Do you think Judge Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent? (anonymous POLL)
- Thread starter zeroturbulence
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
U
U
Thanks! 
They're actually creme-filled donuts but they look like cream puffs.
They're actually creme-filled donuts but they look like cream puffs.
Now this could be a problem...... there is coffee/donut shop just down the street and I believe it is opened 24/7
-
1
- Show all
As an objective and inherently conservative christian person - I voted 'unsure.'
There simply is too much uncertainty involved with the limited available information. Based upon the lack of witnesses to substantiate the specific accusations - I am inclined to lean toward the montra for the US legal system which states that 'you are innocent - until proven guilty.'
The burden of proof is upon the accuser. While her story is compelling, does tug at your heart strings, and there does seem to suggest a need for further exploration - actual substantiating proof just has not been demonstrated (at this point anyway).
I do fear that this example (deliberate or otherwise) of untimely prompting and leveraging the vote of public opinion to influence legal due process - is both a slippery slope and not good for future fair and objective selection processes...
The biggest losers are the immediate families on both sides...
There simply is too much uncertainty involved with the limited available information. Based upon the lack of witnesses to substantiate the specific accusations - I am inclined to lean toward the montra for the US legal system which states that 'you are innocent - until proven guilty.'
The burden of proof is upon the accuser. While her story is compelling, does tug at your heart strings, and there does seem to suggest a need for further exploration - actual substantiating proof just has not been demonstrated (at this point anyway).
I do fear that this example (deliberate or otherwise) of untimely prompting and leveraging the vote of public opinion to influence legal due process - is both a slippery slope and not good for future fair and objective selection processes...
The biggest losers are the immediate families on both sides...
-
5
- Show all
I'm unsure...but I find it hard to believe that this woman waited almost 40 years to come out with this story.
I read somewhere online that people have donated around a half a million to her already.
In my opinion, she is just someone trying to make a name for herself and get paid well by doing so...Why else wait 40 years to say anything about it...just my opinion though.
I read somewhere online that people have donated around a half a million to her already.
In my opinion, she is just someone trying to make a name for herself and get paid well by doing so...Why else wait 40 years to say anything about it...just my opinion though.
-
6
-
3
- Show all
Never mind what I think of Judge Kavanaugh's innocence or guilt. Let’s look at the facts and evidence:
1. On Tuesday, July 10th, President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh as Judge for the Supreme Court. Twenty three minutes later, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer was quoted as saying:
"I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.” ~Senator Schumer
2. Even before Dr. Christine Ford testified at the Senate, ALL of the Democratic Senators in the committee said that they believe that she was telling the truth. The Democrats already made-up their mind even before hearing the testimonies of the accuser (Dr. Ford) and the accused (Judge Kavanaugh).
3. During the testimony of Dr. Christine Ford, she was not sure of the following:
—which house the alleged sexual misconduct occurred
—what month and day it occurred, except it happened in the summer of 1982
—how she got home after the alleged attempted rape.
—not sure if the polygraph test happened on the same day when her grandmother was buried.
4. Dr. Christine Ford claims to be 100% sure that the person who sexually assaulted her is none other than Judge Kavanaugh. In presenting her evidence, she claims to have four(4) witnesses at a small gathering—PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, Leland Keyser, Judge Kavanaugh—AND YET, ALL FOUR WITNESSES DENIED ANY RECOLLECTION OF ATTENDING THAT PARTY. Leland Keyser, a classmate and close friend of Dr. Ford at Holton-Arms all-girls school, denied any recollection of attending that party AND even denied knowing Judge Kavanaugh. Note that ALL four (4) alleged witnesses denied under penalty of perjury the claims of Dr. Christine Ford.
5. When these four witnesses were interviewed, the Democrats DID NOT even participate and were absent during the sworn-statements given by these four (4) witnesses. And yet, they keep on insisting that an FBI investigation MUST be done. Why did the Democrats refuse to be present and ask the witnesses themselves when they were given the opportunity to do so?
6. If the Democrats were really after the truth, why didn’t they call for a confidential FBI investigation when Sen. Feinstein received Dr. Christine Ford’s letter on July 30. But at the last minute, they bring out the sexual misconduct charges AND insist on an FBI investigation when they had two months to present this to the committee for FBI investigation and interrogation.—THEIR MOTIVE AND PLAN IS SUSPICIOUS THAT THEIR GOAL IS TO DELAY THE HEARINGS IN THE HOPES OF WINNING THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS AND HAVE A PERSON OF THEIR CHOICE BE PUT AS THE NEW JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
7. Why did Dr. Christine Ford CLAIM that she’s afraid to fly on the plane to Washington for the hearings when her travel records indicate that she’s a frequent airplane traveler both domestically and internationally? And why wasn't she informed that the Senate committee was more than willing to fly to her in California to conduct interviews and investigate?
8. Judge Kavanaugh presented to the committee HIS calendar from May to September of 1982, where he wrote on the calendar his day-to-day activities AND the people that he was with on a particular day. The calendar showed that he was out of town on most of those weekends. This is evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's whereabouts, his day-to-day activities and the people he was with during that summer.
9. The other two women that recently surfaced who accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct ALSO HAVE NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE.
a. Ms. Deborah Ramirez alleged, through an article in the New Yorker magazine, that she was a victim of sexual misconduct by Mr Kavanaugh in a university dormitory. She is a registered Democrat. And yet, there is no corroborating evidence to substantiate such claim. Why go through the media and have a trial by publicity and not go to the proper channels through the Senate committee?
b. The third woman, Julie Swetnick, is being represented by Michael Avenatti, the same lawyer who represents Stormy Daniels, the pornstar who claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump. She claims to have been the victim of a gang rape at a high school party at which Judge Kavanaugh was present.
Claims of Gang rape but no corroborating evidence. Why use Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniel's lawyer?
Clearly, the goal is to destroy the good character of Judge Kavanaugh for political reasons. Democrats were never after the truth. From the start, they already made it clear that they will oppose the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. To quote Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer:
"I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.” ~Senator Schumer
1. On Tuesday, July 10th, President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh as Judge for the Supreme Court. Twenty three minutes later, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer was quoted as saying:
"I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.” ~Senator Schumer
2. Even before Dr. Christine Ford testified at the Senate, ALL of the Democratic Senators in the committee said that they believe that she was telling the truth. The Democrats already made-up their mind even before hearing the testimonies of the accuser (Dr. Ford) and the accused (Judge Kavanaugh).
3. During the testimony of Dr. Christine Ford, she was not sure of the following:
—which house the alleged sexual misconduct occurred
—what month and day it occurred, except it happened in the summer of 1982
—how she got home after the alleged attempted rape.
—not sure if the polygraph test happened on the same day when her grandmother was buried.
4. Dr. Christine Ford claims to be 100% sure that the person who sexually assaulted her is none other than Judge Kavanaugh. In presenting her evidence, she claims to have four(4) witnesses at a small gathering—PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, Leland Keyser, Judge Kavanaugh—AND YET, ALL FOUR WITNESSES DENIED ANY RECOLLECTION OF ATTENDING THAT PARTY. Leland Keyser, a classmate and close friend of Dr. Ford at Holton-Arms all-girls school, denied any recollection of attending that party AND even denied knowing Judge Kavanaugh. Note that ALL four (4) alleged witnesses denied under penalty of perjury the claims of Dr. Christine Ford.
5. When these four witnesses were interviewed, the Democrats DID NOT even participate and were absent during the sworn-statements given by these four (4) witnesses. And yet, they keep on insisting that an FBI investigation MUST be done. Why did the Democrats refuse to be present and ask the witnesses themselves when they were given the opportunity to do so?
6. If the Democrats were really after the truth, why didn’t they call for a confidential FBI investigation when Sen. Feinstein received Dr. Christine Ford’s letter on July 30. But at the last minute, they bring out the sexual misconduct charges AND insist on an FBI investigation when they had two months to present this to the committee for FBI investigation and interrogation.—THEIR MOTIVE AND PLAN IS SUSPICIOUS THAT THEIR GOAL IS TO DELAY THE HEARINGS IN THE HOPES OF WINNING THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS AND HAVE A PERSON OF THEIR CHOICE BE PUT AS THE NEW JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
7. Why did Dr. Christine Ford CLAIM that she’s afraid to fly on the plane to Washington for the hearings when her travel records indicate that she’s a frequent airplane traveler both domestically and internationally? And why wasn't she informed that the Senate committee was more than willing to fly to her in California to conduct interviews and investigate?
8. Judge Kavanaugh presented to the committee HIS calendar from May to September of 1982, where he wrote on the calendar his day-to-day activities AND the people that he was with on a particular day. The calendar showed that he was out of town on most of those weekends. This is evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's whereabouts, his day-to-day activities and the people he was with during that summer.
9. The other two women that recently surfaced who accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct ALSO HAVE NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE.
a. Ms. Deborah Ramirez alleged, through an article in the New Yorker magazine, that she was a victim of sexual misconduct by Mr Kavanaugh in a university dormitory. She is a registered Democrat. And yet, there is no corroborating evidence to substantiate such claim. Why go through the media and have a trial by publicity and not go to the proper channels through the Senate committee?
b. The third woman, Julie Swetnick, is being represented by Michael Avenatti, the same lawyer who represents Stormy Daniels, the pornstar who claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump. She claims to have been the victim of a gang rape at a high school party at which Judge Kavanaugh was present.
Claims of Gang rape but no corroborating evidence. Why use Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniel's lawyer?
Clearly, the goal is to destroy the good character of Judge Kavanaugh for political reasons. Democrats were never after the truth. From the start, they already made it clear that they will oppose the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. To quote Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer:
"I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.” ~Senator Schumer
-
6
-
4
-
2
- Show all
I have been horrified by the openly evil demeanor of those who have endeavored to vilify Judge Kavanaugh. I have much more confidence in the integrity if the nominee than the accusers.
I am sickened by the conduct of these elected representatives. When judgment comes and it surely will this will have been a big step toward that end.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I am sickened by the conduct of these elected representatives. When judgment comes and it surely will this will have been a big step toward that end.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
8
- Show all
J
Despite what is the truth, his candidacy is stained after this turmoil. All his rulings will have a dr. Ford stamp on them, and they will be subject to all kinds of analysis and distrust.
The SCOTUS doesn’t need that, and the court itself is more important than one justice.
I think the President is realizing that now.
The SCOTUS doesn’t need that, and the court itself is more important than one justice.
I think the President is realizing that now.
It will all be forgotten in the next news cycle.
It is pathetic the way this man has been smeared by what is supposed to be honorable people in our government. If this succeeds then we will never have a government by the people again. It will be a government by the government and we will begin to be even more oppressed than we have in the past.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
It is pathetic the way this man has been smeared by what is supposed to be honorable people in our government. If this succeeds then we will never have a government by the people again. It will be a government by the government and we will begin to be even more oppressed than we have in the past.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
- Show all
Judge Kavenaugh’s attempts to dodge questions about his alcohol drinking seems to imply that he was trying to hide that he drank to excess in high school and college. I do believe that Dr. Christine Ford is telling the truth about the alleged sexual misconduct, but she has no evidence. Both of them maybe telling the truth, but in Judge Kavenaugh’s case, he maybe too drunk to know or remember what happened. And with no witnesses to corroborate Dr. Ford’s claims, it’s difficult to prove her claims. And I don’t think the FBI will find new evidence. What I’m afraid of is if Judge Kavenaugh is confirmed as Justice of the Supreme Court, there would be widespread protest and public outcry. And Americans would even be more divided than ever. May God guide the Senators to vote wisely, setting aside political affiliations and agendas, and vote based on what would be best for the nation.
-
3
-
2
- Show all
It seems that our society has always been one of extremes. Child abuse, back in the day, consistently had a blind eye turned then the pendulum swung and now we have laws on the books that have almost created a witch hunt mentality in the medical and lower levels of education because professionals in those fields can be fired and even criminally charged for not reporting suspected child abuse.
Now the pendulum has swung on sexual assault/sexual harassment to the extreme that in the public eye the only defense (in the court of public opinion) is credible evidence that the "perpetrator" wasn't in the same state at the time and that had better be corroborated by at least a dozen witnesses.
Now the pendulum has swung on sexual assault/sexual harassment to the extreme that in the public eye the only defense (in the court of public opinion) is credible evidence that the "perpetrator" wasn't in the same state at the time and that had better be corroborated by at least a dozen witnesses.
-
8
- Show all
I think this was the plan all along. Just another way for the democrats to get their rioting goons on display. Look's like a set up to me. They knew that an almost 40 year old sexual assault case cannot be proven true or false with 100 percent accuracy. So they used this to try and rail road Kavanaugh, which is a shame. This is how the democrats play now days, though.
The truth is they have not just publicly assaulted this man...He has been publicly raped. So where's the justice for him?
The truth is they have not just publicly assaulted this man...He has been publicly raped. So where's the justice for him?
-
5
-
2
- Show all