Schumer: ‘There’s No Presumption Of Innocence’ For Kavanaugh [End of the Republic]

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
“No, it's not a legal proceeding; it's a fact-finding proceeding. We do this with every major nominee, and countless times, I think 10 times in the last year, when new information comes up, the FBI goes again and does its background check,” he said in response to a reporter’s question about whether Kavanaugh has the presumption of innocence.

“This is standard operating procedure, and the question looms: Why are our Republicans deviating from it …? This is not a criminal trial. This is not a -- a -- this is to find the facts,” he added.

The reporter sought to clarify Schumer’s remarks, asking again whether he believed in the presumption of innocence.

“I agree that we -- this is not -- that's a criminal trial,” he said. “What -- what I believe is we ought to get to the bottom and find the facts in the way that the FBI has always done. There's no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you. There is rather -- rather, find the facts. Find the facts, and then let the Senate and let the American people make their judgment not whether the person's guilty or innocent, but whether the person deserves to have the office for which he or she is chosen, plain and simple.”


Schumer: ‘There’s No Presumption Of Innocence’ For Kavanaugh


Nice Hair Splitting Schemer ..... so if it is a FACT Finding Commission and NOT A Criminal Trial - Progressives ASSUME whomever is in the DOCK is Guilty
 

h3mech

Active Member
“No, it's not a legal proceeding; it's a fact-finding proceeding. We do this with every major nominee, and countless times, I think 10 times in the last year, when new information comes up, the FBI goes again and does its background check,” he said in response to a reporter’s question about whether Kavanaugh has the presumption of innocence.

“This is standard operating procedure, and the question looms: Why are our Republicans deviating from it …? This is not a criminal trial. This is not a -- a -- this is to find the facts,” he added.

The reporter sought to clarify Schumer’s remarks, asking again whether he believed in the presumption of innocence.

“I agree that we -- this is not -- that's a criminal trial,” he said. “What -- what I believe is we ought to get to the bottom and find the facts in the way that the FBI has always done. There's no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you. There is rather -- rather, find the facts. Find the facts, and then let the Senate and let the American people make their judgment not whether the person's guilty or innocent, but whether the person deserves to have the office for which he or she is chosen, plain and simple.”


Schumer: ‘There’s No Presumption Of Innocence’ For Kavanaugh


Nice Hair Splitting Schemer ..... so if it is a FACT Finding Commission and NOT A Criminal Trial - Progressives ASSUME whomever is in the DOCK is Guilty
you need to shut up chuck
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
“No, it's not a legal proceeding; it's a fact-finding proceeding. We do this with every major nominee, and countless times, I think 10 times in the last year, when new information comes up, the FBI goes again and does its background check,” he said in response to a reporter’s question about whether Kavanaugh has the presumption of innocence.

“This is standard operating procedure, and the question looms: Why are our Republicans deviating from it …? This is not a criminal trial. This is not a -- a -- this is to find the facts,” he added.

The reporter sought to clarify Schumer’s remarks, asking again whether he believed in the presumption of innocence.

“I agree that we -- this is not -- that's a criminal trial,” he said. “What -- what I believe is we ought to get to the bottom and find the facts in the way that the FBI has always done. There's no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you. There is rather -- rather, find the facts. Find the facts, and then let the Senate and let the American people make their judgment not whether the person's guilty or innocent, but whether the person deserves to have the office for which he or she is chosen, plain and simple.”


Schumer: ‘There’s No Presumption Of Innocence’ For Kavanaugh


Nice Hair Splitting Schemer ..... so if it is a FACT Finding Commission and NOT A Criminal Trial - Progressives ASSUME whomever is in the DOCK is Guilty
Hair splitting or not, he's right. It is a process of determining the qualifications of a nominee to confirm or not confirm, not to establish guilt or innocence of a potential criminal.



That said, I repeat my previous position; let's say it is 100% true that a teenage boy, drunk, was in a room with a teenage girl, drunk, and groped her 4 decades ago. Is that disqualifying for the boy, now a man with four decades of track record to review, much of it as a judge, to be denied a seat on the court.

Ok, ok, stop laughing. We all know it is not a reason. So, let Sen. Schumer have his semantic (but accurate) point, and then vote the now-man in.







As an aside, if we were looking into things Napalitano is objecting to, we might have a different position on Brett. You know, substance of previous judicial rulings, not high school sexual awkwardness.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
As an aside, if we were looking into things Napalitano is objecting to, we might have a different position on Brett. You know, substance of previous judicial rulings, not high school sexual awkwardness.
For info:

[video=youtube;HOdiPOzUzE8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOdiPOzUzE8[/video]
 

jg21

Member
Just for discussion's sake... Teenage drunken groping nearly 40 years ago (if it happened), in my opinion, would not be a reason to keep a person off the Supreme Court.
However, IF it happened, would denying it or knowingly lying about it be enough to disqualify?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Just for discussion's sake... Teenage drunken groping nearly 40 years ago (if it happened), in my opinion, would not be a reason to keep a person off the Supreme Court.
However, IF it happened, would denying it or knowingly lying about it be enough to disqualify?
Case by case. In this case even if one assumes she’s fully accurate, it’s still a matter of perception. Can’t see a lie.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Just for laughs I wonder how many women Sodamayor and Kagan groped during their teens.


As for the Schmuck having hearings to decide whether or not to confirm Kavanaugh that a big joke.
Schmucks mind was made up before this man's name came up.
Anyone Trump nominated would get the thumbs down from the Schmuck.
Who does this socksucker think he is kidding with his statement.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Just for discussion's sake... Teenage drunken groping nearly 40 years ago (if it happened), in my opinion, would not be a reason to keep a person off the Supreme Court.
However, IF it happened, would denying it or knowingly lying about it be enough to disqualify?
Moot. Can't prove either way.

It's shameful throwing things that can't be proven at the 11th hour as a means to disqualify Kav.
 
Top