whose testimony the vast majority who watched and listened found credible. That Said, if this were a jury trial, the two sides closing argument would be won by Dr. Ford, and lost by Judge Kavanaugh.

Q. Why you may ask since it was a she said, he said dispute?

A. Because a judge in such a matter instructs the jury of many points of law, but tells the jury that the testimony they heard, and the documents they review, must be valued by their COMMON SENSE.

 

[Camp]

`

I have one question: would Ford's testimony convict kavanaugh in a court room?

`
I would have to agree, this "what if" question is so far off the reality of the situation (this being a job interview) it's like comparing apples and oranges. However, for the sake of discussion I will argue the difference between a criminal court and a civil court. In the OJ trial, he was found innocent in the criminal court but guilty in the civil court. Why?

While there are many differences between the two, the biggest one is burden of proof and rules of evidence. In criminal hearings, the prosecutor must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." (98%) In a civil court, all the plaintiff needs is a "preponderance of evidence" (above 50%) to make their case.

Given the length of time between the incident of alleged rape, I would be hard pressed to say any criminal prosecutor could convict Kavanaugh based on the rules of evidence. However, in a civil court, based on those same rules of evidence, I think Kavanaugh could be convicted of rape.

Now mind you, the rules of evidence are almost non-existent in a job interview. All an employer needs is to do is think you are too ugly in order to disqualify you. And, since these congressional hearings for job positions are based merely on tradition, nothing really formal in writing, it's all a damn farce.
`

Also, not being considered is the fact both parties were juveniles in a beer influenced incident. Both could have been charged with underage drinking, but also could have been charged as generic "juvenile offenders" and had court cases in Juvenile Court where judges have great leeway and offer group charges under juvenile offender status and have very different standards of proof than adult courts. Family Court judges can find defendants guilty on practically no evidence other than hearsay and hand out sentences of probation with a record that will be expunged. A juvenile can basically be found guilty simply for having a "bad "attitude" or being a risk for being involved in future bad or dangerous behavior.

 

[depotoo]

There isn’t even enough for a civil case win-


“Mitchell acknowledged that the standard of proof in a nomination hearing is less daunting than in a criminal trial. But she said the allegations against Kavanaugh didn't even rise to a lesser "preponderance-of-the-evidence" standard.

She highlighted what she said were inconsistencies in Ford's memory of dates, events and details, including who invited her to the party where the alleged assault occurred, the address of the home where the party took place or how she got to the party.

Mitchell wrote that in her (Ford) previous accounts of the alleged incident — particularly in notes of sessions with marriage and individual therapists in 2012 and 2013 — Ford struggled to identify Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.“
Evidence doesn't support claims against Kavanaugh, Judiciary Committee questioner says

`

I have one question: would Ford's testimony convict kavanaugh in a court room?

`
I would have to agree, this "what if" question is so far off the reality of the situation (this being a job interview) it's like comparing apples and oranges. However, for the sake of discussion I will argue the difference between a criminal court and a civil court. In the OJ trial, he was found innocent in the criminal court but guilty in the civil court. Why?

While there are many differences between the two, the biggest one is burden of proof and rules of evidence. In criminal hearings, the prosecutor must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." (98%) In a civil court, all the plaintiff needs is a "preponderance of evidence" (above 50%) to make their case.

Given the length of time between the incident of alleged rape, I would be hard pressed to say any criminal prosecutor could convict Kavanaugh based on the rules of evidence. However, in a civil court, based on those same rules of evidence, I think Kavanaugh could be convicted of rape.

Now mind you, the rules of evidence are almost non-existent in a job interview. All an employer needs is to do is think you are too ugly in order to disqualify you. And, since these congressional hearings for job positions are based merely on tradition, nothing really formal in writing, it's all a damn farce.
`