Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» Why isn't THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE a two-way street? Presume the Accused is innocent till proven guilty. And the Accuser?
Why isn't THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE a two-way street? Presume the Accused is innocent till proven guilty. And the Accuser?
Presume the Accuser is innocent of lying and making it up. Presumption must be accorded to both sides, right? You cannot presume a one-sided anything. Well people do of course but shouldn't they not do so?
Interesting philosophical question. I don't know how it can be assumed both parties are "innocent", though.
If you assume the accuser is telling the truth - doesn't that mean that the accused is guilty?
If you assume the accused is innocent - doesn't that mean that the accuser is either lying or mistaken?
So it seems to me ... the "neutral" course is to make no assumption on either party. But that's probably one of the most difficult things for humans to do.
Until people testify under oath and all the facts are in and all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted no one knows which one is innocent and which one is guilty. So I think it is only logical not to mention FAIR to presume innocence until PROVEN guilty for both sides. Don't you? Kav may be guilty or not. Dr. Ford may be guilty or not. We don't know where the truth is and won't in advance of DUE PROCESS. Right? Thank you for your reply Walt! :)
I'm not sure that this is situation with a SCOTUS nomination is (or should be) a question that has the same standards---or nomenclature---as civil or criminal law.
Both parties have doctorate degrees. One is a judge; the other is a professor at Stanford.---Generally speaking, I would expect this woman to have a better memory about what actually happened at the time, especially when Kavanaugh said that what "happened at that prep school stays at that prep school and that all who matriculated from there should be glad of that" (recent video on TV).
I don't want the type of man who thinks his hormone levels rather than his intellect to justify his decisions, to be someone who decide the laws of the land.
And just because his hormone level may decrease with age, that doesn't mean he will change his basic mode of operation and decision making.
His pal Mark Judge wrote a memoir about his days as a teenage alcoholic and said he'd get drunk and even have blackouts regularly. Kav wrote something in a yearbook I think about a goal of consuming 100 kegs of beer and also in line with what you quoted also said at some speech he gave 'what happens on the bus stays on the bus". He has spent countless hours at the White House being "prepped" for the investigation. Why would anyone need any preparation at all if he were going to tell the truth? How can a drunk-as-a-skunk anyone remember what happened during the time his brain was on hiatus? He is not a credible witness but he will be presented as such. The 11 white Republican Senators are too chickensh** apparently to do the questioning themselves so they plan to have a surrogate do so. ASSUMING Dr. Ford abides by their Kangaroo Court rules which I don't know if she can. No FBI background check. No other witnesses to corroborate or question. It will simply be a photo op so the Republicans can say they gave her her day in court and then shove Kav down our throats until he is dead which will be beyond my lifetime. It sucks. SIGH. Thank you for your reply tom.
Then she is NOT telling the truth m2c. If she "misidentified" her attacker she is lying. Do you really think if someone did to you what he did to her you would MISIDENTIFY who did it? Seriously? Thank you for your reply. This is the newest lie that trumpicans are desperately trying to float so that they can shove Kav down our throats. Disgusting. I did not "misidentify" that man who molested me at the age of 10. I am 80 and it is still clear as a bell. You don't forget. You don't misidentify. You will never know or have a clue about what happens to you when you are such a victim. You can only opine assume posit and you are wrong. You will always be wrong when you come up with excuses or defenses to misdirect . It is what Republicans do all the time though. SIGH. Happy Saturday!
This post was edited by RosieG at September 22, 2018 2:09 AM MDT
There is evidence from her letter that Kav is not the boy who was at the party. Based on the location of the house and the names of the people she claims at the party. None of the party attendees house is in the location she says the house is.
No, a lie is intentionally telling an untruth. If a person is telling what they believe to be true it is not a lie.
Walt O'Reagun 