Did you happen to see this?
:)
Posted on 09/21/2018 6:49:38 AM PDT by TigerClaws
If evidence does not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold it is not credible.
There is no “evidence”, because a crime never took place. This is all just a communist DEMONcRAT lie and ploy to delay, stall or kill Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Nothing more, nothing less.
They just couldn't find any more "enlightened" women to bite the bullet, come forward and lie their @$$e$ off.
The strength of the evidence is immaterial. First, if the incident wasn’t reported to the police when it happened, it wasn’t important back then. That makes it unimportant now. Second, what KIDS do in high school has no bearing upon how they handle themselves currently.
This isn't a criminal hearing. I think beyond a reasonable doubt is too high of a standard to apply in this case. I'd be fine with a preponderance of the evidence as the appropriate standard in this situation. Ignoring the immediate case, as a general rule, I would be uncomfortable putting someone on the Supreme Court if I felt there was a reasonably good chance that he or she was involved in inappropriate behavior.
The only "evidence" she has is her accusation. Of course, that is offset by Judge Kavanaugh's denial. So we're back at zero. Long ways from even reaching the standard of preponderance of the evidence.
“I’d be fine with a preponderance of the evidence”
I would like credible proof of “death threats”
What do you base your opinion upon?
The blue dress in Clinton's case was not enough to remover him from office and that was the oval office.
This is an attack on our ability to have an effective Government. It gives fanatics--and there are many on the Left--the ability to effectively veto our right to self-government, simply by the willingness of fanatics to lie for a cause. It gives compulsion driven fanatics an effective veto over our way of life.
Consider Leftist War On Social Continuity
And above all: Our Last Chance? [Can Donald Trump Revive The "Spirit of '76?]
Did you happen to see this?
:)
Ha ha!! That’s awesome! :)
:)
As I said, I would base it on the preponderance of the evidence. This standard allows for some doubt but one side has clearly made a more compelling argument than the other. This is not a criminal case where a very high burden of proof is needed. As a senator, I would be uncomfortable voting for someone who has a reasonably good chance of having committed a serious indiscretion.
The accusation against Judge Kavanaugh is nowhere near reaching a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, let alone the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
I wasn't voting on Bill Clinton's impeachment but the evidence clearly supported his impeachment for perjury. Remember, Bill Clinton had testified under oath that he hadn't had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The DNA on the blue dress clearly proved otherwise. So regardless of which burden of proof is used, the standard was met IMO. I don't know if impeachment requires the same high burden of proof required in a criminal prosecution.
Grabbing a 15 year old’s boobs today would be disqualifying. Grabbing a 15 year old’s boobs by a 17 year old in 1982 was not the same crime as it was today.
This is all bullshit and I wish someone would call it out.
It has not even been established that is what happened. Let's decide if it is reasonable to even conclude such grabbing occurred. If it reasonable to conclude that it didn't happen, then the seriousness of the issue is moot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.