Senator Chris Coons said that since the accusations against Cavanaugh were not in regard to a criminal matter then the burden of proof is on Cavanaugh to prove his innocence. Coons knows better than that unless he is a total idiot because justice demands that it is the accuser who has the burden of proof, no matter the venue.
He may feel that way, believing the accuser, but he's wrong. It's not a lie, but it's pretty heavily biased and, I think, wrong headed.
During the hearings Senator Richard Blumenthal, who earlier had told people that he was a Vietnam veteran despite the fact that he was never deployed to Vietnam, told a lie during the hearing when he accused Trump of being an “unindicted co-conspirator” in regard to the case of Michael Cohen even though he knew it was a lie. Everyone at the hearing knew it was a lie but the Democrats don't care because they only hope some of their lies fool some of the people.
The Viet Nam bit, if repeated, would have been a lie. And looking into it, Booker echoed the same line. The remark is grounded in Cohen admitting to guilt while claiming he acted at the behest of the president. Since no grand jury (so far as I or you know) made a finding that Trump was a co-conspirator, the charge isn't true. Is it a lie? Yes in that regard, but if you believe Cohen then the president could be and arguably should be, so in that regard it isn't quite as clear, though it would be better to frame it that way, to say, "If you believe, as I do, Cohen's admission to the judge that he acted on behalf/behest of the president, then he should be an as yet unindicted co-conspirator."
That's a lot harder to maintain in bumper sticker form, which is the darling of politicians.
And then you must know by now about Corey Booker's "Spartcus moment" when he lied and said that he was releasing 12 pages of classified documents containing emails from Kavanaugh’s service as an aide in George W. Bush’s White House--despite the fact that he knew that those documents were already released and no longer classified.
That's one of your big three? He said he was going to do a thing already done? Okay. How is that a lie? Did he not do it, subsequently?
So despite the fact that Dr. Ford expressed her desire not to have her name exposed and Feinstein assured her that it wouldn't be it was indeed released. To you it is just being unfair but in my book it is nothing less that being dishonest.
Okay. I think it was as I noted it. Did she lie to Ford? Ford can speak to that better than we can.
The whole matter would never have seen the light of day if Feinstein and her partners in crime were honest but they could'nt care less about what both Ford and Kavanaugh have been going through.
I think they believed what they were up to was more important than any inconvenience to Ford. I've already said how little I think of that methodology.
It is you who is demonstrably incapable of seeing what is going on in the USA when you can continue to support those who have been defending the dastardly acts of Obama's Justice Department, FBI and CIA.
Support in what sense? I think you're wrong and do a disservice to the DOJ, FBI, and CIA. I think it smacks of the complaint leveled against the BLM movement on behalf of largely decent police officers, etc., but it's your prerogative. I'd remind you, again, that the government from congress to presidency to Court isn't under the control of your ideological enemies.
I can tell you are very intelligent but I cannot understand why you cannot see that those people were doing their best to make sure Hillary won.
I don't believe in conspiracy theory. I believe in evidence and due process. I think the Democrat Party did their best to rig the election [primaries] in favor of Hillary over Bernie. I think the FBI inadvertently helped the president secure his victory by the late address of emails in relation to Clinton's campaign, but ultimately people voted their consciences and that, along with the EC, determined the outcome.
Peter Strzok, who led the investigation changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" (which is a felony) to "extremely careless" (which isn't). Then all of the witnesses in this matter were given immunity. If you cannot see that the whole investigation against Hillary was a sham which was run by Strzok then you might be intelligent but you have poor judgment.
When have we had a discussion about the Clinton emails? It wasn't a part of this one and is at best tangentially connected to it.
And if you cannot see that the investigation about Trump's so-called Russian collusion was also a sham then I can only conclude that you have poor judgment or you just don't want to know the truth.
Opinions concluded without discourse and first hand knowledge about anything don't particularly concern me, Jerry. They're simply repackaged insulation. I run into it a lot with people who are heavily invested in one side or the other.
It really scares me because if you are so easily fooled about these important matters then the creeps are winning and the freedom America enjoys now will soon disappear.
Or, maybe the guy you understand to be well educated and intelligent isn't fooled at all.
