Republicans Call Out Hypocrisy of Democrats for Pouncing on Kavanaugh Allegations While Ignoring Keith Ellison's

[Teh One Who Knocks]

MADISON DIBBLE - Independent Journal Review


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7246/mVrbsB.jpg

The swift response from Democrats on the accusations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh has some Republicans wondering where their response to accusations against Democratic National Committee (DNC) Deputy Chair Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) went.

California professor Christine Blasey Ford accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her during a high school party more than three decades ago.

Many Democrats jumped on the allegations, demanding that Americans listen to Ford's testimony and delay the vote to approve Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
1041715750921224192
1041451780821921793
1041413666711724045
Despite these sentiments about believing women, none of these Democrats have tweeted their support for the women who have accused Ellison of domestic violence.

The domestic abuse claims against Ellison come from his ex-girlfriend, Karen Monahan, as well as 911 calls from another ex-girlfriend.

DNC Chair Tom Perez called for a thorough investigation of Kavanaugh, but his investigation into the claims against Ellison seems to have disappeared.
1041480386583453701
This apparent hypocrisy did not go unnoticed:
1041397550195109890
1041501396028280832
1041004820939907072
Ellison is still the DNC deputy chair and has the Democratic nomination for attorney general in Minnesota. According to a recent KSTP poll, Ellison and his competitor, Doug Wardlow, are tied.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

My socialist brother is an idiot like this. My aunt posted some petition that started with
"We already have an accused sexual predator in the White House. We don't need another one on the Supreme Court."
So I made a comment
"Accused does not mean guilty. Do we not believe in innocent until proven guilty?"

His psycho response


1) If Kavanaugh confirmed, 2/9 Supreme Court justices will have been (credibly) accused of sexual assault (Clarence Thomas / Anita Hill = the other one). They will decide sexual rights for millions of women.

2) It doesn’t make sense to me that we treat appointment to the most powerful public office in the USA by the same standard as a criminal trial. In other words, of course the standard for a man who will determine the sexual rights of millions of women should be higher than a man in a criminal court. Innocent until proven guilty isn’t how we should run elections/court appointments for damn good reason. We should find people *not* accused of sexual assault and move on from there. So be it if we lose a Kavanaugh or two, I’ll live with that risk.

3) False convictions are a real problem, but ironically *not* in rape cases by incredibly powerful white men. Wrongful convictions are overwhelmingly perpetrated against black people. IE “Representing 13% of the US population, black people make up 47% of the 1,900 exonerations that were studied” - from a 2017 study. So if you are so concerned about wrongful conviction, start speaking out about black wrongful conviction, rather than Supreme Court justices.

4) Why would this woman lie to a therapist years ago about sexual assault in the hope that someday Kavanaugh might become a Supreme Court Justice?


:roll:

[RBP]

My socialist brother is an idiot like this. My aunt posted some petition that started with
"We already have an accused sexual predator in the White House. We don't need another one on the Supreme Court."
So I made a comment
"Accused does not mean guilty. Do we not believe in innocent until proven guilty?"

His psycho response

:roll:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/blacks-wrongful-convictions-study/index.html

pdf of the study: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf

The population number is laughable and used all the time to grossly exaggerate crime statistics. The only number that matters is percentage of crimes committed.

The CNN article includes a piece of the more relevant data: Blacks committed 53% of murders and represented 50% of murder exoneration. Why isn't he concerned that 13% of the population commits 53% of the murders?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/blacks-wrongful-convictions-study/index.html

pdf of the study: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf

The population number is laughable and used all the time to grossly exaggerate crime statistics. The only number that matters is percentage of crimes committed.

The CNN article includes a piece of the more relevant data: Blacks committed 53% of murders and represented 50% of murder exoneration. Why isn't he concerned that 13% of the population commits 53% of the murders?

:racist:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:facepalm: