J.C.MacSwell

Thanks CharonY. You are correct.

There is. For good reason. I cannot for instance ask their sexual orientation, or advertise for whites or males only (some exceptions notwithstanding) "Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process It does not only apply to a trial And here is the OP (I bolded paragraph 2) for anyone questioning why due process is being discussed

Agree. But Kavanaugh got voted in. Trump said he was proven innocent, which of course was nonsense, he was not even declared or proven not guilty. He did however, get the job while due process was followed, convoluted as it may have been.

Where did I say there was any? Thus...Kavanaugh is now in the SCOTUS i.e. ...Hirono did not get her way...

Due process is about rights. It is incorrect to think that it takes effect only after charges are filed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process If you read carefully you will notice I included "rush to judgement" which of course can take place well before any hearings or trial. As I have alluded to a number of times to those complaining about his evasiveness throughout the hearing process, and his characterization of himself in high school/college, I think Kavanaugh was well aware that he was in a job interview...which at times deteriorated into character assassination... but one in which he was successful in getting the job.

It is hard though. I don't know whether his advocating of an investigation is additional or instead of his earlier stance on due process. He hasn't clarified...he's simply pulled a "Hirono".

It probably in your case has more to do with the "Wow... more conspiracy thinking. Good times. Good stuff. " I think this simply takes away from the clarity. Anyone already sucked down into the abyss of the extreme left and extreme right, or perched on the edge ready to go in, are going to miss the moderate and balanced 95%. Ten oz has provided much more generally accepted statistics than you did with your graphic, but seems quite inclined to a "ends justify the means" thinking. He hasn't made it clear he supports due process and the presumption of innocence as we know it, and has in fact implied otherwise.

Can you deny it with any certainty and not look like a blind partisan immune to reality? (not saying you did)

It is not the job of the Judiciary committee to provide a "full" investigation or put Kavanaugh on trial. If you are now advocating for a full investigation and/or trial outside of that, and not a change to due process or the presumption of innocence in current form, then I have no issue with that. Nor did I ever. (I did suggest a subpoena of Mark Judge to the committee instead of a limited committee/WH directed FBI investigation if you look back on my posts, but only because they had allowed Ford to testify and she offered inconclusive evidence)

Nothing. Who said it would have?

Ten oz. I am sure you think that sounds good, but it just demonstrates that after 19 pages you still don't get the main point with regard to rush to judgement, disregard for due process as we know it, and the presumption of innocence as we know it. Regardless of strategy, honesty, or who is guilty, what Hirono said, implied, and did not qualify...it is a dangerous position that you seem to be advocating. You seem to think that you can turn it on or off for reasons you feel are appropriate. Can you not at least understand that if these fundamental "changes to the status quo" are made, you might not get to choose when and how they are applied...those in power will.

Would there not be if charges were pressed? Would a proper trial not be the best forum for this? Ford/Ford's team is unwilling to do that, or agrees with Mitchell that the evidence available does not warrant it. (I emphasize or to make it clear I am not claiming and) Much of both is based on the belief that the investigation should have been more thorough. Mitchell never claimed otherwise...her statement was "based on the evidence before the committee". Both were also based on a perversion of science and logic. Mitchell pointed out the weakness of Ford's memory. The fact that this weakness is not atypical of a victim does not strengthen her case. It might explain/excuse it, but that does not replace the need for more tangible evidence. Ford's sketchy memory of the event with few facts that could be corroborated (and none were) is not an asset. Her gaps in memory is a liability to her case. In no way does it rebut Mitchell's concerns.

Here is Rachel Mitchell's reasoning for stating “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee,” http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/01/sex-crimes-prosecutor-details-12-massive-inconsistencies-kavanaugh-accusers-story/ I do not necessarily consider anything Ford stated as "lies", nor the inconsistencies "massive" as suggested (and were not by Rachel Mitchell) , or out of step with a traumatized memory of 30+ years past; but I think it outlines, in part, how difficult it is to take Ford's testimony at face value. A court certainly would not, and I don't see why in a hearing it should be any different.

I can't call him a liar because there is nothing he said that I can point to and say I know for a fact that it is untrue and he knew it when he said it. Ford has nothing to worry about. With her lack of much tangible testimony it is extremely unlikely that it can be demonstrated that she lied. She passed with flying colours. Meanwhile he was forced to play hardball in a minefield. You can claim he failed to pass his "job examine" but you would be wrong. He was given little hope after Ford finished her testimony, yet here he is, now on the SCOTUS. He defended what seemed indefensible. He would not be where he is if he had answered more clearly and less evasively, regardless if he was innocent or not.

From your link that is promoting a negative view of Kavanaugh: "There’s a high legal bar for perjury — but this could still influence senators’ decisions" That sounds like they would tend to agree with me. I don't think he demonstrably perjured himself. So you automatically believe that? Why? I thought you were only advocating unquestioned belief for those who claim to be sexually assaulted.

I am pretty sure he can't be demonstrated to have perjured himself. His characterization of himself as; a serious athlete/student, which clearly he was; that sometimes drank too much, which he admitted to; never blacked out or not remember the events of the previous night, which is likely unprovable either way; are not things that can be readily demonstrated as false. You may not like it, but I don't believe you can prove he lied under oath. No more than can be demonstrated that Ford had her lying done for her (not saying she directed it) by her Lawyers.

No one said the whole situation was, but if you cannot even admit that there was politics involved in much of this (both sides, but we are discussing the Democrats here) then at least allow us to express that view...I think we consider it obvious.

It was your words, not his, and clearly chosen due to their negative connotations. Much worse has been said on here about Kavanaugh, but I don't see the neg reps piling up.

While that's not outside the realm of possibilities, arguably a plausibility, it is not "essentially" doing that. If he is getting neg reps for understanding the difference, where you don't, there is something wrong with that.

That often works. One of the reasons you have to look at evidence and not simply resort to listening to an emotional debate...

Sure why wouldn't he run out and press charges against himself as well? What exactly did she say that could be questioned to "support said innocence?

Seeing this came from her Lawyers, who have been intentionally deceptive, she could be on vacation. She might have flown to a nice resort. ...or she might be scared. How would we know?

Solid point, but why do you feel the need to include your opinion with respect to the bold? It has nothing to do with the point you are making. There are significant risks to speaking out that can make it very difficult to do so, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. This is true regardless of how you view Kavanaugh.

That's essentially what the positive aspects of the #MeToo movement is about. It's unfortunate that some have taken it to extremes, at least in their rhetoric, often for short term political gain. It might work, but it may also backfire (the extremes, not referring to your well written post, which I agree with). The vast majority are not on the extreme left or extreme right. How will they vote in this upcoming election? The ones not swept up by the rhetoric will have a choice of supporting this extreme rhetoric on the left, a (relatively) more moderate position on the right that is lead by a rude narcissistic egomaniac...or not vote at all. Tough times. Hopefully they get it right, and for the right reasons, in 2020 because it is not looking good for anyone right now.

So. You believe all the accusations Swetnick alleged against Kavanaugh?