Senator Horino said we "need to believe" the accuser, which necessarily means we need to disbelieve Kavanaugh, and deny him a SCOTUS seat, without any due process.

She is saying we should punish Kavanaugh without any due process.

I'll ask you Spence, and have fun with this question...why is Senator Horino saying we "need to believe" Kavanaugh's accuser, but she isn't saying we need to believe Keith Ellison's accuser?

Why would anyone who feels this disqualifies Kavanaugh, not feel that Keith Ellison should step down? Both men have been accused of domestic violence against women. One gets a pass form the left, one is presumed guilty from the left. How come?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,..... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

or we could "Just Believe Her"

Both parties do it but you are so blinded that you think 1 party does it more than the other.

This is a Senate hearing, it is not a court of law.
Just like indictment vs impeachment are different so is the confirmation of a citizen to the Supreme Court.
Due process doesn't apply.
Is it political, absolutely and it always has been.
Is it dirtier than it used to be or just more public?

one party consistently takes it to all new levels of ick....:)

Both parties do it, no question. Even in the age of Trump, I see no comparison in frequency. But I know I'm biased.

According to Horino, you "need to believe her". Or else...

Can you answer my question about Keith Ellison?

you are right...the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the Constitution

who's he?

He is the vice chairman at the Democratic National Committee. And like Kavanaugh, he has been accused by a woman, of assault and domestic violence. And unlike Kavanaugh, no one on the left is concluding he's guilty and should be denied a job in public service.

Very similar circumstances between Ellison and Kavanaugh, very very different conclusions reached by most liberals. What do you think?

And sorry I didn't say it immediately, I respect your post (not the part calling me blind), it was uncommonly honest. Not uncommon for you, uncommon for all of us.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/176842...y-general-race

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ends-democrat/

He's not being charged in a criminal court, I'm not sure how due process really applies in a legal sense in this case. I do think it's fair to ensure the allegation is properly looked into now that it's out in the open.

I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison.

I think one difference here is that Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story, offering evidence but refusing to produce it etc...

"I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison."

Ahhhh, you dodging skills are second to none.

"Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story"

Mrs Fords version that she is telling today, differs from what she told her therapist, so she is also apparently changing her story. She's having trouble remembering where and when it happened, isn't it possible she's misremembering the who as well? This is exactly why we have statutes of limitations.

I asked my wife and daughter.

No was their answer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist. As for her making a mistake on the assailant, that's what an investigation would be for. I don't think she would have come forward unless she personally was sure it was him.

In the Ellison case the initial allegation was actually made by her son which she eventually went along with. She's told the press multiple stories about a video that would prove her story and that she wouldn't give it to them anyway...it's all very strange.

"The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist"

True, or it could be a mistake by her.

Spence, Kavanaugh's best ability to prove innocence, would be to show he was somewhere else at the time. How can he begin to do that, when the accuser can't specify the when and the where? There's literally no possible way to defend himself against this.

It's a morally disgusting tactic, but politically very shrewd. No one knows how to bring a gun to a knife fight, like a liberal.

Oh, OK, you don't believe Ellison's accuser because her story is strange. But nothing strange about sending a letter, telling the senate to hold onto it while the FBI is doing a background check, not mentioning it during 38 hours of questioning. Nah, that's normal, at least by current liberal standards.

If I was Trump, if there's another vacancy (please Ginsberg), I'd go out of my way to fill it with the person that the liberals would hate the most, someone who would make them beg Trump to re-nominate Kavanaugh.. "Ability to infuriate liberals", would be near the top of my list of attributes I'd look for.

Your side won big by fighting dirty against honorable men like McCain and Romney. They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers.

That's why you have professionals like the FBI conduct an investigation. They would interview her several times, see if her story changes, talk to others she went to school with, see if there's any corroborating evidence. They might find something or they may simply say there's not enough to form a conclusion.

But the standard here isn't the same as for a crime.

I'd say usually it's just the opposite. Dems have a habit of asking "oops, did I hit you too hard?"

I think it's very strange that she says she has a video and text messages that prove her story but she can't find them or it would be too embarrassing. That doesn't pass the smell test with flying colors.

My understanding is she didn't want the exposure, it wasn't until a staffer leaked that the memo existed that it was made public. Could be a ruse, no idea.

This doesn't surprise me, sounds like a good basis for leadership.

You continue to have a pretty jaundiced view of things. Also, it's better so say that "we're" lucky he's limited by separation of powers. We'll see how long even that lasts.

"They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers."
And that is my big concern, why did Trump go off the Federalist list and pick Kavanaugh? The biggest Washington insider
Trump doesn't want to take a chance on being indicted.
He'd just as soon be president for life like some of the people he admires and then have his children succeed him.
Of course you find an issue with the only Muslim in Congress, is he being appointed to a lifetime position also? :whackin:

what muslim in congress are you talking about? keith ellison isn’t in congress. but it sounds like you’re saying it’s wrong to believe a man is guilty, if he’s a muslim? so kavanaugh usnoresumed guilty, but not ellison because
muslims get special treatment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if this woman shows up with an envelope with a hair in it and claims it's kavanaugh's nothing will happen?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, sure. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh.

I'm sure everyone will be like... "wow...you kept a hair in an envelope for 36 years...that's really impressive!"

Straight or a “Curly”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I asked a friend of mine who went to Georgetown
He said what happens in Georgetown stays in Georgetown and👎🏽
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for the insight
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hilary Clinton, who went on national TV and slut shamed her husbands victims ( called them looney tunes) was on manbc last night, telling the country ( well, at least telling the 14 viewers), that we all must show compassion and empathy to the victims of sexual assault. Naturally the host wasn’t about to mention the irony.

The liberal descent into total madness, is just about complete. They are truly unhinged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So apparently 13 other people besides you watched?
Some are concerned about the Trumplicans total submission while claiming we don’t really think it’s ok and don’t agree with everything but who’s gonna miss out on great head? We’re Getting what we want, so what if it’s ugly.
The morning will come sooner or later and you’ll be wishing you had chewed your arm off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i see you said absolutely nothing, about the irony i pointed out. when did hilary become concerned with victims is sexual assaults? Because she showed no such concern when she used her pulpit to attack her husbands victims, and there was dna evidence to show he was guilty, not just a witch hunt as might be the case here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device