When someone makes FALSE ACCUSATIONS, without proof, evidence, or witnesses who verify the allegations, or any relative details of the situation that is falsely claimed to have happened, then it is clear that the accuser is making up a FALSE STORY just to cause a widespread reaction which causes a mass mistake in opinion, and leads to a incorrect action by authority, or prevents an action by authority, even though the claims are just nonsense...

Even if the false claims are repeated over and over, or broadcast on every TV channel, and discussed repeatedly by those who mistakenly believe them, they don't become TRUE no matter how much you mention them and how many people are excited by the false allegations.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, is the basic rule of law in the bill of rights in our country. Nobody can be blamed for something that is just a verbal claim of an incident in the distant past, with no proof, and no corroborating witnesses, (but the witnesses who are mentioned say that the incident didn't happen), and then you suddenly think that the person who is accused must certainly be guilty... No way.
People cannot be considered "guilty with no chance of being proven innocent".
This type of insane nonsense has been done repeatedly, (and they attempted it with the President in the election), and it is usually found to be false statements that were made up by someone seeking fame, money, (money comes from fame...), and political influence to advance or block a certain agenda. These people have no conscience, no morality, and would lie about anything in order to get what they want.

The left wing media, (mass media like regular TV news on local channels, and public radio liberal leaning news), is largely to blame, for spreading the lies and false stories, and fluffing them up so much that people start believing they must be true, just because someone states they are true on TV.... Many of the senators who believe the recent false allegations have lied to the media themselves. One lied about his military service, one was charged with sexual assualt but still has his job, on and on...

It seems like millions of people just don't have any common sense anymore. And the same people don't have any sense of morality or fairness, and believe that one is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. (Not believed to be "guilty" with no proof at all).

and.....don't forget

climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese government
there are many many more examples, but why bother ??

I believe absolutely in the ideals and tenets handed down to us by Magna Carta and subsequent enshrined laws and rights, but If I am reading you right, the case you are talking about is not actually a criminal matter, and is indeed only a job interview in which, I must say, the candidate's conduct and his own words have been very worrisome indeed imo.

And I must say, it is a bit rich complaining about people lying when your own President has been found to have told over 3000 lies since he was elected.

It's a "he said she said" situation. The guy is vying for a lifetime position on the highest court in the nation. I have no problem with having an independent agency doing some thorough background investigation on the guy, especially after seeing his emotional and very defiant testimony the other day. As for all you, "this is all a left wing conspiracy" people; time to change out your tin-foil hats.

Even her buddies won't back her up on her story. You would think some of them could remember where the party was and who picked her up. The Democrats need to pick a better liar next time.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: We now live in an age that borders on sexual McCarthyism

I for one have been accused of something I haven't done and it dame near cost me my reputation and I reacted the same way, almost identical. I cried, then I exploded and I ripped everyone involved a new a$$hole.


I hope the day never comes where your falsely accused of something and if it does, I guarantee you will fight like hell to clear your name and you will be emotional.

I imagine a JUDGE has plenty of experience with people claiming they didnt do it, and they understand the TEMPERAMENT expected in being forthcoming with answers too. SCOTUS judge is a higher standard of level headedness than the average joe blow or jill blow.

As to innocent until proven guilty. that is the flaw with the system isnt it. Even though its the best we have no doubt. Its that 12 men and/or women sit in judgement. They are humans with biases and what they accept as 'evidence' or not is subjective, which is why we have innocent people sometimes convicted and guilty people sometimes going free.

But in a SCOTUS review, there is no trial for crime, there is review of character for the job. They may not prove he committed any crime, but if they show that he has been lying about his drinking, that crime of lying under oath can do in his nomination, just like it got Clinton impeached.

How can he defend himself against an accusation at a party without an address, date, or even adults driving kids? I'll wait for liberals to explain. I'm sure it will change to k drank too much water during the interview so he must be guilty.

an investigation MAY be able to turn up an address and date ,,,et cetera.

but whats more important, since she is not seeking to have him arrested, is if it turns up that he was lying about his drinking. That under oath stuff is allegedly a potential career ender, ask Clinton.

He said he was drinking beer and still does. What's Ford's excuse for memory loss? I'll wait.

people dont remember every moment of every day of their life, especially after time passes. they do remember traumatic experiences, and they generally can recall what they have done from DAY TO DAY, which is different than from decade to decade.

And again FORD is not nominated for SCOTUS, Kavanaugh is. and if he will lie about little things about the meaning of what he put in his year book or his partying life back then, what else might he lie about? that is going to be the main barrier for him. She cant prove he did what she claims. But an investigation could uncover he lied about the things he did or did not do or say back then.

There is a small hole in your reasoning which you probably ought to correct.
That is, that accusations alone are indeed not enough to make a claim true; but the fact that supporting facts are not presented at the same time, doesn't logically prove that the OPPOSITE is true either.

One of the ways that some very insidious propaganda has entered the mindsets of many people over the years, has been accomplished by PURPOSELY promoting an obviously unsupported FALSE story, and thereby goading people into assuming that the opposite is true. Your particular way of stating your case, looks like it accidentally provides support for such tactics.

In particular, the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is being incorrectly applied here. You are correct that just repeating an accusation does not make a person guilty of it.

However, it is ALSO true, and you have missed the trick, that lack of direct proof also does NOT prove that a person is INNOCENT.

The correct use of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept is INCORRECT as many people try to claim it, including here. The legal rule is actually only written correctly, when you say "A person is considered innocent UNDER THE LAW until proven guilty UNDER THE LAW."

It is FALSE to say that a person is ACTUALLY INNOCENT IN A REAL WAY, until proven guilty. If that were so, then it would be impossible for any serial killer or other criminal to ever do what they do: they would be CAUSED TO BE INNOCENT, by the fact that no one had proven them guilty.

Kavanaugh, just as an example, is not CAUSED TO BE INNOCENT, because there has not been video or audio evidence presented yet, proving otherwise, in all of the accusations.

And the rest of the rules apply just as much to Kavanaugh and others who make unsupported claims, too. His claims that he was not a heavy drinker, and was a virgin throughout high school and college are ALSO not proven true, simply because he repeats the claims.

FORD IS THE ACCUSER. IT'S HER JOB TO PROVE SHE IS TELLUNG THE TRUTH.

You might not remember everything. But if you've just been assaulted and trying to get home, you would remember how you did. Seems the only thing she can remember is only having 1 beer.

I mean ya just to love being part of the PUPPET SHOW..or not ..mainly not..it sure gets tiring watching the same old blasé narrative played out over and over again by the geriatric crowd..it's like alzheimers and hieroglyphic plans only allow for so much detail..many times before seen one already knows what to expect..for them it's the old adage "if it's not broke why fix it"..it's all enough to cause delay towards NOV11 and to breed just enough dissidence to continue down the same old path..could the DEMs just please come up with a new play ..something to entice one's thought process ..rather than the same old mundane "here we go again"scenario..

On the Trump side the crowd is all fired up as hope is becoming renewed on the other side the geriatric crowd is muddling over the same old blase' game plans while trying to remember where they left their glasses..it's about time we put some of them out to pasture..on the vast not so open fields of ranch GITMO..




WWG1 WGA

Now it's Kavanaugh threw ice over a bar. Why wasn't he shot on the spot for that one?

What's next? He cut a stinky fart in public? Belch loudly? Wore something that didn't match? Had shoes on without socks? Didn't wipe his nose?

I KNOW!!! One of his friends sneezed, and he didn't say "Bless you".

This is not/was not a trial.

If it were a criminal trial, the burden of proof would be beyond a reasonable doubt, where as in a civil case the burden of proof is only more likely than not. That is why, and i use this case because of its notoriety, OJ SIMPSON was found not guilty in criminal court, but went on to be found liable in CIVIL Court.


As I said, it is unlikely the beyond a reasonable doubt could be proven, but the more likely than not could, IF THIS WERE A TRIAL which it is not.

at stake here is a review of character for a position on SCOTUS. If it is found that the candidate was lying to the commission, about anything from a drinking problem to writing all his gatherings on a calendar, that could be the end of the road for him. With the current borg mentality blind party loyalty however, and being he is the candidate of the current majority party, I will be surprised if they conclude he was lying no matter how many classmates come forward to contradict his story. There is some urgency, for some reason, that THIS candidate be in the court.

This is not/was not a trial.

If it were a criminal trial, the burden of proof would be beyond a reasonable doubt, where as in a civil case the burden of proof is only more likely than not. That is why, and i use this case because of its notoriety, OJ SIMPSON was found not guilty in criminal court, but went on to be found liable in CIVIL Court.


As I said, it is unlikely the beyond a reasonable doubt could be proven, but the more likely than not could, IF THIS WERE A TRIAL which it is not.

at stake here is a review of character for a position on SCOTUS. If it is found that the candidate was lying to the commission, about anything from a drinking problem to writing all his gatherings on a calendar, that could be the end of the road for him. With the current borg mentality blind party loyalty however, and being he is the candidate of the current majority party, I will be surprised if they conclude he was lying no matter how many classmates come forward to contradict his story. There is some urgency, for some reason, that THIS candidate be in the court.

A man is innocent until proven guilty. By evidence of Law Ford had no real evidence other than partying as a teen, and ssid Kavanamade tried to assult her while they both were intoxicated.

Interesting allegation but not worth investigating.

It's clear Ford is a liar and it's a delay tactic. They've let her make a fool of herself and spending a week investigating a party with no address or host sometime in the 80's. They should start with the person who drove her.