Trump claimed Brett Kavanaugh was 'proven innocent' of claims he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey

Art II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution outlines the nomination process, and the confirmation process. The 5th Amendment of the United States outlines, that the Federal Govt can not deprive people of their life, liberty or property without Due Process, it's applied through the states through the 14th, but that's not necessary in Justice Kavenaugh case since we were dealing with the Feds.

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, held that this guarantee of due process served to protect public employees from being deprived of a protected “property interest” in his or her employment.

 

That is so hilarious =) And yet Democrats planted Milano right in the background of the shot at the hearing. What a giant pathetic, sad hypocrite she is.

 

Doesn't prove he's guilty either. What you're proposing is insane then. You can't prove something that there's no proof of. Prove you're not a demon. Prove you don't like S&M. Prove you didn't rape Hillary Clinton in her sleep. That's why people were burned for being witches. They couldn't prove they're not a witch, because how can you prove something that doesn't require proof? How can you deny you did something, when the person accusing you can't define when or where it happened? He can't even prove he wasn't at the party because Ford can't even identify when the party was. If she at least had a date, he could have an alibi. Do you know what a witch hunt is?

 

That's what you have done.

1) In your OP you mocked Trump for saying Kavanaugh was proven to be innocent.
2) To back this up you put up an article by a young Korean American (Kevin Choi, or "Choibboy") from BusinessInsider.com
3) Choibboy's article stated that the reason Trump was wrong was that the matter had not been dealt with in court.
4) I pointed to my leftyliars.com article that showed why Choibboy was wrong
5) He thinks you can only 'prove' innocence in a courtroom. This is not true.
6) His lack of English skills is to blame for this misunderstanding. The very first definition of the word 'prove' shows he is wrong.

As I said in the article, here are the 12 definitions of prove:


Prove

verb

1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:
to prove one’s claim.

2. Law. to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate.

3. to give demonstration of by action.

4. to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.:
to prove ore.

5. to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected of one, especially through one’s actions.

6. Mathematics. to verify the correctness or validity of by mathematical demonstration or arithmetical proof.

7. Also proof. Printing. to take a trial impression of (type, a cut, etc.).

8. to cause (dough) to rise to the necessary lightness.

9. Archaic. to experience.

verb (used without object), proved, proved or prov·en, prov·ing.

10. to turn out:
The experiment proved to be successful.

11. to be found by trial or experience to be:
His story proved false.

12. (of dough) to rise to a specified lightness:
Leave covered until it has proved.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary

Out of the twelve definitions, you need the first one. Here it is again:

1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:
   to prove one’s claim.

Notice that there is nothing there about law courts or court cases!

​

 

Now you understand why trumps' comment was so stupid. Proving a negative is hard and sometimes impossible. Probably why our courts require proof of guilt, eh?

 

to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:
to prove one’s claim.


Do you think that truth has been established? GTFOOH!

Not being able to prove one is guilty it does NOT follow that the person is innocent per se. Only that it can't be proved that he isn't. See Russell's Teapot...

 

That's Right!

The Kavanaugh saga shows we have not yet plumbed the depths of the Democrat Mob.

● Democrat Doxxer Threatened To Reveal Senators’ Children’s Health Information.

● DC restaurant: We’ve received death threats after Ted Cruz, wife forced out by protesters.

● Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ): We Are Less Than 60 Days From Totally ‘Kicking the S–t Out of the Republicans.’

● Networks Silent On Attempted Stabbing of GOP Candidate By Anti-Trump Attacker.

● Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) Jokes About Threatening Trump Supporters ‘All The Time.’

● Bernie Bro James T. Hodgkinson, Attempted Assassin Of Steve Scalise, Already Being Erased From History.

● Politico: After failing to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Democrats wonder if it’s time to be more ruthless.

But don’t you dare call them a mob!

 

Well done. Excellent logic and laying it out for all to read.

 

They had hearings and an FBI investigation and he got the job.

The Dem’s just hate to admit... they lost !

 

Innocence is presumed not proven, guilt is proven (beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding). The Senate confirmation hearing considered an accusation, the standard of proof is much lower than beyond reasonable doubt, but even this was not accomplished. Ford was compelling, emotional and even credible, but few were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't think her accusation was even more likely than not to be true. We've a completely uncorroborated accusation that is impossible to verify one way or another. Democrats insist this proves Kavanaugh could have been Ford's attempted rapist. Believe the woman!

 

Comedians Who Followed, Heckled Fox News Host on Subway Take Down Video of Incident



Here they are with Hillary....

 

The mid terms will decide and opinions have already been formed re the Kavanaugh escapade unless you think the election fix is already in?

 

Off topic much?

 

He’s still innocent of the charge. Again. If you can’t prove guilt which no one can, you’re not guilty. Doesn’t matter what your brain says. Legally he did NOTHING wrong, which is why he sits on the bench now.

If Democrats think tossing absurd charges at every male candidate, is a good strategy moving forward, good luck. Tried it with the president and now a Supreme Court nominee. They’re bating 0-2.

Like you said. You Prove guilt. You assume innocence. You can’t prove innocence of a crime that has no time or date or location. You’re innocent until proven otherwise.

 

Well now you are saying opinions are already formed .......so which is it?

 

Exactly right. This has been my point. Why can't the trump knuckle draggers understand it?

 

This is still America, despite the anti-American antics of the left.

Innocent until proven guilty. Ford had nothing, so Kavanaugh was proven innocent.

 

Moving the goalposts to defend the delusions and outright lies of a the moral scum of a president?


Why defend a liar? One that lies with fierce enthusiasm about literally everything?

















































Or is it easier to further said lies than admit the president is a ****-bag human?

 

You want to keep the dark cloud of suspicion over Kavanaugh for the rest of his life

Ford failed to demonstrate that she is not a liar

So Kavanaugh is entitled to claim he is innocent of all charges

 

Which is completely fabricated.

 

Yes, it is.

 

You can sit there and repeat falsehoods to defend the ****-bag presisdent, to defend lying, to defend untruths, to show the moral character equal to the president, but you still are not right. You are just a silly little puppy following me around hoping for an intellectual crumb to be dropped.

Derp trolling for Trump!

 

Agree. Kavanaugh was proven innocent as the allegation itself was proven to have no validity. It was all a smear attempt to keep this man off of the Supreme Court in hopes that the Democrats could win back the majority and keep any (and every) Trump nomination from getting confirmed.

 

I said nothing about Trump.

I said Kavanaugh was proven innocent.

 

Which is totally not true. No "proof" was ever presented nor confirmed indicating he did not do what he was accused of doing.