Ask the same to the Trump supporters who routinely chant "Lock her up" at rallies
They are twisting hard to find a loophole. It was not a trial but that standard still applies. If someone makes an accusation that cannot be corroborated then the accused should be assumed innocent
.....I am a retired police officer. I retired as a sergeant, after 29 years, from a very large department, about 12,000 officers. I was a patrol officer for 4 years in a very diverse area. I was a tactical officer in the high rise project areas of my city. We called it vertical patrol in that we walked the the stairways of the high rises most of the time. I did that for 5 years and was promoted by test to detective. I worked violent crime (homicide, sex, officer involved shootings, robbery, kidnapping, serious non property incidents) for 11 years until I was promoted to sergeant. I worked as a street supervisor, a bicycle patrol supervisor and a desk sergeant/watch commander.
During my time as a tactical officer and a detective I was a unit representative for the police union.
I have a B.A in English and an M.S. in Law Enforcement Administration.....
it wasn't a trial retardo
Your dude got confirmed by the smallest amount in history. Just be happy. Go grab some women after you get drunk or something. Sore winner much?
If you were hiring a fry cook and he has three accusations of rape and sexual assault, then he cries when you ask how much he drinks and he said, "how much do you drink?" would you hire him? I am not even mentioning all of the provable lies he told during the interview which is perjury.
What is so hard to understand about "in a court of law"?
Why is "not a criminal prosecution" so hard to understand for the GOPers?
their minds are already made-up, don't bother them with the facts ......................
LOLOL! We're not ready to listen to 'innocent until proven guilty' lectures from Republicans who accused The Clintons and Obama of every crime they could think of, and then repeated the accusations over and over for years as if they'd been proven.
They understand the concept, it just interferes with their agenda driven foolishness.
They want it the Communist way ,you have to prove that you are innocent .Then they will shoot you . See "The Obsolete Man ' episode of the 'Twilight Zone'
It's easy for them to understand. The problem is they are unprincipled authoritarians and are perfectly happy to violate the rights of others if it means they can get their way.
Kavanaugh has proven himself to be a partisan judge who can not control his rage. That should be enough to nominate someone else.
Why is "job interview" for the highest court in the nation so hard to understand for the Trumpkins?
Kavanagh was guilty of:
* Temperament and behavior unbecoming a supreme court justice
* Partisanship unbecoming of a supreme court justice
* Trumpism - stoking anger and division rather than showing leadership, wisdom, and impartiality.
And it is just creepy that he wants to hire a women-only staff.
That's what unimpeded investigations are supposed to do! Clear the accused or prove them guilty!
The last investigation was limited so as not to find the truth!
I'm sorry to hear you got picked up for rape again. B*tches! Am I rite!
In this case it did not fit into their plans. Stopping anyone who Mr. Trump put forth.
Apparently that only applies to crimes committed by democrats.
That meaning doesn’t apply to everything.
LOCK HER UP
LOCK HER UP
LOCK HER UP
LOCK HER UP
Where have I heard that before?
They ignore US laws and the US Constitution. They are rebels against the USA.
Liberals are evil plain and simple
It's not -- it's hard for conservatives to understand.
Everyone understands that a person who is arrested for a crime and put on trial and facing jail or prison is considered innocent until proven guilty.
What conservatives don't understand is that a person being considered for a job does not get the same presumption. A person can be turned down for a job without any proof of guilt. That is what liberals understand, and conservatives apparently don't.
Put into the proper context of a criminal charge and/or trial, its not hard at all to understand.
It is not when it is used at a trial. A Job interview or congressional inquiry it does not apply. Why is this so hard for the RWNJs to understand?
perhaps because they KNOW they themselves are guilty?
They hate America just like their messiah Obama.
tell that to trump supporters who chanted Lock Her UP
They also have trouble with
and the word
The problem with the way you are think it is only the right who are “innocent until proven guilty” but any on the left are guilty when both are accused of the same thing.
Because they want a mob response where everyone says “if you think he’s guilty then you are guilty too!”
They don’t care about truth justice and the American way. They had the American way. They think America is bad they hate America.
They want that mob response. This way everyone will be too afraid to defend the innocent people that they want to destroy for the sake of politics.
They literally have paid protesters to disrupt the meeting.
Leftists are fascists. The Nazis were just the national German Socialist workers party. The leftists of America today are leftist socialists too.
Communism is international (Globalist) socialism, nazism is nationalist (nonglobalism) socialism. But they’re both socialism.
That applies in court to a criminal case where there are rules but the rules in politics are few and far between and the main tactic is to fight dirty.
It’s not “lefties” it’s the knowledge of good and evil or Satan if you will. Satan preaches good and evil which causes turmoil
We understand that just fine but conservatives seem to think that public opinion is a court of law where “Innocent until proven guilty" has some significance. Why is that so hard for conservatives to understand?
They prefer the dunking tanks where the innocent died to clear themselves.
The Democrats will do ANYTHING just about to retain power.
I wouldn't be surprised if murdering people will be their next step.
It wouldn't be a problem if the GOP allowed things to be investigated.
Speaking of innocent until proven guilty, have you chanted "lock her up" lately?
Because facts don't agree with what they wish to believe.
They will let nothing, much less the Constitution, stand in the way of their agenda.
Because you got the adage wrong. It's PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty.
Because if they accept that, they will have to accept the rest of the constitution of a once great nation.
It isn't. If you are referring to Kavanaugh, he wasn't on trial, it was a job interview. Why shouldn't Supreme Court nominees be subjected to intense scrutiny?
Many things can be going on, including the hallmarks of partisanship, but let me risk an hypothesis.
I have encountered some people who tied the credibility of doctor Ford's testimony to the guilt of then judge Kavanaugh. They didn't seem to appreciate the possibility that you could logically find both credible, not call either a liar, yet consider the case insufficient to warrant further actions. Their reasoning moved from 'Ford tells the truth' to 'Kavanaugh is guilty' to 'Kavanaugh must be sanctionned.'
If you want an example, Bill Maher made this point on his show last week. I usually find him funny, yet rather reasonable for a comedian, but I think he was wrong to equate credibility with truth and move on to a presumption of guilt.
You can find Ford to be credible without being able to tell if she told the truth, but you have to keep in mind a few things:
1. It is extraordinarily hard to tell if someone is lying. Even body language expert Joe Navarro comments on the ineptitude of investigators to figure out who is lying and who is not. What you can find are clusters of reactions that indicate a peculiar emotion -- but people can react to thoughts, just like they react to event.
2. Witness testimony is the least reliable source of information you can find. Our memory is not a collection of events, but a set of hints we use to reconstruct stories. Given that we are biologically prone to self-deception and might be motivated to see things in certain ways, we easily mix things up without knowing it -- to a point where believe in our self-fabricated delusion.
So, I can say AT THE SAME TIME that Ford gave a credible testimony, yet see it as insufficient to condemn a man -- even just on moral grounds.
And this is where it sticks for some people on the left. It seems like not going forward to punish Kavanaugh is akin to insulting doctor Ford. However, if you rid yourself of the equation they made, the problem vanishes.
Personally, despite leaning to the left, I can't bring myself to hold someone accountable for anything if all I have is one testimony, no material evidence and no ground for believing the suspect ever did something similar in other cases. I would rather let a criminal walk free than to punish an innocent. I don't trust people around me enough to take the chance of being on the receiving end of a false accusation and get punished for something I never did.
Even if I resent some of the opinions Kavanaugh might hold in the future, the man deserves the benefit of the doubt, certainly is competent enough to do his job as a SCOTUS Justice. It's important for people, left and right, that a final arbiter exists to settle disputes, least they degenerate into violence.
Why is an investigation so hard for a Con to understand?
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) has declared the concept of presumption of innocence as an evil obsolete concept.
Of course you need a real investigation to determine such things...but that part isn't a part of the political philosophy of the current GOP/Tea/Fox/Jesus freak party!
I could be asking you the same thing. “Innocent until proven guilty” means that there must be a warrant for an arrest or a fine. However, if there is reason to suspect that someone may be guilty, then an investigation may take place.
Because they are desperate to be relevant, and the only way they can is to change the basic premise of our legal system.
Kavanaugh was not on trial, he was a job interview.
Now who has the issue of things being "too hard to understand"?