SCHUMER: ‘There is No Presumption of Innocence’ for Supreme Court Nominees

Administrator · 2018-09-26T15:50:39.669Z

Originally published at: SCHUMER: ‘There is No Presumption of Innocence’ for Supreme Court Nominees | Sean Hannity

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer raised eyebrows throughout the nation’s capital this week; saying there’s “no presumption of innocence or guilt” when appearing before the United States Senate.

Schumer was fielding questions from reporters when he doubled-down on his insistence that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination is not a “criminal trial” but rather a “fact-finding" mission.

twitter.com

Benny Johnson

@bennyjohnson

Chuck Schumer, in his own words, Brett Kabvanaugh has "No presumption of innocence.” This explains much of the Democrats approach to these accusations. https://t.co/nTUzJ2J4t2

8:19 PM - 25 Sep 2018 280 150

“This is not a criminal trial,” said Schumer. “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… 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.”

rone5847 · 2018-09-26T16:11:34.489Z

then I want you arrested for stealing money form taxpayers

LouC · 2018-09-26T17:56:16.482Z

Senator Chuck Schumer is correct. SCJ confirmation hearings are not court criminal trials and thus have no “presumptions of innocence until proven guilty” mandates enforced upon the proceedings.

We can hope he is innocent of criminal acts, but there is no metric forcing Senators to abide any such presumption.

LouC · 2018-09-26T17:57:31.645Z

rone5847:

then I want you arrested for stealing money form taxpayers

That makes zero sense.

dderatz · 2018-09-26T18:37:04.940Z

Furthermore, there is no right to due process. Due process is only required where there is a vested or otherwise protected property right. There is no such right to a new appointment, whereas in an impeachment proceeding from a current lifetime appointment, there would be.

Tguns · 2018-09-26T20:05:40.147Z

All true, there is no presumption of innocence. Of course, there isn’t any presumption of validity of the accusations either. Nor is there is there a right, requirement or obligation for any investigation beyond what the committee chair deems required.

Roxiebelle · 2018-09-26T23:10:55.851Z

LouC:

Senator Chuck Schumer is correct. SCJ confirmation hearings are not court criminal trials and thus have no “presumptions of innocence until proven guilty” mandates enforced upon the proceedings.

Every single citizen in the USA has the basic civil right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty no matter where they are and there has to be actual evidence of a crime to get into a courtroom.

And this accusation against Kavanaugh has none of the legal requirements, it’s far too late and whoever was involved in her physical assault was a juvenile at the time so there is no way in hell to get to the truth or to investigate.

This is nothing but a Schumer-scum lie and a disgusting leftist delay tactic! And any lying POS politician demanding an FBI investigation is scum as well because FBI don’t investigate anything prior to 18 years old and those Dems that are demanding it know that.

LouC · 2018-09-26T23:29:24.377Z

Roxiebelle:

LouC:

Senator Chuck Schumer is correct. SCJ confirmation hearings are not court criminal trials and thus have no “presumptions of innocence until proven guilty” mandates enforced upon the proceedings.

Every single citizen in the USA has the basic civil right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty no matter where they are and there has to be actual evidence of a crime to get into a courtroom.

And this accusation against Kavanaugh has none of the legal requirements, it’s far too late and whoever was involved in her physical assault was a juvenile at the time so there is no way in hell to get to the truth or to investigate.

This is nothing but a Schumer-scum lie and a disgusting leftist delay tactic! And any lying POS politician demanding an FBI investigation is scum as well because FBI don’t investigate anything prior to 18 years old and those Dems that are demanding it know that.

Nothing you posted changes the absolute fact that Senator Chuck Schumer is right.

Never said Bret doesn’t have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That doesn’t hold true for SCJ confirmation hearings. Not at all.

He did not lie, nominee Bret Kavanaugh has no presumption of innocence expectation in the Senate confirmation hearing.

Doesn’t matter how many times you rant about a Schumer-Scum lie. That is true, when it comes to what Schumer said about Kavanaugh having no presumption of innocence before the confirmation committee.

Of course the Dems are using these accusations as delaying tactics.

As I said before, the accusers and the accusations deserve no role in this confirmation process unless there is a crime, that Bret is accused of, that has a non-expired statute of limitations.

But the Trumplicans have fallen for the Democrat trap, allowing one accuser to testify, now they will look like asses if they don’t let all three have their day before the committee. So now they get to know, that, oh yeah, delaying payback is a bitch, all you Trumplican Senators.

Seriously though, there is absolutely no need to rush the vote on Kavanaugh, none what so ever, McConnell kept a SCJ seat open and the nominee hearing free for 290 days. He is a hypocrite if he says there is some dire need now to rush a vote.

Of course we know Mitch is a scum sucking swamp wallowing Trumplican, so his Suptreme Court nominee hypocrisy comes at no surprise.

LouC · 2018-09-26T23:30:51.215Z

Tguns:

All true, there is no presumption of innocence. Of course, there isn’t any presumption of validity of the accusations either. Nor is there is there a right, requirement or obligation for any investigation beyond what the committee chair deems required.

Ayup!

The Trumplicans should have totally ignored all of the Democrat delaying trap tactics with these last minute accusers.

But no, they fell right into the trap.

Idiots.

Tguns · 2018-09-26T23:35:57.792Z

Should have just set a date and told them if they want to testify, show up and testify and left it at that.

LouC · 2018-09-26T23:39:42.255Z

Tguns:

Should have just set a date and told them if they want to testify, show up and testify and left it at that.

Nah. I don’t think they should have even awarded these last minute accusers that much notice.

It would have been best to present a solid front that, “This will not happen”.

Tguns · 2018-09-26T23:55:10.394Z

To each his own. Personally, I’d give them the opportunity to voice their issues. Allow them the opportunity to testify under oath and present their accusations. Then give the judge an opportunity to respond. No written statements, no investigation, no ■■■■■■■■■■■■ got witnesses, bring them along they can testify too. Then at the end of it, vote on what you believe…that’s what this is all going to boil down to anyhow, what people believe.

Samson_Corwell · 2018-09-27T00:44:30.117Z

Well, he said no presumption of innocence or of guilt. I don’t know what to make of that.

RTchoke · 2018-09-27T04:37:50.294Z

and you can bet he will change his mind on that when it’s one of their nominees and something untoward comes up about them.

LouC · 2018-09-27T15:20:58.752Z

RTchoke:

and you can bet he will change his mind on that when it’s one of their nominees and something untoward comes up about them.

What are you betting?

LouC · 2018-09-27T15:27:50.455Z

Samson_Corwell:

Well, he said no presumption of innocence or of guilt. I don’t know what to make of that.

Quite simple really it is. There is and or should not be, for nominees, any automatic presumptions that they are innocent nor any automatic presumptions that if accused that they are guilty.

Senator Chuck Schumer elaborated on that point by saying, “Find the facts …” before the Senate makes a decision on what they believe regarding innocence or guilt.

RTchoke · 2018-09-27T17:47:59.684Z

LouC:

RTchoke:

and you can bet he will change his mind on that when it’s one of their nominees and something untoward comes up about them.

What are you betting?

Can’t even throw an idiom out there these days without it having to be something.

I have no doubt of the liberals/dems hypocrisy on these type of things. They however refuse to see it and instead scream whataboutism when it’s pointed out as if that absolves them.

LouC · 2018-09-27T20:05:57.827Z

RTchoke:

LouC:

RTchoke:

and you can bet he will change his mind on that when it’s one of their nominees and something untoward comes up about them.

What are you betting?

Can’t even throw an idiom out there these days without it having to be something.

I have no doubt of the liberals/dems hypocrisy on these type of things. They however refuse to see it and instead scream whataboutism when it’s pointed out as if that absolves them.

Everything is something, isn’t it?

So just say you were just idiomizing.

I am a Liberal and a Democrat, please do show my “hypocrisy” on these types of things.

Show Senator Chuck Schumer’s “hypocrisy” on what he said, regarding Bret Kavanaugh, regarding “no presumption of innocence or guilt” in regards Supreme Court Nominee hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee.

Do those and I will gracefully and vociferously accept defeat and admit I am a hypocrite and that Chuckie is on this particular issue.

RTchoke · 2018-09-28T00:37:53.607Z

LouC:

RTchoke:

LouC:

RTchoke:

and you can bet he will change his mind on that when it’s one of their nominees and something untoward comes up about them.

What are you betting?

Can’t even throw an idiom out there these days without it having to be something.

I have no doubt of the liberals/dems hypocrisy on these type of things. They however refuse to see it and instead scream whataboutism when it’s pointed out as if that absolves them.

Everything is something, isn’t it?

So just say you were just idiomizing.

I am a Liberal and a Democrat, please do show my “hypocrisy” on these types of things.

Show Senator Chuck Schumer’s “hypocrisy” on what he said, regarding Bret Kavanaugh, regarding “no presumption of innocence or guilt” in regards Supreme Court Nominee hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee.

Do those and I will gracefully and vociferously accept defeat and admit I am a hypocrite and that Chuckie is on this particular issue.

Considering I wasn’t speaking of you in particular, I don’t see the point.

LouC · 2018-09-28T12:44:42.374Z

RTchoke:

LouC:

RTchoke:

LouC:

RTchoke:

and you can bet he will change his mind on that when it’s one of their nominees and something untoward comes up about them.

What are you betting?

Can’t even throw an idiom out there these days without it having to be something.

I have no doubt of the liberals/dems hypocrisy on these type of things. They however refuse to see it and instead scream whataboutism when it’s pointed out as if that absolves them.

Everything is something, isn’t it?

So just say you were just idiomizing.

I am a Liberal and a Democrat, please do show my “hypocrisy” on these types of things.

Show Senator Chuck Schumer’s “hypocrisy” on what he said, regarding Bret Kavanaugh, regarding “no presumption of innocence or guilt” in regards Supreme Court Nominee hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee.

Do those and I will gracefully and vociferously accept defeat and admit I am a hypocrite and that Chuckie is on this particular issue.

Considering I wasn’t speaking of you in particular, I don’t see the point.

You did include me.

See what I bolded above.