He is the vice chairman at the Democratic National Committee. And like Kavanaugh, he has been accused by a woman, of assault and domestic violence. And unlike Kavanaugh, no one on the left is concluding he's guilty and should be denied a job in public service.

Very similar circumstances between Ellison and Kavanaugh, very very different conclusions reached by most liberals. What do you think?

And sorry I didn't say it immediately, I respect your post (not the part calling me blind), it was uncommonly honest. Not uncommon for you, uncommon for all of us.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/176842...y-general-race

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ends-democrat/

He's not being charged in a criminal court, I'm not sure how due process really applies in a legal sense in this case. I do think it's fair to ensure the allegation is properly looked into now that it's out in the open.

I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison.

I think one difference here is that Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story, offering evidence but refusing to produce it etc...

"I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison."

Ahhhh, you dodging skills are second to none.

"Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story"

Mrs Fords version that she is telling today, differs from what she told her therapist, so she is also apparently changing her story. She's having trouble remembering where and when it happened, isn't it possible she's misremembering the who as well? This is exactly why we have statutes of limitations.

I asked my wife and daughter.

No was their answer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist. As for her making a mistake on the assailant, that's what an investigation would be for. I don't think she would have come forward unless she personally was sure it was him.

In the Ellison case the initial allegation was actually made by her son which she eventually went along with. She's told the press multiple stories about a video that would prove her story and that she wouldn't give it to them anyway...it's all very strange.

"The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist"

True, or it could be a mistake by her.

Spence, Kavanaugh's best ability to prove innocence, would be to show he was somewhere else at the time. How can he begin to do that, when the accuser can't specify the when and the where? There's literally no possible way to defend himself against this.

It's a morally disgusting tactic, but politically very shrewd. No one knows how to bring a gun to a knife fight, like a liberal.

Oh, OK, you don't believe Ellison's accuser because her story is strange. But nothing strange about sending a letter, telling the senate to hold onto it while the FBI is doing a background check, not mentioning it during 38 hours of questioning. Nah, that's normal, at least by current liberal standards.

If I was Trump, if there's another vacancy (please Ginsberg), I'd go out of my way to fill it with the person that the liberals would hate the most, someone who would make them beg Trump to re-nominate Kavanaugh.. "Ability to infuriate liberals", would be near the top of my list of attributes I'd look for.

Your side won big by fighting dirty against honorable men like McCain and Romney. They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers.

That's why you have professionals like the FBI conduct an investigation. They would interview her several times, see if her story changes, talk to others she went to school with, see if there's any corroborating evidence. They might find something or they may simply say there's not enough to form a conclusion.

But the standard here isn't the same as for a crime.

I'd say usually it's just the opposite. Dems have a habit of asking "oops, did I hit you too hard?"

I think it's very strange that she says she has a video and text messages that prove her story but she can't find them or it would be too embarrassing. That doesn't pass the smell test with flying colors.

My understanding is she didn't want the exposure, it wasn't until a staffer leaked that the memo existed that it was made public. Could be a ruse, no idea.

This doesn't surprise me, sounds like a good basis for leadership.

You continue to have a pretty jaundiced view of things. Also, it's better so say that "we're" lucky he's limited by separation of powers. We'll see how long even that lasts.

"They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers."
And that is my big concern, why did Trump go off the Federalist list and pick Kavanaugh? The biggest Washington insider
Trump doesn't want to take a chance on being indicted.
He'd just as soon be president for life like some of the people he admires and then have his children succeed him.
Of course you find an issue with the only Muslim in Congress, is he being appointed to a lifetime position also? :whackin:

what muslim in congress are you talking about? keith ellison isn’t in congress. but it sounds like you’re saying it’s wrong to believe a man is guilty, if he’s a muslim? so kavanaugh usnoresumed guilty, but not ellison because
muslims get special treatment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if this woman shows up with an envelope with a hair in it and claims it's kavanaugh's nothing will happen?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, sure. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh.

I'm sure everyone will be like... "wow...you kept a hair in an envelope for 36 years...that's really impressive!"

Straight or a “Curly”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I asked a friend of mine who went to Georgetown
He said what happens in Georgetown stays in Georgetown and👎🏽
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for the insight
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hilary Clinton, who went on national TV and slut shamed her husbands victims ( called them looney tunes) was on manbc last night, telling the country ( well, at least telling the 14 viewers), that we all must show compassion and empathy to the victims of sexual assault. Naturally the host wasn’t about to mention the irony.

The liberal descent into total madness, is just about complete. They are truly unhinged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So apparently 13 other people besides you watched?
Some are concerned about the Trumplicans total submission while claiming we don’t really think it’s ok and don’t agree with everything but who’s gonna miss out on great head? We’re Getting what we want, so what if it’s ugly.
The morning will come sooner or later and you’ll be wishing you had chewed your arm off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i see you said absolutely nothing, about the irony i pointed out. when did hilary become concerned with victims is sexual assaults? Because she showed no such concern when she used her pulpit to attack her husbands victims, and there was dna evidence to show he was guilty, not just a witch hunt as might be the case here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=4LWPcEo2gV0



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=4LWPcEo2gV0

appropriate

But you expect bad behavior out of Dems. So why aren't
the Rebub. setting a good example and having the FBI investigate (like they did w/A. Hill)? If either she or he lies to the FBI, prosecute them. If the FBI finds that there credible evidence/belief that K may have done what she claims, then have a hearing w/any witnesses both parties want to present. If they find she is crazy, say that and the vote can proceed.

democrats are the perfect example of why you should never negotiate with terrorists

Jim can you stop bringing this up.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...iously-attack/

You dodged my question again, but I will show yo a courtesy you won't show me.

If I was Trump, I'd give 10 FBI agents a week to look into it, (which wouldn't be enough, they'd demand the investigation last until after the midterms) and that would be it, no more delays. If it turned up nothing, I'd be tempted to send the bill for the agents' time to the accuser, but wouldn't go that far.

Additional question, why in gods name didn't Feinstein ask the FBI to look into this, when she knew they were doing a background check on him? Spence has answered that question by saying they wanted to respect her privacy. Unfortunately for Spence, that weak argument is destroyed by the fact that the democrats are the ones who leaked her identity, to the press of all people. So they didn't want to share her identity with the FBI, but they gave it to the press? That makes all kinds of sense, I mean it's chock full of logic.

On national TV, she claimed that Bill hadn't done anything to these women (in other words, they were lying), but rather, he was framed by the vast right wing conspiracy, dun-dun-dun!!

Naturally, Maddow wasn't about to challenge Hilary on the hypocrisy.

How am I wrong? She didn't say they were all lying, when she blamed it all on the GOP? When did she say we needed to have empathy for them, listen to their stories, feel their pain?

or turn your back on a crazy person with a weapon....

and the fbi has explicitly addressed that the investugatedbthe anita hill case. the fbi said Hills allegation wasn’t 35 years old, wasn’t missing all the details that Fords accusation is missing, and that Hill was eager to testify under oath. take it for what it’s worth, that’s what they’re saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the fbi also said this is typical mo for democrats

How did I dodge your question when I don't think you asked me a question?

So your saying the FBI doesn't want to investigate? They easily could be ordered to by the Pres. or the committee.

But she did have Vince Foster and Seth Rich killed and belongs to a satanic cult. Never mind her participating in a child sex ring where they entice the kids w/free pizza.

The I stands for investigation, that’s what they do.
There’s enough people who went to Georgetown and Holton Arms at that time that you could ascertain if there is anything to the allegation.
A Senate confirmation hearing is not a court hearing or an election.
It is one of the duties of the Senate to determine the suitability of candidates submitted by the president for appointments based on their judgment as the most august body of elected citizens in this republic.
It has not and should not be a rubber stamp for the will of the president
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who in the FBI said this, and when and where?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're (as usual) conflating events.

He made it up. All the FBI needs to investigate is a green light from POTUS.

President Donald Trump has said the FBI doesn't want to investigate Christine Blasey Ford's assertion that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her, and that it's "not what they do."

In fact, the FBI could certainly investigate Ford's claim, but only if the White House asks the bureau to do so. She has no authority to request it. Neither does the Senate.

When the FBI conducts a background investigation of a presidential nominee, it vacuums up all kinds of information about the nominee, including claims from people interviewed by agents, and dumps it into the file. It does not, however, investigate whether or not derogatory information is true — unless it's asked to follow up by the White House. Several current and former Justice Department and FBI officials say this has always been the practice, and there is actually a longstanding formal memorandum of understanding between DOJ and the White House that specifies these limits.

The Senate cannot ask the FBI to investigate Ford's allegations that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a high school party more than 30 years ago, because Kavanaugh is the president's nominee, not the Senate's.

Here's another way to think about it. In doing background investigations, the FBI is acting as an agent of the White House. That's a separate role from its responsibility to investigate crimes. The Senate can always ask the FBI to investigate a potential crime that it becomes aware of, but it can't direct the FBI to investigate the background of a presidential nominee.

And in this case, even assuming Ford's allegation to be true, there's no suggestion of a federal crime, quite apart from the statute of limitations issue. So the FBI has no independent authority to open a criminal investigation. Its only role here would be to re-open the Kavanaugh background investigation.

democrats like to kick you in the nuts and then demand civility

not like keeping a dress with a load on it . hasn't all ready happen :kewl:

she was a democrat :jester: