Kavanaugh, corroborating evidence, and four easy questions for journalists

It seems that journalists are extremely confused as to what corroborating evidence is.  In the Senate confirmation debacles of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, we have been treated to journalists saying that there were signed statements from Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford's husband and a few friends corroborating her initial claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, and that is absolutely not true.  All they corroborated was that she told them the same story after more than thirty years and that she told the Washington Post, and that is worthless information.

Either journalists have no idea what it would take to actually corroborate the story or they believe that the public is too stupid to understand.

The press conference yesterday at the United Nations, featuring President Trump, reminded me of a bunch of puppets asking the same questions.  The press people were trying to get Trump to say the women are credible or to call them liars.  Thankfully, Trump is smarter than they are, so he didn't give them the sound bite.

I wish Trump or someone else would ask these journalists four simple questions:

1) Do you have any actual verification or evidence that any of these sexual assault stories is true?

2) Should networks and other media outlets endlessly report stories when there is no actual evidence that they are true?

3) Should people be considered innocent until proven guilty or guilty until they prove their innocence (which is almost impossible after 35 years)?

4) Is it good, fair, or factual reporting when the media seek to destroy a person, a family, and their livelihood because they don't like their political views?

It was clear from the start that the Democrats, in collusion with the media, targeted Kavanaugh for defeat no matter what they had to do.  These people could not care less about women who probably have not been assaulted because they gladly support and elect leftists who are actually guilty of mental and physical abuse of women.  It appears that supporting abortion is the overriding goal, not assaulting women.

After running endless stories with no evidence, all to ruin Kavanaugh's life, we then get that Kavanaugh's reputation is destroyed and he should withdraw or Trump should withdraw the nomination because with Kavanaugh on the Court, the president would be damaged.  Does anyone think Democrats and the media will not seek to destroy the next nominee with whatever mud they can throw?   

What would male or female journalists' reaction be if their boss called them in and said someone has accused you of sexually assaulting her five, ten, or thirty years ago?  While there is absolutely no proof or witnesses who agree that you did anything, I believe that the accuser is credible, and unless you absolutely prove you didn't assault her, you are fired, and your career as a journalist will be over.

I am sure glad my three children are gainfully employed instead of hassling people like Kavanaugh at Senate hearings.

It seems that journalists are extremely confused as to what corroborating evidence is.  In the Senate confirmation debacles of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, we have been treated to journalists saying that there were signed statements from Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford's husband and a few friends corroborating her initial claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, and that is absolutely not true.  All they corroborated was that she told them the same story after more than thirty years and that she told the Washington Post, and that is worthless information.

Either journalists have no idea what it would take to actually corroborate the story or they believe that the public is too stupid to understand.

The press conference yesterday at the United Nations, featuring President Trump, reminded me of a bunch of puppets asking the same questions.  The press people were trying to get Trump to say the women are credible or to call them liars.  Thankfully, Trump is smarter than they are, so he didn't give them the sound bite.

I wish Trump or someone else would ask these journalists four simple questions:

1) Do you have any actual verification or evidence that any of these sexual assault stories is true?

2) Should networks and other media outlets endlessly report stories when there is no actual evidence that they are true?

3) Should people be considered innocent until proven guilty or guilty until they prove their innocence (which is almost impossible after 35 years)?

4) Is it good, fair, or factual reporting when the media seek to destroy a person, a family, and their livelihood because they don't like their political views?

It was clear from the start that the Democrats, in collusion with the media, targeted Kavanaugh for defeat no matter what they had to do.  These people could not care less about women who probably have not been assaulted because they gladly support and elect leftists who are actually guilty of mental and physical abuse of women.  It appears that supporting abortion is the overriding goal, not assaulting women.

After running endless stories with no evidence, all to ruin Kavanaugh's life, we then get that Kavanaugh's reputation is destroyed and he should withdraw or Trump should withdraw the nomination because with Kavanaugh on the Court, the president would be damaged.  Does anyone think Democrats and the media will not seek to destroy the next nominee with whatever mud they can throw?   

What would male or female journalists' reaction be if their boss called them in and said someone has accused you of sexually assaulting her five, ten, or thirty years ago?  While there is absolutely no proof or witnesses who agree that you did anything, I believe that the accuser is credible, and unless you absolutely prove you didn't assault her, you are fired, and your career as a journalist will be over.

I am sure glad my three children are gainfully employed instead of hassling people like Kavanaugh at Senate hearings.