Much like Kamala Harris (who was the DA of the People’s Republik Of California) and so many other Democrats (and, tons of politicians in both parties), Senator Chris Coons of Delaware is a lawyer. Also like Kamala Harris and tons of Democrats, he doesn’t seem to understand the Constitution (via Twitchy)
https://twitter.com/KMCRadio/status/1044510303696953347
Is it even necessary to quote the Bill of Rights and the concept of the prosecution/accuser having to prove their case, that the defendant is innocent till proven guilty? He went to the same law school as Brett Kavanaugh, but, apparently, he snoozed through some classes. Perhaps the Delaware Constitution Section 7?
Section 7. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath a right to be heard by himself or herself and his or her counsel, to be plainly and fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her, to meet the witnesses in their examination face to face, to have compulsory process in due time, on application by himself or herself, his or her friends or counsel, for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor, and a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; he or she shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself or herself, nor shall he or she be deprived of life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his or her peers or by the law of the land.
Meh.
He’s a dimmicrat. They work entirely from social reasoning, not objective reasoning.
I’m not defending him, but this isn’t a constitutional issue. Nor does anyone bear any specific burden of proof. It is a confirmation hearing. The rules are whatever the committee says they are. The presumption of innocence only applies to criminal trials. This isn’t one. But really, there can be no proof. The allegation is unprovable and undefendable. Like a pubic hair on a coke can that no one saw. Non-credible allegations is all the Democrats have. There is no reason why anyone should give this process any attention at all.
This is not a criminal proceeding; it’s a job interview. So yes, Kavanaugh needs to persuade the Senate that he is fit for the job.
The allegations against him do not help his case, and need to fully investigated, so that the Senate can cast an informed vote.
It’s reasonably convincing that Kavanaugh was a belligerent drunk during high school and college, but appears to have turned his life around since. His wife of 17 yrs trusts him. It’s possible, if not likely, that he comported himself poorly at times, according to witnesses. What is hurt if the allegations are investigated further?
The GOP has labeled the potential victims as “liars”, as part of a Dem/lib conspiracy.
But, since the charges involve felonies, the rules of due process applies.
As I said, the Montgomery County MD police looked into it and found zip. The other one is even more laughable. And I think this witch hunt does help him because he refuses to wuss out, the way the Lefties hoped. They don’t seem to understand what makes a good man, mostly because they don’t believe there is such a thing.
It’s reasonably convincing that Kavanaugh was a belligerent drunk during high school and college
It is? Where’s your evidence? Arrest record? Complaints? Psychological evaluations (yours must be a gas)? All you have is a Lefty psychotic whose witnesses repudiated her and a woman who came forward because the Demos were “looking for accusers” who admits she was plastered out of her gourd, can’t remember significant detail, and is stuck with the fact nobody can prove Kavanaugh was even at the party.
PS That “job interview” thing the latest spin your trollmasters want you to try to use?
Is that a law or policy, or something you just happen to believe for now? Anyway, there are no “charges”, but rather allegations (or ‘acquisitions’ according to the Twit-in-Chief).
Kavanaugh’s college roommate called him aggressive and belligerent when he was drunk, saying he drank excessively, becoming incoherently drunk. This matches what other witnesses said.
https://abc7news.com/politics/brett-kavanaughs-yale-roommate-says-he-believes-second-accuser/4330055/
Good for Kavanaugh that he turned his life around.
We call it a “job interview” is because that’s what it is. Why do you compare it to a criminal trial?
The Senate will have to decide if Kavanaugh is fit or not for the job. Our belief is that the GOP so badly wants a far-right extremist on the court that they are willing to absorb the potential loss of the House and Senate.
Rape (as opposed to “rape”) and indecent assault are felonies. So is perjury and these broads would be under oath.
As for the roommate, that’s a pretty good trick since Ramirez has walked back her charge Brother Bret was at the party. He barely knew Kavanaugh, but was a good friend of Ramirez (suspicious?). He’s also a registered Democrat (suspicious!). Gee whiz, sounds OK to me.
And, since there were no other witnesses to these offenses, what witnesses, or, in Jeffery’s case, witlesses can you mean?
And then there’s the fearless legal thug, Avenatti, who got played by 4Chan. That’s right, the whole gang rape thing was a prank and only 2 people were dumb enough to buy it.
PS If you read what the roommate says, he sounds like a real snowflake. Mr PC.
You don’t expect the little fella to recognize real evidence when he can spew unprovable salacious smears against his betters, do ya?
One wonders: has Senator Coons demanded that his fellow First Stater, Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), who struck his then-wife so hard that he gave her a black eye, resign?
For those who haven’t heard, Grassley has scheduled the committee vote for Friday morning, amid almost universal expectation Dr I Can’t Remember doesn’t show. Word is also going about for all R Senators to stay in town this weekend.
Lessee now, Clarence Thomas survived a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks, Neil Gorsuch is the son of Anne Gorsuch, and now we have Brother Bret.
Hey, Lefties, welcome to your worst nightmare.
As I saw- “Ladies, remember. If you are sexually assaulted, call the police. Don’t send an email to your senator 36 yrs laterâ€.
Alas! here in the Bluegrass State, Cody Arnett, convicted of two bank robberies and sentenced to ten years in prison, in 2014, was set free earlier this year, and was just arraigned for the forcible rape of a Georgetown College student. Mr Arnett had at least three prior convictions for violent offenses before 2014, so it boggles my mind that the Parole Board would have released him before even half of his sentence had been served.
Yes, the student reported the rape promptly, evidence was gathered, and the alleged perpetrator arrested. It’s great that he’s back behind bars, but that doesn’t undo the fact that an innocent woman was raped.
We need to know if the Parole Board had any discretion in granting him parole. If they did, and could have kept him in prison, the rape — assuming that he is the perpetrator — would not have occurred. If the Parole Board could have kept him in prison, but chose not to do so, then they are just as responsible for the rape as is Mr Arnett.
They need to be held accountable! I’m sure that state law protects them from lawsuits or criminal charges over their official acts, but we can at the very least publicly identify and shame them for what they did.