Al Sharpton lies about accusing white cops of raping Tawanna Brawley. Many people claimed the Duke lacrosse players were guilty of rape. Rolling Stone magazine fabricated charges against a UVA student.

Now just because others have lied, doesn’t mean Ford is lying, she has nothing to do with these cases. But because people are sometimes willing to fabricatebthese charges, that must mean that unsubstantiated allegations aren’t enough. we need more before we ruin a mans life.

How can anyone disagree?

That's the messy thing about sexual assault, women don't feel they'll be believed so they don't speak up, there often isn't much evidence etc...and times are a lot different now then they were back then.

This is really turning into a lose lose for Trump. Either a few senators get spooked and the nomination doesn't pass or they "plow on ahead" and have to the bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation.

This entire nomination was doomed from the start.

That's the messy thing about sexual assault, women don't feel they'll be believed so they don't speak up, there often isn't much evidence etc...and times are a lot different now then they were back then.

This is really turning into a lose lose for Trump. Either a few senators get spooked and the nomination doesn't pass or they "plow on ahead" and have to the bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation.

This entire nomination was doomed from the start.

5 pinocchios

Al Sharpton lies about accusing white cops of raping Tawanna Brawley. Many people claimed the Duke lacrosse players were guilty of rape. Rolling Stone magazine fabricated charges against a UVA student.

Now just because others have lied, doesn’t mean Ford is lying, she has nothing to do with these cases. But because people are sometimes willing to fabricatebthese charges, that must mean that unsubstantiated allegations aren’t enough. we need more before we ruin a mans life.

How can anyone disagree?

You're right. Thats why they're pushing to research the allegations to either substantiate or drop them.

That's the messy thing about sexual assault, women don't feel they'll be believed so they don't speak up, there often isn't much evidence etc...and times are a lot different now then they were back then.

This is really turning into a lose lose for Trump. Either a few senators get spooked and the nomination doesn't pass or they "plow on ahead" and have to the bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation.

This entire nomination was doomed from the start.

That's also the thing about the constitution and our principles of justice, they apply to everyone, even those accused of sexual assault. I agree that standards of proof make it harder for sexual assault victims to get justice because of the pressure to keep quite. The solution isn't to lower the bar on when we decide someone is guilty, the solution is to encourage them to come forward immediately.

"This is really turning into a lose lose for Trump"

So was everything else that was supposed to doom him. It's not a lose if it fires up the conservative base more than it fires up the liberal base, especially in the swing states. That's the potential downside. We will soon know.

"bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation"

The other possibility, is that voters see this for what it was, political exploitation by parasites on the left, at the expense of w woman making a serious accusation.

I would like to see ten FBI agents look into it for a week. If they turn up supporting evidence, I don't want him there. If they turn up zilch as the 6 background checks have done, have the vote and let the snowflakes throw their tantrum. If they turn up evidence and he gets forced out, still time to get someone else in there.

You're right, anything short of a full FBI investigation, and the left will say that the GOP wasn't interested in learning the truth. Not that they'd abide by the results of such an investigation if they didn't like the outcome, ask Anita Hill, wait you can't, she's on NBC telling them what it's like to be a victim, even though the FBI found zero evidence of that.

That's the messy thing about sexual assault, women don't feel they'll be believed so they don't speak up, there often isn't much evidence etc...and times are a lot different now then they were back then.

This is really turning into a lose lose for Trump. Either a few senators get spooked and the nomination doesn't pass or they "plow on ahead" and have to the bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation.

This entire nomination was doomed from the start.

And yet, you’re OK with that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Depending on what happens when they speak on Thursday. Take a vote - if he gets in then run the investigation. If he's lying deal with the consequences later. If he's not lying and she is, then let the left deal with their consequences. Right now he's presumed innocent.

"bear the consequences of steamrolling a woman making a very serious allegation"



You're right, anything short of a full FBI investigation, and the left will say that the GOP wasn't interested in learning the truth. Not that they'd abide by the results of such an investigation if they didn't like the outcome, ask Anita Hill, wait you can't, she's on NBC telling them what it's like to be a victim, even though the FBI found zero evidence of that.
Jim, it's not just the left as you call anyone that does not agree with you.
But there is evidence about Thomas that nobody ever bothered with, including Joe Biden.
Just like now, and remember some of the Senators are the same 37 years later, they didn't and don't really want to know.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/woman-not-called-clarence-thomas-hearings
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/the-case-for-impeaching-clarence-thomas.html
https://www.damemagazine.com/2018/09/20/clarence-thomas-is-not-a-cautionary-tale-hes-kavanaughs-template/

Spence, it’s also not a loss for Trump if the nomination gets withdrawn, and he nominated that female devout catholic ( Barrett or Jarrett?). the liberals should have asked themselves if having Kavanaugh on the court is the worst possible outcome for them. I’d think a brilliant, strong woman who is a rabid catholic, would be far less preferable, compared to Kavanaugh. if nothing else, Kavanaugh is an easier target, being a man. There is no way, none, that this seat isn’t filled before the new congress is sworn in. If the dems take the senate, Trump will do it in the lame duck session, and he won’t bat an eye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Depending on what happens when they speak on Thursday. Take a vote - if he gets in then run the investigation. If he's lying deal with the consequences later. If he's not lying and she is, then let the left deal with their consequences. Right now he's presumed innocent.

What is the rush to vote? Why not wait. So you think they should vote w/o examining what the 2 say and then if he gets voted in and somehow evidence comes out that he lied vote him out? And all of this bc the vote has to be rushed?

What is the rush to vote? Why not wait. So you think they should vote w/o examining what the 2 say and then if he gets voted in and somehow evidence comes out that he lied vote him? And all of this bc the vote has to be rushed?

it's not a rushed vote...

they had the hearings...

time to vote because evil democrats are perverting the system...

democrats have been colluding, conniving and plotting and causing mayhem....screw them:humpty:

whack-a-mole is much more fun with a shotgun

What defines someone as a RABID catholic?
Is she a Roman, Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syriac (Chaldean), West Syriac, and Maronite Catholic?
Is there a new church of Rabid radical extremist catholics?
Abortions should be off limits but boys are......

What defines someone as a RABID catholic?

....

try google

try google

Now i'm really worried

And yet, you’re OK with that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm ok with credible people being heard...yes.

Spence, it’s also not a loss for Trump if the nomination gets withdrawn, and he nominated that female devout catholic ( Barrett or Jarrett?). the liberals should have asked themselves if having Kavanaugh on the court is the worst possible outcome for them. I’d think a brilliant, strong woman who is a rabid catholic, would be far less preferable, compared to Kavanaugh. if nothing else, Kavanaugh is an easier target, being a man. There is no way, none, that this seat isn’t filled before the new congress is sworn in. If the dems take the senate, Trump will do it in the lame duck session, and he won’t bat an eye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
There's a risk of senate opposition by any candidate that could be considered extreme. Not just the women, Flake is possibly running in 2020 and is looking for his moment to step up.

What defines someone as a RABID catholic?
Is she a Roman, Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syriac (Chaldean), West Syriac, and Maronite Catholic?
Is there a new church of Rabid radical extremist catholics?
Abortions should be off limits but boys are......

Devout, not casual. it’s a common term.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now i'm really worried

images of Nancy Pelosi will do that to a man :spin:

images of Nancy Pelosi will do that to a man :spin:
I thought you were the guy taking one for the team

There's a risk of senate opposition by any candidate that could be considered extreme. Not just the women, Flake is possibly running in 2020 and is looking for his moment to step up.

in what world does Flake opposing Kavanaugh, help him get the GOP nomination?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

...and times are a lot different now then they were back then.


Yes. Expecting past actions, done at a time when they were not as horrific, to be accounted for in a later time when they are makes it difficult to own a past. Not to mention how unjust it is to request retribution in a more vengeful time.

I thought you were the guy taking one for the team

hold my beer :bl:

in what world does Flake opposing Kavanaugh, help him get the GOP nomination?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Elevates his brand and would possibly help him with some demographics. He also might just think it's the right thing to do...

Kav has deepening public trust issues. I'd think trustworthiness in SCOTUS nominee is a key factor.

I'm ok with credible people being heard...yes.

To bad that isn’t what you said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Elevates his brand and would possibly help him with some demographics. He also might just think it's the right thing to do...

Kav has deepening public trust issues. I'd think trustworthiness in SCOTUS nominee is a key factor.

even fox news polls say kavanaugh has public trust issues. lucky for him that he’s not running for office. if nothing substantial comes out that we don’t already know, i am very confident he gets confirmed. i can’t believe you feel otherwise. mitch mcconnell is nobody’s idea of a conservative warrior, but even he’s fired up. it’s going to take more to derail him i think. could come down to pence breaking a tie with one defector. mcconnell is saying very explicitly that his vote will be soon, he has no reason to say that if he doesn’t have the votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Elevates his brand (or prove what a #^&#^&#^&#^& he is) and would possibly help him with some demographics (with like minded #^&#^&#^&#^&s . . .or would possibly hurt him with Trumpians). He also might just think it's the right thing to do...(he probably finds it very difficult to think of anything he does as the wrong thing to do …)

Kav has deepening public trust issues. I'd think trustworthiness in SCOTUS nominee is a key factor.

The key reason to smear him is to fabricate a lack of "public trust issues" . . . to create the aura of not being trustworthy.

even fox news polls say kavanaugh has public trust issues. lucky for him that he’s not running for office. if nothing substantial comes out that we don’t already know, i am very confident he gets confirmed. i can’t believe you feel otherwise. mitch mcconnell is nobody’s idea of a conservative warrior, but even he’s fired up. it’s going to take more to derail him i think. could come down to pence breaking a tie with one defector. mcconnell is saying very explicitly that his vote will be soon, he has no reason to say that if he doesn’t have the votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What is really scary here is that he is not running for office, he has been nominated for a lifetime position. That should be longer than any elected position, although in the case of the Senate it doesn't seem so. Ultimately he could have more effect on our government than any elected official other than the president and for life.

Should the FBI investigate?
“It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?”
Senator Lisa Murkowski-R

mitch mcconnell is nobody’s idea of a conservative warrior, but even he’s fired up. it’s going to take more to derail him i think. could come down to pence breaking a tie with one defector. mcconnell is saying very explicitly that his vote will be soon, he has no reason to say that if he doesn’t have the votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't think McConnell understands how bad it makes the GOP look when he says essentially that an accuser who has yet to be heard is irrelevant to the confirmation process. Worse, it sounds like the Senate Republicans are hiring a female attorney who specializes in sexual defending against sexual assault to perform the questioning.

Why can't they ask their own questions? (Rhetorical)

The WH should have hit the pause button immediately and let the FBI sort things out, we'd likely have moved on already. Kav going on TV last night didn't help his case much either...

Should the FBI investigate?
“It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?”
Senator Lisa Murkowski-R
and i think she’s right, been saying that all along. Why isn’t Ford asking the MD police to investigate?? privacy isn’t an issue anymore, so if she believes what she is saying, why limit it to the political arena?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, it’s bad for the senate to bring in an expert sexual crimes prosecutor who is a female, to question both Ford and Kavanaugh? i’d think you and Ford would love that move. i doubt she wants to get questioned by a bunch of old white guys, right? why not bring in an expert who knows how to best get to the truth in these situations?

It can’t be that neither you nor Ford is interested in the truth, but rather in smear, can it?

that would explain why she hasn’t asked the Md police to investigate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and i think she’s right, been saying that all along. Why isn’t Ford asking the MD police to investigate?? privacy isn’t an issue anymore, so if she believes what she is saying, why limit it to the political arena?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Statute of limitations is long gone, this is not a court of law, there is way more at stake here than one man's life.
Sorry that is the way politics works, it's not pretty or nice.
I said last week they should have gracefully yanked him, and put in a woman.

Statute of limitations is long gone, this is not a court of law, there is way more at stake here than one man's life.
Sorry that is the way politics works, it's not pretty or nice.
I said last week they should have gracefully yanked him, and put in a woman.

i keep hearing that in MD there is no statute of limitations on this accusation?

the maryland police posted something, they didn’t say the statute was up, they said something to the effect that if she asked, they’d investigate.

you’re right that politics isn’t pretty or nice. but it doesn’t need to be this ugly, this regularly. i know this because i’m old enough to remember when it wasn’t.

you did say to put in the woman. trump will not yank him, nor should he, with just an accusation. if that’s enough, who will ever get confirmed again? an accusation is not evidence, not even close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, it’s bad for the senate to bring in an expert sexual crimes prosecutor who is a female, to question both Ford and Kavanaugh?
I've not seen anything that says the attorney is going to question both people. Regardless, you'd do this because you hope to destroy the witness, not get to the facts.

What is really scary here is . . . Ultimately he could have more effect on our government than any elected official other than the president and for life.

Yet you still believe that SCOTUS Justices should "interpret" the Constitution by personal opinion rather than textual limitation.

Yet you still believe that SCOTUS Justices should "interpret" the Constitution by personal opinion rather than textual limitation.
I see, so judges are binary. Some rule by textual limitation and others rule by personal opinion. There's nothing in between.

Right.

i keep hearing that in MD there is no statute of limitations on this accusation?

the maryland police posted something, they didn’t say the statute was up, they said something to the effect that if she asked, they’d investigate.

you’re right that politics isn’t pretty or nice. but it doesn’t need to be this ugly, this regularly. i know this because i’m old enough to remember when it wasn’t.

you did say to put in the woman. trump will not yank him, nor should he, with just an accusation. if that’s enough, who will ever get confirmed again? an accusation is not evidence, not even close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You're correct there is no statute of limitation on that and that means they don't have to do it today or tomorrow. They might be being nice about it and giving him a chance to bow out, rather than put either one of them thru a trial. None of us can do more than guess.
"Investigators in Montgomery County have apparently spoken with either a woman or her attorney about allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh that date back to his senior year of high school.
Investigators have apparently spoken to multiple witnesses about the allegations.
A formal complaint has not been filed.
“Without a complaint, they cannot conduct a further investigation,” said Karem. “That’s the fulcrum.”
In Maryland, there is no statute of limitations for rape and attempted rape.
The county police and the Montgomery County prosecuting attorney’s office have said they would conduct an investigation into the case, if a complaint is filed."

It's always been this ugly, you just never saw it.
I've known some old politicians and had that discussion.
It was done in backrooms, out of sight and the newscycle was a week, not minutes. Nobody had email, they talked and left no trace.

I've not seen anything that says the attorney is going to question both people. Regardless, you'd do this because you hope to destroy the witness, not get to the facts.
i have seen multiple reports that the attorney would question both. she’s a prosecutor, not a defense expert. you’d only run from this, if you feared the truth. kind of like opposing drug tests.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i have seen multiple reports that the attorney would question both. she’s a prosecutor, not a defense expert. you’d only run from this, if you feared the truth. kind of like opposing drug tests.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Why wouldn't the Senators question her themselves? I'm sure they have attorney's behind the scene writing the questions.

What are they afraid of?

You're correct there is no statute of limitation on that and that means they don't have to do it today or tomorrow. They might be being nice about it and giving him a chance to bow out, rather than put either one of them thru a trial. None of us can do more than guess.
"Investigators in Montgomery County have apparently spoken with either a woman or her attorney about allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh that date back to his senior year of high school.
Investigators have apparently spoken to multiple witnesses about the allegations.
A formal complaint has not been filed.
“Without a complaint, they cannot conduct a further investigation,” said Karem. “That’s the fulcrum.”
In Maryland, there is no statute of limitations for rape and attempted rape.
The county police and the Montgomery County prosecuting attorney’s office have said they would conduct an investigation into the case, if a complaint is filed."

It's always been this ugly, you just never saw it.
I've known some old politicians and had that discussion.
It was done in backrooms, out of sight and the newscycle was a week, not minutes. Nobody had email, they talked and left no trace.
i didn’t say they had to donut today. i asked why Ford isn’t asking for it. it’s not like she’s seeking privacy.

“they might be being nice about it”

i bet that’s it.

no, i see it. not that long ago, it wasn’t like this. Clarence Thomas got confirmed by a democrat controlled senate. it got ugly, and never returned to civilized, during bush’s presidency. it has not always been like this, not even close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the only reason they are having a female ask the question is so the can say look we cared ... she asked the question not us :kewl:

the only reason they are having a female ask the question is so the can say look we cared ... she asked the question not us :kewl:

and if a bunch of silver haired white guys ask, the left will bitch about that. yes or no? fine she doesn’t want an expert, let the senators ask her, and watch how they get attacked for being mean.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t say they had to donut today. i asked why Ford isn’t asking for it. it’s not like she’s seeking privacy.

“they might be being nice about it”

i bet that’s it.

no, i see it. not that long ago, it wasn’t like this. Clarence Thomas got confirmed by a democrat controlled senate. it got ugly, and never returned to civilized, during bush’s presidency. it has not always been like this, not even close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sitting in the low chair?
If i had evidence that someone had committed a crime, i have leverage over them. I can go to the police and file the complaint or just ask them to stop what they are doing that i disagree with.
That's what i mean by being nice, giving them a chance to just go on with their life and not continue in the direction they are going.

I see, so judges are binary. Some rule by textual limitation and others rule by personal opinion. There's nothing in between.

Right.

Almost right. A judge cannot do both at the same time. It is only "scary," a la Pete F, that "he could have more effect on our government than any elected official other than the president and for life" when judges interpret by opinion than by original text. There is no in between.

Interpreting by text proscribes the desire to interject ideas and opinions outside of the text. It denies the ability of the judge to impact government other than limiting it to its constitutional powers.

Interpreting outside of the text eliminates the text (the Constitution), brushes it aside as an impediment to arriving at a desired judgment. And thereby gives a judge the ability to create policy or to support otherwise Congressional unconstitutional legislation. That is the scary that Pete F, perhaps inadvertently, refers to.

The two methods of interpretation cannot be used in conjunction with each other. They are opposing methods.

Almost right. A judge cannot do both at the same time. It is only "scary," a la Pete F, that "he could have more effect on our government than any elected official other than the president and for life" when judges interpret by opinion than by original text. There is no in between.

Interpreting by text proscribes the desire to interject ideas and opinions outside of the text. It denies the ability of the judge to impact government other than limiting it to its constitutional powers.

Interpreting outside of the text eliminates the text (the Constitution), brushes it aside as an impediment to arriving at a desired judgment. And thereby gives a judge the ability to create policy or to support otherwise Congressional unconstitutional legislation. That is the scary that Pete F, perhaps inadvertently, refers to.

The two methods of interpretation cannot be used in conjunction with each other. They are opposing methods.
So originalist judges are robots? What do they do when the code doesn't build?

So originalist judges are robots? What do they do when the code doesn't build?

No, they are judges not legislators nor enablers of unconstitutional legislation.


What code? Judges don't build. And they don't create building codes. They judge by applying existing codes. If those codes don't "build," it is up to the builders to change them.

A good overall government code provides for change. As does the U.S. Constitution--which does not give the judicial branch the power to change the code.

If judges create the laws which they adjudicate, that should surely be a system that Pete F would think is scary. Are you suggesting we should have such a system?

Spence, it’s also not a loss for Trump if the nomination gets withdrawn, and he nominated that female devout catholic ( Barrett or Jarrett?). the liberals should have asked themselves if having Kavanaugh on the court is the worst possible outcome for them. I’d think a brilliant, strong woman who is a rabid catholic, would be far less preferable, compared to Kavanaugh. if nothing else, Kavanaugh is an easier target, being a man. There is no way, none, that this seat isn’t filled before the new congress is sworn in. If the dems take the senate, Trump will do it in the lame duck session, and he won’t bat an eye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They’ll just accuse her of sexual assault... this seat will never get filled. It’s just going to be one criminal appointee after another. At least we have plenty of other justices?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They’ll just accuse her of sexual assault... this seat will never get filled. It’s just going to be one criminal appointee after another. At least we have plenty of other justices?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
oh it’s going to get filled.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of the 163 citizens nominated to the Supreme Court by presidents since the start of the Republic, only 125 were confirmed, 7 declined.
It’s not the end of the USA if he doesn’t get confirmed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why wouldn't the Senators question her themselves?
What are they afraid of?

so evil democraps can't whine that she's being bullied.....

Of the 163 citizens nominated to the Supreme Court by presidents since the start of the Republic, only 125 were confirmed, 7 declined.
It’s not the end of the USA if he doesn’t get confirmed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if unsubstantiated allegations are enough to disqualify someone, it will mean no one gets confirmed.

If there is nothing beyond allegations and hearsay, he's probably going to get confirmed. I would say definite, but they might get 2 defections from Collins, Murkowski, and Flake. Also possible Pence breaks the tie.

so evil democraps can't whine that she's being bullied.....

Nothing will stop them from that whining.

I still don't see the bad idea of bringing in a subject matter expert. Well, I see the problem if this is just a smear campaign, I see no problem if the goal is justice.

I wonder if the democrats have reached peak crazy yet....

I wonder if the democrats have reached peak crazy yet....

I don't know about that, but somebody seems to be chasing the laser pointer.
Don't worry though, I hear someone is going to have a press conference and straighten everyone out as only he can.

I wonder if the democrats have reached peak crazy yet....
I'd be more concerned with the people sending death threats to senators for supporting Ford's right to be heard.

I'd be more concerned with the people sending death threats to senators for supporting Ford's right to be heard.

another from the whack leftist playbook....waaaaa...we're victims....we're getting death threats....

another from the whack leftist playbook....waaaaa...we're victims....we're getting death threats....
Jeff Flake is a wack leftist?

which senator has not supported ford's right to be heard? they've bent over backwards to ensure that she is heard....yes flake is a flake....ahhh I see....someone from somewhere called his office....he's far more likely to be accosted by an angry mob of leftists in a restaurant if he votes to confirm

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do Kavanaugh and bill Bill Cosby ? have in common

no one believed the women who accused him... at 1st

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence does :bl:

I wonder if the democrats have reached peak crazy yet....

Nah, I’m pretty sure by Friday morning we will hear from somebody who was part of Kavanaugh’s transgender underage prostitution ring that he was running out of the unisex bathrooms at the rest areas on I95
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess they just released video footage of him actually in line, I think that’s him at the front

https://youtu.be/hshbq4_OySI
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nah, I’m pretty sure by Friday morning we will hear from somebody who was part of Kavanaugh’s transgender underage prostitution ring that he was running out of the unisex bathrooms at the rest areas on I95
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s a pizza place, did you miss that one? Oh wait that was George Soros and Hillary
Sorry you’re right the rest area is on the right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

Nah, I’m pretty sure by Friday morning we will hear from somebody who was part of Kavanaugh’s transgender underage prostitution ring that he was running out of the unisex bathrooms at the rest areas on I95
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sex with farm animals is next...democrats are all in....my as well go full nut job

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

Federal judicial nominees undergo a rigorous FBI background check

Federal judicial nominees undergo a rigorous FBI background check

Number 4
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Number 4
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you bother?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What vile accusations these women have made against Kavanagh. If they made the same type of accusations about me and I had the ability to have the FBI investigate I'd be screaming for them to investigate. Lie detectors all around for the accused and accuser. Anyone who lies would be guilty of perjury. I wonder why that hasn't happened?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

What's the point of investigating what is already known. Isn't it the point of an investigation to find out that which is not known?

interesting....


"The Judiciary Committee sent Thomas’s nomination to the full Senate on a vote of seven-to-seven. In mid-October, on the eve of the Senate’s final vote on Thomas, his confirmation looked like a sure thing.

Meanwhile, as the chances of defeating the Thomas nomination grew smaller, both the press and the groups working against him grew ever more vigorous in their search for material to use against him. Employees at the EEOC reported getting repeated phone calls from journalists and Thomas opponents explicitly asking for “dirt.” On Sunday, October 6, after the Senate Judiciary Committee had voted to send the Thomas nomination to the Senate, Newsday and National Public Radio reported that for a month the committee had had in its possession an affidavit from a woman named Anita Hill making charges of sexual harassment.

Thomas supporters protested the introduction of a new charge against him, after so many other accusations had been leveled and failed, on the very eve of the confirmation vote. Thomas opponents said that because not much was known about the charges, the vote should be postponed and Hill’s story given a more thorough airing.

But the opponents said a great deal more as well. They claimed that the Senate, by its treatment of Hill, had already demonstrated men’s outrageous indifference to the welfare of women and the fundamental incapacity of male elected officials to give proper political representation to their female constituents. If the Senators went ahead with their floor vote on Thomas as scheduled, they would compound the insult.

The anger of Thomas’s critics drove out respect for procedural traditions and niceties. The Judiciary Committee had considered Hill’s charges privately, in agreement with Hill’s expressed wishes; but someone on some Senate committee staff decided that he or she was morally justified in overriding these rules of confidentiality and leaking Hill’s affidavit, either directly to the press or to an intermediary, and subjecting both Hill and Thomas to a public airing of the issue.

After the leak, Thomas’s supporters said that because he was to be effectively put on trial, he should be given the presumption of innocence: Hill should have to come up with some solid corroboration of her claim. Thomas’s opponents dismissed this idea, explaining that since sexual harassment often took place in private, an absence of corroborating evidence was only to be expected. Asking for the conventional presumption of innocence under this circumstance would be nothing other than a fancy version of “blaming the victim.”

The opponents evidently calculated that by bathing the whole affair in the light of publicity, they could undo the Judiciary Committee’s verdict. And indeed, at first they seemed to succeed. But in the end, they succeeded too well. They forced a public event that featured Hill and Thomas facing off against each other directly and individually. They provided Hill with a phalanx of lawyers to match Thomas’s White House handlers. They created, in other words, a forum that strongly resembled a criminal trial."

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

Sounds just as rediculous as the judge taking a number at the gang bang.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Train gang
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is comical....


In a statement released Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their "first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his [sic] complaint." They conducted a second interview the next day.

On Wednesday, Republicans said in the statement, they received a "more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford." GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.


Ford has previously said there is "zero chance" she would have confused Kavanaugh for anyone else.

In response, an aide to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee reportedly unloaded on Senate Republicans: "Republicans are flailing," the aide said, according to NBC News.

"They are desperately trying to muddy the waters. ... Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her. Democrats were never informed of these assertions in interviews, in violation of Senate rules."

The aide, before again calling for an FBI probe into Ford's accusations, added, "This is shameful and the height of irresponsibility."

this is hilarious....

this is hilarious....

Glad to see you think it’s hillarious to mock 2 victims of sexual assault. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glad to see you think it’s hillarious to mock 2 victims of sexual assault. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

democrats are doing a fine job of mocking and delegitimizing all actual victims of sexual assault by turing it into a political weapon....again

this guy Avenatti is the perfect presidential candidate for the dems in 2020

What's the point of investigating what is already known. Isn't it the point of an investigation to find out that which is not known?

Right, it's just an exercise to confirm what's already known, they don't ask any questions about the person's past.

Spence, it’s bad for the senate to bring in an expert sexual crimes prosecutor who is a female, to question both Ford and Kavanaugh?


[QUOTE=spence;1151872]

Regardless, you'd do this because you hope to destroy the witness, not get to the facts.




"Rachel Mitchell, a veteran prosecutor from Arizona whose “life mission” has been to investigate sex crimes. Mitchell’s boss, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, praised called her a “professional, fair, objective prosecutor” who has a “caring heart” for victims.The people of America are well served with her involvement in this process,” he said.

Mitchell — a graduate of the Arizona State University law school — has worked as a prosecutor since 1993 and spent 12 years running the bureau in the division responsible for the prosecution of sex-related felonies, including adult sexual assault.

Cindi Nannetti, her former supervisor and co-counsel on high-profile cases, said: “Rachel doesn’t seek attention as a lawyer. She has excellent judgment. She demands thorough investigation by police officers. Her bottom line is justice.

“She’s super smart. I just don’t think she’ll be bullied by anyone. She just doesn’t look at anything politically.”

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1151866] Spence, it’s bad for the senate to bring in an expert sexual crimes prosecutor who is a female, to question both Ford and Kavanaugh?





"Rachel Mitchell, a veteran prosecutor from Arizona whose “life mission” has been to investigate sex crimes. Mitchell’s boss, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, praised called her a “professional, fair, objective prosecutor” who has a “caring heart” for victims.The people of America are well served with her involvement in this process,” he said.

Mitchell — a graduate of the Arizona State University law school — has worked as a prosecutor since 1993 and spent 12 years running the bureau in the division responsible for the prosecution of sex-related felonies, including adult sexual assault.

Cindi Nannetti, her former supervisor and co-counsel on high-profile cases, said: “Rachel doesn’t seek attention as a lawyer. She has excellent judgment. She demands thorough investigation by police officers. Her bottom line is justice.

“She’s super smart. I just don’t think she’ll be bullied by anyone. She just doesn’t look at anything politically.”

Sounds familiar, pretty typical laudatory quote

“Robert Mueller is the perfect choice,” Jeffries said. “Most important is his integrity. For Bob, integrity is not merely a policy or a practice; it’s character. He is incapable of dishonesty or dissembling. Additionally, he has the skill and experience to be effective. His appointment has been universally applauded, as it should be.”

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

Sounds like a good reason to have the FBI investigate.

[QUOTE=scottw;1152076]

Sounds familiar, pretty typical laudatory quote

”

no...it sounds like exactly the opposite of what spence attempted to imply

Sounds like a good reason to have the FBI investigate.

boy....when you get stuck on a word or theme....:laugha:

Only few minutes I heard of this circus was during Booker's line of questioning, which I found to be misleading and disgusting for a US Senator.

The circus today was on par with anything Trump has offered.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTBxPPx62s4

deja vu all over again...


"I think that this today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this hearing should never occur in America. This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it at prime time over our entire nation. How would any member on this committee, any person in this room, or any person in this country, would like sleaze said about him or her in this fashion? Or this dirt dredged up and this gossip and these lies displayed in this manner? How would any person like it?

The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I am not here for that. I am here for my name, my family, my life, and my integrity. I think something is dreadfully wrong with this country when any person, any person in this free country would be subjected to this."

1991

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTBxPPx62s4

Says the party who wouldn't and blocked all attempt to seat Merrick Garland trying to take the high road it's laughable

He tainted himself in his opening statement with his conspiracy theory it he's victim of 'revenge on behalf of the Clintons or from pent up anger from Trumps election

the reason above is why they are blocking this and the midterms election now the GOP want to ram it thru before than

McConnell who seized the moment after the death of Scalia last February to announce there would be no confirmation hearings until after the election. "The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country," he said at the time. people have short memories

TERM LIMITS! This circus wouldn’t exist if we had term limits and then maybe just maybe in the words of JFK; they wouldn’t be seeking a democratic or republican answer but the right answer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Says the party who wouldn't and blocked all attempt to seat Merrick Garland trying to take the high road it's laughable

He tainted himself in his opening statement with his conspiracy theory it he's victim of 'revenge on behalf of the Clintons or from pent up anger from Trumps election

the reason above is why they are blocking this and the midterms election now the GOP want to ram it thru before than

McConnell who seized the moment after the death of Scalia last February to announce there would be no confirmation hearings until after the election. "The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country," he said at the time. people have short memories


I guess I missed the part where Merrick Garland’s integrity and reputation were destroyed on national TV.

Other than that, it’s still not really the same thing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sheldon "Flatulence" Whitehouse

Thank you for keeping Rhode Island the laughing stock of the United States.

I'm continually embarrassed this guy lives in my neighborhood.

Says the party who wouldn't and blocked all attempt to seat Merrick Garland trying to take the high road it's laughable

He tainted himself in his opening statement with his conspiracy theory it he's victim of 'revenge on behalf of the Clintons or from pent up anger from Trumps election

the reason above is why they are blocking this and the midterms election now the GOP want to ram it thru before than

McConnell who seized the moment after the death of Scalia last February to announce there would be no confirmation hearings until after the election. "The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country," he said at the time. people have short memories

Like TDF said
Blocking tactics of Garland were not even close to the last 2 weeks of character assasination I have witnessed by the Left and you are OK with that because Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like TDF said
Blocking tactics of Garland were not even close to the last 2 weeks of character assasination I have witnessed by the Left and you are OK with that because Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gotta agree w/wdmso on this one.

Doesn't have anything to do w/Trump.

K sounds like he had a drinking problem back in HS and college (as many of us did) and kept bobbing and weaving when he was asked about it.

When asked about a 5 day delay to let the FBI open back up the background checks he looked like a deer in the headlights and refused to answer and kept stumbling around before saying "I'll do whatever the committee decides" when he knew Trump would never open up the investigation. To clear my name I'd want the FBI to take statements and if anyone lies let them go to jail (like Papadopolus and Flynn). W/o that there will always be talk about his assault.

His crying about Clinton and conspiracy theories was a joke and anyone with these crazy thoughts shouldn't on the court. How can he even pretend to rule fairly on a Dem now?

Too bad there aren't SCOTUS term limits.

Like TDF said
Blocking tactics of Garland were not even close to the last 2 weeks of character assasination I have witnessed by the Left and you are OK with that because Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Tactics are just that. bullets or bombs one is not more honorable than the other

not sure how the right can even complain about character assassination it's been in their play book for decades and used committed daily by Trump from an article

Trump has insulted over the last few years. He has insulted former President Obama with his birtherism charge. He has insulted Gold Star families. He has insulted the late honorable U.S. Sen. John McCain. He has insulted Bill and Hillary Clinton. He has insulted his fellow party members who sought the GOP nomination for President — Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. He has insulted Mexicans, Muslims and women. He even insults and attacks his own Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. He has insulted both GOP leaders, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and Democratic members of Congress.

He even at one point insulted his Ambassador to the United Nations back when she stood up to remove Confederate statues, when he said, “The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley.” He has attacked U.S. companies and corporation. He has insulted the leaders of our our allied countries. And, of course he has consistently attacked the “fake media.” none of based on truth if this isn't a form character assassination not sure what is


Again the right assumes those women are liars in a grand conspiracy

Do I think what happened in Highschool should have any bearing on his life's work.. no I do not

But please his party sowed the seeds and they served him up as a sacrificial lamb .. they though the Dem were going to lay down as always and they did not

and nationally 43 percent oppose, 38 percent support this was before all this drama .. hence the rush to push him thru before the midterms the GOP can't have both ways

His crying about Clinton and conspiracy theories was a joke and anyone with these crazy thoughts shouldn't on the court. How can he even pretend to rule fairly on a Dem now?
This.

I was astonished with his partisan attacks and claiming conspiracy theories. As I said weeks ago, he's a plant. The Republicans refusal to investigate a credible accusation is quite telling.

Everyone knows it is the Bildeburgs and the illuminati that control everything.

This.

. As I said weeks ago, he's a plant.

.

no...Sheldon Whitehouse is a plant...or perhaps a vegetable...it's hard to tell...

Everyone knows it is the Bildeburgs and the illuminati that control everything.

are they Russian?

Most people react with emotion when falsely accused of a serious crime.

Not all accusers are correct in the recollection of who it was that harmed them.

case in point https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/the-wrong-man-thomas-webb-iii


Term limits would be great Bob, get your Rep and Senators to back a bill to get this rolling, I fully support that and don't understand why it was not implemented when the term limits for POTUS was put in place.

Tactics are just that.



I'm rooting for the democrats to go even lower...I have complete confidence in them.....:hihi:

K sounds like he had a drinking problem back in HS and college (as many of us did) and kept bobbing and weaving when he was asked about it. .



here ya go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=F0SwwyqhJMs

speaking of beer https://nationaldaycalendar.com/national-drink-beer-day-september-28/


enjoying something is not necessarily a problem, are you calling him an alcoholic?

And I suppose if you were in his shoes, you could perform much better in that job interview from hell.


Paul, none of us have any control of this sad situation but if this charade can be allowed it sets a bad precedent moving forward.

Term Limits
People could then make wise decisions not political ones
Remember 3 members of the Judiciary committee were in the same seats for Clarence Thomas 27 years ago
That is a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing long time ago

here ya go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=F0SwwyqhJMs

speaking of beer https://nationaldaycalendar.com/national-drink-beer-day-september-28/


enjoying something is not necessarily a problem, are you calling him an alcoholic?
I don't know but he did seem to have a drinking problem back in hs and college. Reports of passing out and not remembering things.
And I suppose if you were in his shoes, you could perform much better in that job interview from hell.If I was in his shoes I would be screaming holy he=ll to have the FBI investigate and put everyone under oath. - Yet he refused to say he would do that when given numerous opportunities.


Paul, none of us have any control of this sad situation but if this charade can be allowed it sets a bad precedent moving forward.

So why was it a charade other than the committee refusing to call people to testify that could answer the various unanswered questions people have?

So why was it a charade other than the committee refusing to call people to testify that could answer the various unanswered questions people have?


calculated sprung on them at last minute

had 2 months to have that done beforehand but that is how they play

more time, more questions, draw it out and will be same conclusion anyway

I don't think it is up to him to have the FBI get involved so why should he ask for more delays

the piling on with accusations is farcicle


His qualifications are more than adequate, I am sick of our government arguing among themselves and not getting work done to appoint people to jobs.

calculated sprung on them at last minuteFord didn't want her name released.

had 2 months to have that done beforehand but that is how they play:laugha:

more time, more questions, draw it out and will be same conclusion anyway

So why couldn't they wait 1 week?

So why couldn't they wait 1 week?

quit whining

quit whining

quit being a diick.

I don't think it is up to him to have the FBI get involved so why should he ask for more delaysI don't believe he can force the FBI to investigate - only Pres. Trump can. But now he will forever be branded that he tried to rape someone. He could have cleared his name by requesting that Trump open up the investigatation but everytime he was asked to do so he dodged the question.

the piling on with accusations is farcicle How do we know what is true and what is not w/o an investigation?


His qualifications are more than adequate, I am sick of our government arguing among themselves and not getting work done to appoint people to jobs.


He may be qualified but being qualified doesn't mean you automatically get to be a justice.

He may be qualified but being qualified doesn't mean you automatically get to be a justice.

he's earned it after all the bs he's had to endure from the democraps

So why couldn't they wait 1 week?

I am aware of that


They can wait a week, it's not up to us, it is up to those on the panel so I guess it's their fight and the minority is clawing and scratching at desperation in case it's not plain to see.

I am aware of that


They can wait a week, it's not up to us, it is up to those on the panel so I guess it's their fight and the minority is clawing and scratching at desperation in case it's not plain to see.

I guess the desperation is not wanting a rapist on the SCOTUS.

An investigation does not conclude the truth, it investigates

Sheldon really swayed me yesterday...after his remarkable performance I've decided I'm definitely voting for him in November....he's really raised his stature and profile among the democrats and I want America to be able to see this maroon as one of the leading faces of the democrat party for as long as and as often as possible :rotf2:

I guess the desperation is not wanting a rapist on the SCOTUS.


Oh so now he is a rapist?
Accused attempted rapist possibly if he is convicted, then yes

No, they are paranoid he will be a Trump puppet, Booker even said so
They are paranoid Roe vs Wade will get over-ruled as if it has not already been addressed, I don't get it.
That is the desperation

I guess the desperation is not wanting a rapist on the SCOTUS.

this is incredibly stupid

So why couldn't they wait 1 week?


a week of lunatic liberal media hype is a lifetime of career destruction, if they don't come up with Stormy Daniels lawyer spewing falsehoods of gang rape, they will find some other anonymous source to destroy him if given the chance.

Oh so now he is a rapist?
Accused attempted rapist possibly if he is convicted, then yesshe accussed him of rape. He could have cleared it up by asking to have the FBI investigate but he repeatedly dodged the question. and as an added bonus to him, anyone who lied to the FBI could go to jail - like some of Trump's inner circle.

No, they are paranoid he will be a Trump puppet, Booker even said so
They are paranoid Roe vs Wade will get over-ruled as if it has not already been addressed, I don't get it.
That is the desperation

And for anyone to not request an independent (FBI) party to investigate is blinded by partisianship.

And for anyone to not request an independent (FBI) party to investigate is blinded by partisianship.

the FBI should investigate the democrats for blind partisanship and other criminal behavior

K has a reputation to protect, why wouldn’t he encourage POTUS order the one week investigation? I hope it gets done so there are no doubts, nothing to hide then what’s the problem. I don’t care if he turned into a Boy Scout, if the FBI uncovers enough to corroborate her accusation, then he should be sent packing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

K has a reputation to protect, why wouldn’t he encourage POTUS order the one week investigation?
Likely because they're going to speak with his friends and contradict a lot of sworn testimony.

There is a chance the FBI finds out she is a nut job.

I watched parts of yesterdays performance, I'll be amazed if anything comes out of it.
I have a few comments

I don't see the upside for her doing this, not the democrats, her

I don't believe he never overconsumed, even once, never?


His best friends in high school say it never happened

What happened July first and why was Rachel Mitchell yanked when she started to pursue that question?

They definitely were in the same social circle, her father was president of Burning Tree golf club and his father is a member.

Now the rest of us are learning about the hierarchy of Washington private schools—about what it meant, in the eighties, to go to Georgetown Prep as opposed to Landon or Gonzaga, and about the girls’ schools Stone Ridge, Visitation, and Holton-Arms. By all appearances, the kids from these prep schools almost exclusively socialize with one another, and that social network informs their identities for the rest of their lives. As reporters have investigated Kavanaugh’s high-school years, many alumni have expressed fear about going on the record and alienating themselves from a close-knit community. “I guess you could call it a fraternity between a bunch of rich kids,” an anonymous alumnus of Georgetown Prep, who overlapped with Kavanaugh there, told the Huff Post. “All this #^&#^&#^&#^& happens, and then nobody really wants to talk about it, because if one person crumbles, the whole system crumbles, and everybody tells on everybody.” I spoke with another Georgetown Prep alumnus, who hated high school but still didn’t want to go on the record about what it was like there. Even for those who take less pride in the institution, what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep.

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1152173]I watched parts of yesterdays performance, I'll be amazed if anything comes out of it.
I have a few comments

I don't see the upside for her doing this, not the democrats, her



How about the fact that she’s a hard to the left “Never Trumper” and the fact she no doubt getting compensated very well ($) from George Soros.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about the fact that she’s a hard to the left “Never Trumper” and the fact she no doubt getting compensated very well ($) from George Soros.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
got any proof of that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is he why she has a 900k gofundme page?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is he why she has a 900k gofundme page?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did she start it? Otherwise that is irrelevant.

She grew up at a country club. Went to UNC and has a PHD from USC. Teaches at a college.

No need for 2nd and 3rd jobs for her.

Is it a wonder women don't want to come forward when people accuse them of things like RR did.

did anyone find it odd the amount of women friends and women who stated they he knew him signed letters of support? like 65




What’s clear is that the spectre of false allegation continues to dog the reporting of sexual violence. There remains a public impression that false allegations are common and that innocent people suffer as the result of being wrongfully accused.


The evidence on false allegations rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research suggests that only 4 per cent of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2 per cent and 6 per cent.

All I have seen here the R Man told the truth the D women lied

When we will never know the Truth even with the FBI

we need Term limits and and age limits


1 Dianne Feinstein 85 years old Democratic
2 Chuck Grassley 85 years, Republican
3 Orrin Hatch 84 years, Republican
4 Richard Shelby 84 years, 144 days Republican
5 Jim Inhofe Oklahoma 83 Republican
6 Pat Roberts 82 years, Republican
7 Barbara Mikulski 82 years, Democratic

9 Thad Cochran 80 years, Republican
10 Harry Reid Nevada 78 years, 299 days Democratic
11 Patrick Leahy 78 years, Democratic
12 Lamar Alexander 78 years, Republican

All I have seen here the R Man told the truth the D women lied



Care to provide any quotes from people who said that, or is that just an assumption you're choosing to make because we're not falling into lock step with the democratic thought process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All I have seen here the R Man told the truth the D women lied



I don't think anyone has said she lied...but none of the people she named corroborated her story and her good friend that she named as being there...said she doesn't know Kavanaugh and was never at any such party.....not to mention the other gaps in her story


the republicans bent over backwards to accomodate her and to be respectful to her

the democrats bent over froward and took a dump on Judge Kavanaugh


that's the real difference

All that is pretty much true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

K has a reputation to protect, why wouldn’t he encourage POTUS order the one week investigation? I hope it gets done so there are no doubts, nothing to hide then what’s the problem. I don’t care if he turned into a Boy Scout, if the FBI uncovers enough to corroborate her accusation, then he should be sent packing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i am in favor of the investigation, but here’s why he might object. if the fbi comes back and says that they found no evidence to support his guilt, it’s nit going to change anyone’s mind who is currently opposed to him.

also, it gives the media another week to run stories saying that he is a cannibal who engages in child sex trafficking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What the FBI reports Trumps (no pun intended) what the media reports and it’s important to get to the true as best they can.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What the FBI reports Trumps (no pun intended) what the media reports and it’s important to get to the true as best they can.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

too bad senator feinstein didn’t tell
anyone aboutbit for weeks. maybe we’d already be where you and i want to be, and maybe we’d have spared this man and his family a week of additional smearing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

too bad senator feinstein didn’t tell
anyone aboutbit for weeks. maybe we’d already be where you and i want to be, and maybe we’d have spared this man and his family a week of additional smearing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Feinstein said she was told not to release the letter and did not release the letter. She even asked her staff during the hearing if they released it and they all said you asked us previously and we said we did not release it. I'm guessing one of Ford's friends knew Ford sent a letter and they told the Washington Post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What the FBI reports Trumps (no pun intended) what the media reports and it’s important to get to the true as best they can.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have WAY to much faith in the human race.

Facebook will have this guy grilling puppies by the end of the week
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Feinstein said she was told not to release the letter and did not release the letter. She even asked her staff during the hearing if they released it and they all said you asked us previously and we said we did not release it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why does she have any credibility???...the FBI should investigate her right after she's censured

You have WAY to much faith in the human race.

Facebook will have this guy grilling puppies by the end of the week
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unlike POTUS I still have faith in our FBI to do its job regardless of the outcome.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Care to provide any quotes from people who said that,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are 100% correct no one wrote she's a liar

however my reading reading comprehension skills are spot on

But there's more than 1 way to skin a cat


How about the fact that she’s a hard to the left “Never Trumper” and the fact she no doubt getting compensated very well ($) from George Soros.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


if she believes what she is saying, nothing beyond allegations and hearsay, FBI missed it Does anybody believe this?

democrats are doing a fine job of mocking and delegitimizing all actual victims of sexual assault by turing it into a political weapon

2 weeks of character assasination

Most people react with emotion when falsely accused of a serious crime.

Not all accusers are correct in the recollection of who it was that harmed them.

I guess I missed the part where Merrick Garland’s integrity and reputation were destroyed on national TV.

why she has a 900k gofundme page?

I don't think anyone has said she lied

The next time you suspect you're not getting the whole truth, look for these seven phrases in a liar's vocabulary:


I guess you bounce this off both of their Hearings what was said and how it was said and formulate a less emotional outcome



"Where was I last night?" — Liars will often repeat questions back nearly verbatim in an effort to stall for time. "In natural conversation, people will sometimes repeat part of a question, but restating the entire question is highly awkward and unnecessary," Meyer writes. "They clearly heard you the first time."

"Would not" — To convince people that they're telling the truth, liars will often avoid using contractions and instead emphasize the full-form verbs. "The extra emphasis in the denial is unnecessary if someone is telling the truth."

"Would never" — Liars who use the word "never" when a simple "no" would suffice are usually overcompensating. According to Gary Pearlman in an article for The South Beach Times, "When the evidence is fragile, the words they use often become bold and solid to compensate." Using words like "never" to answer a question also may be a sign that they're dodging it and refusing to answer directly: Saying "I would never cheat on you" is not the same as "I did not cheat on you."


"I don't want to talk about this." — Someone who is telling the truth will go to great lengths to get all the facts straight, but someone who is lying wants to escape the conversation as quickly as possible. "The guilty want the subject changed," Pearlman writes. "If you believe someone is lying, then change the subject of a conversation quickly. A liar follows along willingly and becomes more relaxed."

"To tell you the truth …" — Using words and statements like "honestly" and "I swear to you" could be a sign that a liar is trying a little too earnestly to convince you he's not lying. "When people use these bolstering statements to emphasize their honesty, there’s a good chance they are hiding something," says Meyer. "There’s no need to add them if you really are telling the truth."

"As far as I know …" — Qualifying statements like "The way I see it" give the speaker an out, a way to bend the truth or outright lie without being directly called on it. Meyer cautions against relying too much on this sign, however. "Hedged statements aren’t an absolute indicator of deception, but an overuse of such qualifying phrases certainly should raise suspicion that a person isn’t being totally up front with what he or she knows."

"First we went to the bar." — A skilled liar will be diligent in getting the story straight. That's why he or she will tell that story in absolute chronological order. "They don’t want to get tripped up by an out-of-place detail — there’s enough to think about already," Meyer says. "But this isn’t how we talk when being truthful. We relate stories in the way we remember them, not in strict chronological order."

Feinstein said she was told not to release the letter and did not release the letter. She even asked her staff during the hearing if they released it and they all said you asked us previously and we said we did not release it. I'm guessing one of Ford's friends knew Ford sent a letter and they told the Washington Post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh you’re guessing that it wasn’t the democrats who stabbed her in the back and leaked her name? i’m shocked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso- let’s make sure we understand what you are saying. if someone accuses me of being a serial gang rapist, and i say “ i would never do that”, that means i’m probably lying?

so people who are falsely accused, need to consult with the communists guide to linguistics, to construct the proper semantics, to come across as believable?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh you’re guessing that it wasn’t the democrats who stabbed her in the back and leaked her name? i’m shocked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Do you have any evidence of this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any evidence of this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently, he doesn't need evidence. He just has to make the accusation.

Apparently, he doesn't need evidence. He just has to make the accusation.
Did he confide in others years ago about the event?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did he confide in others years ago about the event?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The fact that he didn't confide about the event could mean that there was no event occur. Besides confiding is accusing. Confiding would still be an unsubstantiated statement of the accuser. Using the accuser's words as evidence that his accusation is true is circular evidence. That is, it is not actual evidence if it has no corroboration.

you are 100% correct no one wrote she's a liar

so far I'm with you

however my reading reading comprehension skills are spot on

You might want to look up the definition of "Spot On"

Out of your examples, I'll give you one, maybe 2.

Unless you are actually admitting that Hillary actually was a liar and that's why that pic says she's a liar.

You threw up one of my quotes and your super-human reading comprehension skills took that completely out of context (if Spence can use that word I can too)

It was in reference to the circus side show that was created around this, not what she said.

So work a little more on those skills, would you please.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unlike POTUS I still have faith in our FBI to do its job regardless of the outcome.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have faith in the FBI as well, but Facebook, Twitter, and other social media pages Being what they are, the facts will be lost in a sea of misinterpretation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any evidence of this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe during the FBI investigation, they'll find out who leaked her name.

Wouldn't that be interesting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The fact that he didn't confide about the event could mean that there was no event occur. Besides confiding is accusing. Confiding would still be an unsubstantiated statement of the accuser. Using the accuser's words as evidence that his accusation is true is circular evidence. That is, it is not actual evidence if it has no corroboration.

So he allegedly attempted to molest and due to age and fear (so common) she didn’t tell anyone, so what evidence are you expecting? That is why the FBI investigation is required, to determine if there were witnesses or a pattern of behavior that can support her claim.

Thousands of boys were molested by their priests, no evidence there, just stories by adults finally having the courage to come forward, you ok believing them without proof?

My X was raped in high school, never told anyone and only therapy decades later allowed her to share the horror and fear. No evidence it ever happened, no way to prove it, but the trembling she exhibited on telling me is proof enough.

Show some empathy, no evidence means nothing, this has been she said vs he said, an investigation is required. I doubt there isn’t a guy alive who acted that way in the past, who would emphatically deny it without proof or any investigation having been done.

ps: I have empathy for his family and even for him if proven to be innocent and she mistook him for someone else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh you’re guessing that it wasn’t the democrats who stabbed her in the back and leaked her name? i’m shocked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And I'm shocked that they you don't believe what she said. Do you have any proof of her lying in other instances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just read the drinking age was 21when Kavanagh was joking about the Devil's Triangle. And if you know what that is it's not a drinking game like he claimed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any evidence of this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well the republicans didn’t have the letter. so there’s that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Her friends knew about the letter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso- let’s make sure we understand what you are saying. if someone accuses me of being a serial gang rapist, and i say “ i would never do that”, that means i’m probably lying?

so people who are falsely accused, need to consult with the communists guide to linguistics, to construct the proper semantics, to come across as believable?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Wasn’t my research also posted that people being falsely accused it not as rampant as people like you suggest . You don’t have an issue shooting holes in her story but take exception to my lying language post and of course throw comunist in the mix you showed me.


So what did you think when he suggested he never passed out he just falls asleep lie white lie or his an angel
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wasn’t my research also posted that people being falsely accused it not as rampant as people like you suggest . You don’t have an issue shooting holes in her story but take exception to my lying language post and of course throw comunist in the mix you showed me.


So what did you think when he suggested he never passed out he just falls asleep lie white lie or his an angel
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it wasn’t any research, it’s as believable as convicting him based on body language. it’s beyond pathetic that you would claim that saying “ i never would” is evidence of guilt. tell that to the cops that al sharpton accused of raping tawanna brawley, tell that to the duke lacrosse players who were convicted by the left in day one, tell that to the UVA student who Rolling Stone accused of rape.

how about next we hear testimony from a fortune teller reading from a ouji board, maybe he was also a rapist in a past life, maybe the senate democrats want to know about that. maybe he was a viking 600 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso- let’s make sure we understand what you are saying. if someone accuses me of being a serial gang rapist, and i say “ i would never do that”, that means i’m probably lying?

so people who are falsely accused, need to consult with the communists guide to linguistics, to construct the proper semantics, to come across as believable?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ask the FBI or a detective and they can explain to you how they interpret people's behavior when they are being interviewed, there are tells, whether you believe it or not.

Ask the FBI or a detective and they can explain to you how they interpret people's behavior when they are being interviewed, there are tells, whether you believe it or not.
I don't think you need to even go that deep. His conspiracy laden attacks on democrats, the left and even the Clintons should be enough to disqualify him.

Here is more information about how to conduct an interview and assess witnesses. Since Dr. Geiselman is an overpaid professor at a for sure liberal institution, this is likely all part of a plot.
"As an investigator, you may find a serving of ‘TEDS PIE’ to be helpful when you’re taking statements about a shooting from involved officers and witnesses.That acronym is offered as a questioning tool by Dr. Edward Geiselman, co-developer of the cognitive interviewing technique and a faculty member for the Force Science Certification Course.

The letters stand for various prompts you can use to probe deeper into a subject’s memories.

Open-ended questions
Cognitive interviewing is a method for gathering descriptive recollections of an event by encouraging an uninterrupted, free-flowing narrative from the person being questioned. In contrast to the stereotypical interrogation approach, the subject in a cognitive interview does about 80 percent of the talking, while the investigator speaks only about 20 percent of the time, primarily by posing open-ended questions that keep the interviewee supplying needed, detailed information.

“Closed-ended questions require only short answers and can signal to the officer or witness that his or her role is to speak only when spoken to during the interview. This can stifle meaty responses,” explained Geiselman, a psychology professor at UCLA. “Responses to open-ended questions tend to be more extensive and are more likely to be accurate,” Geiselman added.

During the subject’s grand narrative, Geiselman said, the cognitive interviewer notes areas that require follow up when the initial story is concluded. “The strategy then is to ask the interviewee to focus his memory and elaborate about one segment of the narrative at a time.

“This follow-up questioning begins with your asking an open-ended question: ‘Can you tell me more about...’ whatever element of the grand narrative — people, places, objects and conversations. — you want to explore in greater depth at that moment.

“The problem is that if you ask this same question over and over as you move through the various sections you want to follow up on, the interview may begin to seem stilted, stale and predictable, and the subject may become annoyed, fatigued, or disinterested.”

Deploying TEDS PIE
That’s where TEDS PIE comes in. It’s a means of prefacing follow-up questions that Geiselman says he learned from investigators with the London Metro Police, an agency that has worked on a number of research projects with the Force Science Institute.

TEDS stands for tell me, explain to me, describe to me and show me and PIE stands for precisely, in detail and exactly.

“By pairing a term from TEDS with a term from PIE, you have a different way of introducing the same open-ended question as you go through the segments you want the interviewee to expand on,” Geiselman said. “You’re still making the same inquiry repeatedly, but it doesn’t appear that way to the subject.”

As a reminder of the effectiveness of cognitive interviewing, he added, “Truthful subjects generally like answering open-ended questions and will work hard to mine their memories for as full an account as possible. Not so much those subjects who need to be deceptive. Overwhelmingly, they prefer closed-ended questions that let them get by with abbreviated statements.”
Lots more here to read if you are interested
https://www.policeone.com/police-products/investigation/articles/7017874-How-this-one-interview-technique-can-beat-lying-suspects/
RELATED ARTICLES
Court rulings on interviews by law enforcement
7 types of witnesses and how to interview them
5 strategies for selecting interrogation themes
Quickly read, analyze, and interpret body language

Yeah, I know he changed sides
David Brock on NBC: “I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.
Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.
But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights.
But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think you need to even go that deep. His conspiracy laden attacks on democrats, the left and even the Clintons should be enough to disqualify him.

this is stupid...he was under oath so he simply told the truth

Pete you really know how to make hair hurt...:wave:

this is stupid...he was under oath so he simply told the truth
I think you’re three years in without a meaningful post...seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think anyone has said she lied

I didn't post the pic because I was implying Ford was a liar I did so because I thought it was hilarious and clever.........but I still love you...

I think you’re three years in without a meaningful post...seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

glad you are taking the time to keep track....:hihi:

This classmate says he committed perjury
https://youtu.be/MLLjYGBWLyo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This classmate says he committed perjury
https://youtu.be/MLLjYGBWLyo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh good...we can lock him up and save everyone a lot of trouble next week :claps:

Certainly if this is important enough to be featured on YouTube......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh good...we can lock him up and save everyone a lot of trouble next week :claps:

While jail time may not be appropriate, lying under oath when you’re trying to become a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court is probably something you’d consider to be a character revelation. And one that we might not love to have decide some of the more important cases involving the constitution in our land.

At this time I feel like he’s a cooked goose. He would have been better served to just come out and play even keeled. The minute he got emotional, you could see him start to lose control of some of his answers.

I’d have probably done the same thing if I were in his shoes...but then again I’d NEVER appoint me to the Supreme Court.

But I do appreciate the man’s honesty about his relationship with beer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about Dr Ford’s selective fear of flying? she can fly on vacation, but not to testify? Her fear of flying is a function of the reason for her going to her destination? That’s creative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it wasn’t any research, it’s as believable as convicting him based on body language. it’s beyond pathetic that you would claim that saying “ i never would” is evidence of guilt. tell that to the cops that al sharpton accused of raping tawanna brawley, tell that to the duke lacrosse players who were convicted by the left in day one, tell that to the UVA student who Rolling Stone accused of rape.

how about next we hear testimony from a fortune teller reading from a ouji board, maybe he was also a rapist in a past life, maybe the senate democrats want to know about that. maybe he was a viking 600 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


https://www.ksl.com/?sid=23594271 7 phrases in a liar's vocabulary

it’s beyond pathetic that you would claim that saying “ i never would” is evidence of guilt.

I never suggested this as evidence of Guilt I suggested you bounce the entire list off both of their testimony and draw your own conclusion... but clearly an OCD Calendar is proof of Truth ??

The minute he got emotional

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know right?...why would a Federal Judge with a spotless record(or anyone for that matter) with a Mom, wife and two young daughters get emotional the day after being publicly accused, during what should be one of the proudest moments of their lives, of having orchestrated "rape trains" ?

I know right?...why would a Federal Judge with a spotless record(or anyone for that matter) with a Mom, wife and two young daughters get emotional the day after being publicly accused, during what should be one of the proudest moments of their lives, of having orchestrated "rape trains" ?


Ian "I’d have probably done the same thing if I were in his shoes.."

you left that out

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=23594271 7 phrases in a liar's vocabulary

it’s beyond pathetic that you would claim that saying “ i never would” is evidence of guilt.

I never suggested this as evidence of Guilt I suggested you bounce the entire list off both of their testimony and draw your own conclusion... but clearly an OCD Calendar is proof of Truth ??

see here’s the difference between us, i never posted anything about a calendar. Never. You posted an idiotic article implying he lied because he said “I’d never”. How about his tie, was that the kind of tie only a rapist would
wear?

you’ve all gone completely, and i mean completely, bonkers. An accusation is not evidence. If the fbi uncovers real evidence, i’ll be the first one saying he’s unfit. until then, this is all politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’ve all gone completely, and i mean completely, bonkers. An accusation is not evidence. If the fbi uncovers real evidence, i’ll be the first one saying he’s unfit. until then, this is all politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would he be "unfit"?

Why would he be "unfit"?
Really you would ask why he is unfit if the FBI uncovered evidence to corroborate her accusations? If she had told authorities then and he was convicted, he would be automatically unfit, why would that change now, just because he cleaned up his act?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really you would ask why he is unfit if the FBI uncovered evidence to corroborate her accusations? If she had told authorities then and he was convicted, he would be automatically unfit, why would that change now, just because he cleaned up his act?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He was a minor then. The FBI would not have investigated it then. The local authorities would not have been given the time, the place, no corroborating witnesses, would not have had anything to investigate beyond her accusation, no prosecutor would have tried to convict him on those grounds. Again, he was a minor and would not have been tried as an adult. His record would have been sealed.

But being "unfit" because of a transgression as a minor, then leading a crimeless life after that, having a record as a judge to review which showed nothing to disqualify him, rather, it showing he was supremely qualified as stated by the bar association, having passed six FBI checks? Being called "unfit" after that seems strange. Especially given how "fit" various politicians and Presidents were to serve, and serve well by many accounts, after having done far worse than Kavanaugh is accused of, and having done them while an adult and actually in office.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkp_2hDVNm0

Call BS, have you not watched the local news, at that age he could very well have been prosecuted as an adult.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Call BS, have you not watched the local news, at that age he could very well have been prosecuted as an adult.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As to your response to ONE of my points, it depends on the alleged crime. Third degree sexual assault in Maryland can refer a minor to adult court. Ms. Ford's description doesn't seem to fully meet the definition of third degree of assault. Also taken into consideration is the defendant's past behavior. Is it a first offense. And is there sufficient evidence that the crime occurred and that the defendant did it.

The overall situation that Ms. Ford describes would be a very weak one in order to refer the case to adult court.

At this point Cavanaugh has bigger problems. It's it's proved he's lied to the committee, that disqualifies him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As to your response to ONE of my points, it depends on the alleged crime. Third degree sexual assault in Maryland can refer a minor to adult court. Ms. Ford's description doesn't seem to fully meet the definition of third degree of assault. Also taken into consideration is the defendant's past behavior. Is it a first offense. And is there sufficient evidence that the crime occurred and that the defendant did it.

The overall situation that Ms. Ford describes would be a very weak one in order to refer the case to adult court.

I think your wrong in that this possibly is a second degree sex offense and could have bumped him up to be tried as an adult, but it's a moot point at this point legally. My point was surprise that your ok with a guy being guilty at 17 of committing a second or even third degree sex offense getting nominated and voted to the supreme court. I guess your moral standards are different than mine, once a scum bag capable of that, down deep your always capable; given the right amount of skiis.

It's it's proved he's lied to the committee, that disqualifies him

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thanks Captain Obvious

Even if you take the sexual assault out of the equation, does he seem to have the temperament and cool to handle some of the most challenging decisions to come; not to mention the blatantly partisan views he ranted about. Sure everyone on this board and the general public are entitled to those partisan views, but the high court is not supposed to have those partisan views.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think your wrong in that this possibly is a second degree sex offense and could have bumped him up to be tried as an adult, but it's a moot point at this point legally. My point was surprise that your ok with a guy being guilty at 17 of committing a second or even third degree sex offense getting nominated and voted to the supreme court.

What Ms. Ford alleges is not specifically a sex act. And as I mentioned there are other mitigating circumstances including first offense, under the influence of alcohol (both parties) and other circumstances which would have required a particularly vindictive judge or prosecutor to bump it to adult court considering the consequences to the future of a minor with no criminal record being convicted in adult court.

Plus, what Ms. Ford provides in detail would not have been enough to press charges.

I guess your moral standards are different than mine, once a scum bag capable of that, down deep your always capable; given the right amount of skiis.


My moral and legal standards don't allow me to call someone a scum bag on hearsay. Nor do I believe that someone having done what he is accused of will always after do or want to repeat such a thing. And when he has 36 years of proper life and superior achievement following what he was supposed to have done, I cannot get myself to call him a scumbag, not morally, legally, or any other way.

And I certainly can't hold Kavanaugh to a higher standard than those politicians who have done worse than he is accused of, even as adults, and while in office, and were still considered not only fit, but highly competent, successful, and admired for their work.

And I don't know what skeletons all the other Justices of the Supreme Court have in their closets. I doubt if they, or if even any, were saints. If the FBI were to fully investigate their intimate pasts, I suspect some bad stuff would be found. But once appointed, and in practice, none seem to be called unfit. Wrong, maybe, but not unfit.

I don't know if my moral standards are different than yours. It may just take more to trigger them.

does he seem to have the temperament and cool to handle some of the most challenging decisions to come

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is stupid...stop repeating talking points...this is the left repeatedly kicking someone in the balls and mocking them for crying

thanks Captain Obvious

Stop trying so hard to be a #^&#^&#^&#^&. I'm not fishing with you anymore
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Even if you take the sexual assault out of the equation, does he seem to have the temperament and cool to handle some of the most challenging decisions to come;

Apparently, his years of service on the Court shows that he does have the judicial temperament.

not to mention the blatantly partisan views he ranted about. Sure everyone on this board and the general public are entitled to those partisan views, but the high court is not supposed to have those partisan views.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is ridiculous to say or think that SCOTUS Justices are not entitled to have partisan views. I don't doubt at all that they all do. It's that they must not insert those views in their judicial thinking or decisions.

It is curious to me that you think they shouldn't have partisan views. If you believe that it is proper to interpret the Constitution by personal views of justice instead of always by the meaning of the text, wouldn't those personal views of justice influence which party they supported and voted for. And, therefor, wouldn't their partisan views help define their view of justice.

Indeed, non-textualist Progressive Justices often do adjudicate by philosophical notions that match Progressive party ideology rather than on the original meaning of the text.

this is stupid...stop repeating talking points...this is the left repeatedly kicking someone in the balls and mocking them for crying

I have no problem with him crying or showing real emotion, clearly that would be normal under the circumstances. I have issues with the opening rant, which may have been more for Trump or his GOP supporters benefit, but was IMHO blatantly partisan and the suggested conspiracy is nuts.

Ford wanted no publicity, in fact the letter was penned when K was only on the short list and not even nominated. Did someone leak it for political reasons, obviously and that I’m sure is a shock to you as it’s so unlike the norm in DC.

That doesn’t diminish the credibility of the original accusations or the reasonable request for an FBI investigation in light of them, no big Clinton deep state conspiracy here🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ian "I’d have probably done the same thing if I were in his shoes.."

you left that out

Just so we’re clear here... that was referring to emotionally replying, not orchestrating rape trains :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just so we’re clear here... that was referring to emotionally replying, not orchestrating rape trains :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

heheheh....good idea to be VERY clear these days with everyone on edge :D

I know right?...why would a Federal Judge with a spotless record(or anyone for that matter) with a Mom, wife and two young daughters get emotional the day after being publicly accused, during what should be one of the proudest moments of their lives, of having orchestrated "rape trains" ?

Being mad is one thing, blaming it on a political hit job which was a favor to the clintons and then lying about other parts of your life is entirely another.

Like I said, I don’t think I can blame him, but the fact that he did what he did certainly hurt his chances of being confirmed.

My bet is that they find out he blacked out over and over and he doesn’t make it through confirmation on the basis of the fact that he lied.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but was IMHO blatantly partisan and the suggested conspiracy is nuts.

[/i][/size]

it's been elected democrats MET AND ORGANIZED, the leftist nuts in costumes and tee shirts, left wing organizations and lawyers and leftist media that have assaulted him since he was nominated....that's why it would be absolutely partisan,,,,good grief there was absolutely a "conspiracy" to thwart his nomination...they didn't hide it at all

lying about other parts of your life is entirely another.


My bet is that they find out he blacked out over and over and he doesn’t make it through confirmation on the basis of the fact that he lied.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did he lie about?...should be pretty easy to demonstrate and send him packing

blaming it on a political hit job which was a favor to the clintons
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is calling for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to be withdrawn following two sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Gillibrand on Sunday tweeted her support for Deborah Ramirez, the woman who hours earlier went public in The New Yorker with her accusations against Kavanaugh. Ramirez is alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself without her consent when the two attended Yale University together in the 1980s.



"Enough is enough," she continued. "One credible sexual assault claim should have been too many "

"Two is an embarrassment," she added.

Stop trying so hard to be a #^&#^&#^&#^&. I'm not fishing with you anymore
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Doesn’t seem like it takes much effort.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did he lie about?...should be pretty easy to demonstrate and send him packing
He seems to have lied about his role in Bush’s admin and about stolen dem documents for a start. Also seems pretty clear he’s misled n his youth not even counting the assault allegations.

But even putting all that aside. His partisan statement on the left, democrats and the Clintons destroys any inkling he could be impartial on the bench.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t know whose house it happened at or even what year it happened. I don’t know if I got there before everyone else or after. I don’t know how I got there or how I got home over 8 miles away (at the age of 15).

My life time friend doesn’t remember any of this ( and the other 3 people I said were there testified under oath they don’t know anything about this).

I have a fear of flying , but have no problem jet-setting all over the world while on vacation. I’ve been on airplanes more in the past two months than most people in a year, but my fear is completely legit.

I don’t know who paid for my hotel and polygraph test( the afternoon of my grandmothers funeral, or maybe it was the next day, who knows). And guess what? I flew there. Oh and that polygraph, it was only two questions, neither of which were about Kavanaugh. But hey, I passed so that’s all that matters. And my PhD in psychology definitely, in no way, helped me with it or my testimony today.

My friends on the beach encouraged me to continue contacting the media with my story (because we were running out of time). I can’t name them, so we’ll just call them beach friends. Yet while giving such great advice, none were willing to be character witnesses. Meanwhile, Judge Kavanaugh had hundreds of character witnesses step up in a matter of days.

My lawyers, out of the kindness of their hearts, are helping me for FREE yet I have a “needed” gofundme page that currently is sitting at $473,622. I’m so desperately in need of help there’s even a second gofundme with $209,987. I promise though I’m not getting anything out of my testimony, that money is just going to cover my expenses.

I’m super smart. I have a PhD and I teach graduate students. I know lots of big words, but it should be totally believable that I don’t understand basic questions.

I was the only person in the United States that didn’t know Congress agreed to come to me instead of me going to DC. They really do care about my flying phobia after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did he lie about?...should be pretty easy to demonstrate and send him packing

There is zero chance he has never drank so much in a night that he doesn’t remember part of the evening. Zero.

He could have easily just been honest about the level of partying he had done in high school/college and still made it in with the amount of partisan support he had.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He seems to have lied about his role in Bush’s admin and about stolen dem documents for a start. He seems to have he’s misled n his youth not even counting the assault allegations.

But even putting all that aside. His partisan statement on the left, democrats and the Clintons destroys any inkling he could be impartial on the bench.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"

"Doesn’t seem like..He seems to have...He seems to have"


yawn

Stop trying so hard to be a #^&#^&#^&#^&. I'm not fishing with you anymore
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your spelling is improving....that's something...and don't worry..I'll buy the beer :D I thought we were "beachfriends"?

There is zero chance he has never drank so much in a night that he doesn’t remember part of the evening. Zero.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is that an opinion?

I don’t know whose house it happened at or even what year it happened. I don’t know if I got there before everyone else or after. I don’t know how I got there or how I got home over 8 miles away (at the age of 15).

My life time friend doesn’t remember any of this ( and the other 3 people I said were there testified under oath they don’t know anything about this).

I have a fear of flying , but have no problem jet-setting all over the world while on vacation. I’ve been on airplanes more in the past two months than most people in a year, but my fear is completely legit.

I don’t know who paid for my hotel and polygraph test( the afternoon of my grandmothers funeral, or maybe it was the next day, who knows). And guess what? I flew there. Oh and that polygraph, it was only two questions, neither of which were about Kavanaugh. But hey, I passed so that’s all that matters. And my PhD in psychology definitely, in no way, helped me with it or my testimony today.

My friends on the beach encouraged me to continue contacting the media with my story (because we were running out of time). I can’t name them, so we’ll just call them beach friends. Yet while giving such great advice, none were willing to be character witnesses. Meanwhile, Judge Kavanaugh had hundreds of character witnesses step up in a matter of days.

My lawyers, out of the kindness of their hearts, are helping me for FREE yet I have a “needed” gofundme page that currently is sitting at $473,622. I’m so desperately in need of help there’s even a second gofundme with $209,987. I promise though I’m not getting anything out of my testimony, that money is just going to cover my expenses.

I’m super smart. I have a PhD and I teach graduate students. I know lots of big words, but it should be totally believable that I don’t understand basic questions.

I was the only person in the United States that didn’t know Congress agreed to come to me instead of me going to DC. They really do care about my flying phobia after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet her testimony is considered "credible."

And yet her testimony is considered "credible."

I was impressed that every democrat, never having met Dr Ford nor hearing her speak before the hearing was able to say "I believe you" and heap all sorts of praise and adulation on her essentially proclaiming her and installing her as a national hero....

:D I thought we were "beachfriends"?

https://i.imgflip.com/14fjby.jpg

is that an opinion?

An increasingly well informed one. We’ll see how factual it is come Friday.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

An increasingly well informed one. We’ll see how factual it is come Friday.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Good luck, seems like the admin isn’t going to let the FBI do their job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good luck, seems like the admin isn’t going to let the FBI do their job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

quit whining:fishslap:

Why would this surprise you
Does the FBI have the latitude needed?

Robert Bauer, who served as the White House counsel to President Obama, said that he had overseen numerous F.B.I. background investigations and never seen one so circumscribed. “The F.B.I. should have the latitude to determine what is necessary in a credible, professional inquiry,” he said. “The issue on the table is, Did he or didn’t he engage in the conduct that Dr. Ford alleged?” To reach the answer, he said, “The F.B.I. needs to utilize its expertise to investigate. But instead the White House has dictated a restricted investigative plan. So it’s contaminated at the core.”

Yup, have an investigation but not investigate every lead.

Even if you take the sexual assault out of the equation, does he seem to have the temperament and cool to handle some of the most challenging decisions to come; not to mention the blatantly partisan views he ranted about. Sure everyone on this board and the general public are entitled to those partisan views, but the high court is not supposed to have those partisan views.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SCOTUS justices are allowed to have the same prejudices and biases as any other human being, as long as the leave them at the door when they put their robes on. Ginsberg and Sotomayor don’t show bias in their personal lives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

K said "what goes around comes around" when he blamed Clinton and the Dems. The way I remember him saying it was that he will get even. You might view it differently.





Justice Elena Kagan talked about perceptions of the court in an appearance at UCLA on Thursday. "The court's strength as an institution of American governance depends on people ... believing that it is not simply an extension of politics, that its decision-making has a kind of integrity to it," Kagan said. "And if people don't believe that they have no reason to accept what the court does."

The court's legitimacy was on the mind of Chief Justice John Roberts during an argument last year in a case about the drawing of electoral maps for partisan advantage. Putting the court in the middle of "deciding whether Democrats or Republicans would win in each case" would "cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this court in the eyes of the country," Roberts said.

SCOTUS justices are allowed to have the same prejudices and biases as any other human being, as long as the leave them at the door when they put their robes on. Ginsberg and Sotomayor don’t show bias in their personal lives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.

That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.

this is a joke right?

Ginsberg and Sotomayor don’t show bias in their personal lives?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nooooo:hihi:

The way I remember him saying it was that he will get even.




you've lost your mind

you've lost your mind

He's a get even guy

Yeah, I know he changed sides
David Brock on NBC: “I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.
Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.
But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights.
But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us."

He's a get even guy

Yeah, I know he changed sides
David Brock on NBC: “I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.
Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.
But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights.
But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us."

This is list of personal opinions. If this is persuasive to you, I can see why you think SCOTUS judgments based on personal preference are perfectly OK.

That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.

His "angry rant," as you characterize it, was not a lie. It was not a judicial interpretation. It was not a legal judgment. It was defending himself against those who are trying to destroy him. The whole charade, as Lindsey Graham rightly called what the Dems were doing, was a politicized attempt to stop Kavanaugh and hold off the nomination until after the midterms. Professor Fords accusation should not have been part of the procedures without being substantiated first. The idea that an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated charge should be used to stop the procedure, and then to delay and delay and delay it, should be, and is, permissible to anyone, including judges, to call it out. Defending yourself against your accusers and those who wish to stop you in a job interview does not disqualify a judge from telling the truth.

It would be unconscionable of a SCOTUS Justice to withhold the truth simply to be politically correct.

This is list of personal opinions. If this is persuasive to you, I can see why you think SCOTUS judgments based on personal preference are perfectly OK.

Of someone who knew him.
Kavanaugh is not standing before a court of law, he is standing before the Senate where opinions and politics are what he will be judged by.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His "angry rant," as you characterize it, was not a lie. It was not a judicial interpretation. It was not a legal judgment. It was defending himself against those who are trying to destroy him. The whole charade, as Lindsey Graham rightly called what the Dems were doing, was a politicized attempt to stop Kavanaugh and hold off the nomination until after the midterms. Professor Fords accusation should not have been part of the procedures without being substantiated first. The idea that an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated charge should be used to stop the procedure, and then to delay and delay and delay it, should be, and is, permissible to anyone, including judges, to call it out. Defending yourself against your accusers and those who wish to stop you in a job interview does not disqualify a judge from telling the truth.

It would be unconscionable of a SCOTUS Justice to withhold the truth simply to be politically correct.

I guess my bulb is diming, but I know you will help set me straight as you always do and I’m always so grateful for the endless wisdom you selflessly share.

If I wanted to derail this nomination and wanted to pick the perfect time to leak the letter, would I not want to do this early on, so as to not risk the GOP controlled senate the opportunity to ram it threw? Had they done so, it more than likely would have meant a far more in depth FBI investigation, than one afforded to them in a short week.

If Flake hadn’t made that last minute move, the vote would have been a done deal more than likely. Again I’m only a dim 60 watt bulb and I’m certain your 150 watt brilliance will shed some light on this dem or Clinton conspiracy plan the was launched at the last minute.

By now if the FBI had weeks and weeks and proof was forthcoming, than the outcome would have been a rest and new pick and nobody seated before the mid terms.

Oh my I’m so confused!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I wanted to derail this nomination and wanted to pick the perfect time to leak the letter, would I not want to do this early on, so as to not risk the GOP controlled senate the opportunity to ram it threw? Had they done so, it more than likely would have meant a far more in depth FBI investigation, than one afforded to them in a short week.


The letter should not have been leaked. It was submitted with the understanding that it wouldn't be. It was a lie to leak it. But that is supposed to be OK. Only if Kavanaugh lies does it matter. Some lies are, apparently, more honest than others.

The "perfect time" to release it, would be when it is verified, corroborated. Otherwise, it is no more useful than a lie.

Making the letter public stirs up the expected rabid media and negative public reaction based on mere accusation without verification. These are the very things that should not be part of deliberations seeking actual facts and records regarding the verifiable qualifications of someone you wish to hire.

There are many reasons for dysfunctional government. Allowing this method of jaccuse to become standard procedure in hearings, campaigns, choosing political appointees, will only make government process more dysfunctional than it already is.

Of someone who knew him.
Kavanaugh is not standing before a court of law, he is standing before the Senate where opinions and politics are what he will be judged by.


There are hundreds of opinions by those who knew and know Kavanaugh that are totally opposite to Brock's. There is a several year actual record of Kavanaugh's quality as a judge, as a husband and father, and as a member of the community. Opinion can matter. But it is still the facts that should ultimately decide.

The fact's in the Constitution are its text.

The facts of a persons Character are the public and legal record of his life as well as the disposition of those currently around him.

The fact's re his qualification as a judge are plainly exposed by his judicial record.

The personal opinion of someone who is ideologically opposed to the party in question and is remembering the past may cast a negative light. But if it is entirely different than a preponderance of other opinions, at best it might moderate to some degree, however small, overall opinion. Or it may just be taken with a grain of salt.

The letter should not have been leaked. It was submitted with the understanding that it wouldn't be. It was a lie to leak it. But that is supposed to be OK. Only if Kavanaugh lies does it matter. Some lies are, apparently, more honest than others.

The "perfect time" to release it, would be when it is verified, corroborated. Otherwise, it is no more useful than a lie.

Making the letter public stirs up the expected rabid media and negative public reaction based on mere accusation without verification. These are the very things that should not be part of deliberations seeking actual facts and records regarding the verifiable qualifications of someone you wish to hire.

There are many reasons for dysfunctional government. Allowing this method of jaccuse to become standard procedure in hearings, campaigns, choosing political appointees, will only make government process more dysfunctional than it already is.

I’m disappointed, I was hoping for the explanation as to why the supposed ploy by the evil dems to delay, delay and delay involved such a late leak of the letter.

All you did was tell me what I already knew, that this poor women’s trust was betrayed by some (not a well coordinated dem-Clinton conspiracy) person who felt getting that information out there was more important.

One staffer likely thinking that was needed to prevent someone accused of attempted rape being confirmed to the highest post in our legal system is probably what happened. So tell me, you buying into his rant claiming that conspiracy is real and that happened, because you seemed to believe so and if so I’d refer you back to me previous post. Also, since we are in agreement (OMG mark the calendar) the letter release was wrong and that now we have an FBI investigation under way, does you opinion of the man change if they come back with enough to support her claim? Or does the actions of a beer drinking party crazed 17 year old not matter when we appoint someone to the highest court in the land; maybe not but would lying about it to the senate sway your vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m disappointed, I was hoping for the explanation as to why the supposed ploy by the evil dems to delay, delay and delay involved such a late leak of the letter.

If Ford's letter was vetted when it was received, the matter, if it was going to involve the FBI, could have been resolved already. If an investigation proved Kavanaugh unfit, Kavanaugh's nomination could have been withdrawn, and a new nomination could have been made and the Senate's deliberations could have been done before the midterm elections. Time is possibly too short for that to happen now, especially if the Dems demand a further expansion of the FBI investigation. If the Dems win the Senate, then they can stop any further nominations. That's one explanation.

All you did was tell me what I already knew, that this poor women’s trust was betrayed by some (not a well coordinated dem-Clinton conspiracy) person who felt getting that information out there was more important.

One staffer likely thinking that was needed to prevent someone accused of attempted rape being confirmed to the highest post in our legal system is probably what happened. So tell me, you buying into his rant claiming that conspiracy is real and that happened, because you seemed to believe so and if so I’d refer you back to me previous post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If that staffer was really motivated by some idea of justice, not politics, why would he/she/it believe it was right to expose, against the writer's wishes, a confused, uncorroborated statement which could destroy lives, including the accuser's as well as the judge's and his family?

If that staffer was really motivated by some idea of justice, not politics, why would he/she/it believe it was right to expose, against the writer's wishes, a confused, uncorroborated statement which could destroy lives, including the accuser's as well as the judge's and his family?

See now there you go, telling me what I know, what you know and not answering either of my questions. I know the difference between right and wrong, I've already agreed the release against her will was wrong; you can give that a rest now.

You seemed to be agreeing with K's rant and the GOP position that this entire process was a staged and calculated ploy by the Dem's and if we can believe it Clinton's revenge. I see it as maybe a simple case of one staffer leaking a letter that they probably in hindsight, shouldn't have even had access to, yet that water is over the dam and down river.

So I wanted clarification from you on why you think this was all a calculated ploy to leak a letter last minute, in order to stall the confirmation and affect the mid terms. I made the case, that if that's a plan, it's not a very well thought out one; an early release and early detailed FBI probe would have been far more effective at doing just that.

Then in my last post and since the cat is out of the bag, with an FBI investigation underway; I asked if they presented evidence to support her claim, would that change your opinion of the man or his right I guess to win confirmation.

I guess I'm looking to see if that were to happen, if him lying about the incident would sway your vote, or do you feel is it just a stupid 17 year old getting too liquored up and acting inappropriate and we should move on.

Who got accused with attempted rape?

Please share this information Got Stripers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I got to give it to him he does have good taste in music. I called a friend to see if we were at that show as we did see UB40 there once.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See now there you go, telling me what I know, what you know and not answering either of my questions. I know the difference between right and wrong, I've already agreed the release against her will was wrong; you can give that a rest now.

You brought up the release and I was answering your question re it.

You seemed to be agreeing with K's rant and the GOP position that this entire process was a staged and calculated ploy by the Dem's and if we can believe it Clinton's revenge.

I didn't bring up Clinton's revenge. The Dem ploy was, rightly or wrongly, obvious to me. Didn't need what you refer to as a rant.

I see it as maybe a simple case of one staffer leaking a letter that they probably in hindsight, shouldn't have even had access to, yet that water is over the dam and down river.

You can give that a rest now.

So I wanted clarification from you on why you think this was all a calculated ploy to leak a letter last minute, in order to stall the confirmation and affect the mid terms.

I gave you one explanation.

I made the case, that if that's a plan, it's not a very well thought out one; an early release and early detailed FBI probe would have been far more effective at doing just that.

It's not the first time a not very well thought out plan was attempted.

Then in my last post and since the cat is out of the bag, with an FBI investigation underway; I asked if they presented evidence to support her claim, would that change your opinion of the man or his right I guess to win confirmation.

I guess I'm looking to see if that were to happen, if him lying about the incident would sway your vote, or do you feel is it just a stupid 17 year old getting too liquored up and acting inappropriate and we should move on.

No, it would not sway my vote. I certainly have considered that Kavanaugh may be lying about what happened. I have also considered, for some time now, probably the Clinton episode (episodes) was the final straw, that lying (and doing it well) has become a prerequisite to survival in our corrupt milieu of the politics of personal destruction. And studying the past, as I have been doing for the past two decades or so of American politics, and by extension world politics, the beautiful myths of honesty and honor, and idealistic moral character have been exaggerated. "In the course of human events" such as wars, revolutions, political battles, creation of societies, and the search for freedom, those who are totally pure of heart, and never, ever, deceive, even for good and right ends, are prone to lose battles--maybe become martyrs, righteous models, saints, the essence of honor and truth used to persuade new generations to support some cause which inevitably is populated with various malcontents and dissemblers who know how to stir up a crowd with high notions of which they themselves are not purely capable of totally emulating.

I don't doubt that every Senator, lawyer, apparatchik in that room where Kavanaugh was being questioned, lied or were lying about some important incident that promoted their success or saved them from failing.

I am more concerned with the ideological direction of the Supreme Court than in the personal purity of the judges. I would rather have a low level scoundrel who would uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights than have the most honest socialist, communist, or Progressive for whom the Constitution is a living, breathing means to create a version of unlimited government.

No, it would not sway my vote. I certainly have considered that Kavanaugh may be lying about what happened. I have also considered, for some time now, probably the Clinton episode (episodes) was the final straw, that lying (and doing it well) has become a prerequisite to survival in our corrupt milieu of the politics of personal destruction. And studying the past, as I have been doing for the past two decades or so of American politics, and by extension world politics, the beautiful myths of honesty and honor, and idealistic moral character have been exaggerated. "In the course of human events" such as wars, revolutions, political battles, creation of societies, and the search for freedom, those who are totally pure of heart, and never, ever, deceive, even for good and right ends, are prone to lose battles--maybe become martyrs, righteous models, saints, the essence of honor and truth used to persuade new generations to support some cause which inevitably is populated with various malcontents and dissemblers who know how to stir up a crowd with high notions of which they themselves are not purely capable of totally emulating.

I don't doubt that every Senator, lawyer, apparatchik in that room where Kavanaugh was being questioned, lied or were lying about some important incident that promoted their success or saved them from failing.

I am more concerned with the ideological direction of the Supreme Court than in the personal purity of the judges. I would rather have a low level scoundrel who would uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights than have the most honest socialist, communist, or Progressive for whom the Constitution is a living, breathing means to create a version of unlimited government.

The second half of your statement seems poorly thought out. I’m going to assume there was a better way to state what you intended and given time, you might clarify that statement.

Because I’d surely rather trust a justice I vehemently disagree with (John Roberts for example) but whose values and reason seem well equipped then someone whose aren’t surely can’t be trusted to “uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights” with any degree of confidence, regardless of the side of the political spectrum you align with.

If what you say is in fact what you’ve meant, a lot of the clever stabs you make around here regarding your respect for the constitution, the rule of law and our ability to govern ourselves just got a lot cheaper.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do you feel is it just a stupid 17 year old getting too liquored up and acting inappropriate and we should move on.



there is no evidence that this even/ever happened

imagine how the dems would treat Dr Ford if she was accusing a democrat nominee or politician....I wonder if they'd find her "credible".....I suspect she'd be the one getting the anal exam and every aspect of her life overturned...yet we know almost nothing about the accuser except we believe her whoever she is

left is in full smear mode....should be a fun week :hihi:

The second half of your statement seems poorly thought out. I’m going to assume there was a better way to state what you intended and given time, you might clarify that statement.

Because I’d surely rather trust a justice I vehemently disagree with (John Roberts for example) but whose values and reason seem well equipped then someone whose aren’t surely can’t be trusted to “uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights” with any degree of confidence, regardless of the side of the political spectrum you align with.

If what you say is in fact what you’ve meant, a lot of the clever stabs you make around here regarding your respect for the constitution, the rule of law and our ability to govern ourselves just got a lot cheaper.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I thought that Kavanaugh would not adjudicate by original constitutional text, I would not vote for him even if it were proven that his character was as pure as the white of newly driven snow. Nor would I vote for a judge with a record of Progressive judicial review even if his character was proven so to be.

Kavanaugh's record as a judge gives me as much confidence as I could reasonably be expected to have, that he is a textual originalist.

Good character is a wonderful thing. But at the eleventh hour, when the choice is Kavanaugh with a tainted past he's lied about, or someone picked by a Progressive President choosing on the basis of a judge's past record of Progressive jurisprudence, I'll take Kavanaugh in a heartbeat.

And especially so since it appears that Kavanaugh is no longer, nor has been for several years, the person he is portrayed by some as being when he was 17 years old.

I do not want to be judged now by how I acted as a teenager. And I am not interested in what any of our judges or politicians (the difference between those becoming less discernable as the Court has been shifting toward Progressive ideology) were like as teenagers. Some of the most aggressive and sexually loose men I've known during teen years became the most loving and trustworthy men in their adult years, especially as they married and had children.

I don't mean to be "clever" in my "respect for the constitution, the rule of law and our ability to govern ourselves." I passionately wish to preserve those things. That is why I want to retard and reverse the trend of our federal government becoming, as simply put as some would say, too big for its britches--its britches being the Constitution. If it is allowed to continue on the path of not only intruding in every aspect of our lives, but dictating how we must live, then the Constitution, and the ability to govern ourselves will become a museum piece to be admired as some quaint relic no longer relevant to some currently proscribed society. And we will be ruled by a law that has no limits or boundaries in its ability to define what we can do and who we are.

That may be "extreme" to some, but I think the Constitution as originally meant to be understood is the most moderate structure of an actual practicing government ever conceived. It is, for me, a most reasonable dividing line between lawlessness and tyranny.

Again, I don't see Kavanaugh as a threat to the Constitution. I may be wrong about that. But I don't think I am wrong about the threat of jurists from a Progressive persuasion. Perhaps you could persuade me otherwise. I have asked for that discussion many times on this forum. No one from the left or so-called "center" seems to want to engage in that dialogue.

Will you?

there is no evidence that this even/ever happened

imagine how the dems would treat Dr Ford if she was accusing a democrat nominee or politician....I wonder if they'd find her "credible".....I suspect she'd be the one getting the anal exam and every aspect of her life overturned...yet we know almost nothing about the accuser except we believe her whoever she is

left is in full smear mode....should be a fun week :hihi:

Franken, Kihuen, Esty, Conyers
But then you have Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Franken, Kihuen, Esty, Conyers
But then you have Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

lot's of actual evidence in all of those....adults, in office behaving badly....


Nancy Pelosi regarding Conyers...

“Just because someone is accused — was it one accusation? Was it two?

lot's of actual evidence in all of those....adults, in office behaving badly....


Nancy Pelosi regarding Conyers...

“Just because someone is accused — was it one accusation? Was it two?

Are they still in office?

Why doesn't the FBI want to talk to Kerry Berchem?

Who got accused with attempted rape?

Please share this information Got Stripers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One of the legal websites pieces pretty much mirrors her testimony, but maybe in your mind he needed to actually finish the dead.

"Evidence showing an accused person’s voluntary attempt to remove complainant’s clothes to expose his/her private parts would be sufficient to support conviction for attempted rape, even though no further actions were taken to commit an offense of rape."

No, it would not sway my vote. I certainly have considered that Kavanaugh may be lying about what happened. I have also considered, for some time now, probably the Clinton episode (episodes) was the final straw, that lying (and doing it well) has become a prerequisite to survival in our corrupt milieu of the politics of personal destruction. And studying the past, as I have been doing for the past two decades or so of American politics, and by extension world politics, the beautiful myths of honesty and honor, and idealistic moral character have been exaggerated. "In the course of human events" such as wars, revolutions, political battles, creation of societies, and the search for freedom, those who are totally pure of heart, and never, ever, deceive, even for good and right ends, are prone to lose battles--maybe become martyrs, righteous models, saints, the essence of honor and truth used to persuade new generations to support some cause which inevitably is populated with various malcontents and dissemblers who know how to stir up a crowd with high notions of which they themselves are not purely capable of totally emulating.

I don't doubt that every Senator, lawyer, apparatchik in that room where Kavanaugh was being questioned, lied or were lying about some important incident that promoted their success or saved them from failing.

I am more concerned with the ideological direction of the Supreme Court than in the personal purity of the judges. I would rather have a low level scoundrel who would uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights than have the most honest socialist, communist, or Progressive for whom the Constitution is a living, breathing means to create a version of unlimited government.

I'd agree DC has become a good old boy and girl club, where partisan politics rule the day, Flatks comments about him never pulling that for fear of party retribution if he were running again is proof enough. So if he lied and in front of the senate, where he is running for the highest court in the land, you are ok with that series of lies because they all do it. That's a sad commentary on acceptance of what our system has become and being ok with just throwing another lier into the system. Now I'm going to grant you, he has yet to be proven a lyer, but I found her testimony far more believable than his denial.

Would it be rape if she simply blew him?
Fondling is not attempted rape
Grabbing ass is not attempted rape
Gather yourself and come up for air
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now I'm going to grant you, he has yet to be proven a lyer,

the most sensible thing you've written in a while..sort of


but I found her testimony far more believable than his denial.

I'm pretty confident it you had 100 people that were unaware of the history, partisan nature of the time prior and they watched her performance and were asked afterward if they thought she was a doctor or a patient...100 would say patient....now you can say something similar about Kavanaugh in the afternoon but the obvious difference was that he'd been under and was continuing to under go vicious assault by some of the most loathsome people on the planet while she was getting a baby oil rub down :kewl:

Would it be rape if she simply blew him?
Fondling is not attempted rape
Grabbing ass is not attempted rape
Gather yourself and come up for air
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you understand the "r" word is now banned...that's three strikes :hihi:

I see that now that Lindsay Graham decided to act like a conservative for once, the left hates him again and is making fun of him for being gay. I've seen this a few times in the last few days, including on Saturday Night Live, and by Bill Maher, Rosie O'Donnell, and Bill Maher.

So does the left consider it an insult to be gay now? When did gay become a liberal weapon to use against enemies?

It's kind of hard to keep track of what's acceptable and what's not, when the goal posts might as well be on a carnival Tilt-A-Wheel ride, they're moving around so fast.

When did gay become a liberal weapon to use against enemies?



everything is a political weapon for the left and their media accomplices...they are political terrorists, they like having everyone live in fear of their attacks and retribution

Who's chasing the laser pointer now?


:easy:

everything is a political weapon for the left and their media accomplices...they are political terrorists, they like having everyone live in fear of their attacks and retribution

i know, it’s just funny, the left pats themselves on the back for advocating for gay rights, but now it’s acceptable to make fun of people you suspect to be gay? or is it only acceptable to weaponize homosexuality against conservatives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Would it be rape if she simply blew him?
Fondling is not attempted rape
Grabbing ass is not attempted rape
Gather yourself and come up for air
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you had a daughter reporting a boy forced himself on top of me and tried to take off my clothes and was grinding into me and touching me all over, then put his hand across my mouth when I attempted to call out for help, I'm pretty sure you'd not dismiss it as just a little boy horse play and ass grabbing. And what if she hand not been able to get away, what if he was just a bit less shattered and had more control, the story might have had a far different ending.

If you had a daughter reporting a 180 lb boy forced himself on top of me and tried to take off my clothes and was grinding into me and touching me all over, then put his hand across my mouth when I attempted to call out for help, I'm pretty sure you'd not dismiss it as just a little boy horse play and ass grabbing. And what if she hand not been able to get away, what if he was just a bit less shattered and had more control, the story might have had a far different ending.

in most states you could call that assault and unlawful restraint. But you need some evidence, at least some. An accusation isn’t evidence. remember the duke lacrosse players?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

lot's of actual evidence in all of those....adults, in office behaving badly....


Nancy Pelosi regarding Conyers...

“Just because someone is accused — was it one accusation? Was it two?

What was the evidence with Franken?