Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1151188)

I like how republicans can still support sexual abusers when they are republicans but can move to impeach a president who had consensual relationships .....

Stay classy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1151188)

I like how republicans can still support sexual abusers when they are republicans but can move to impeach a president who had consensual relationships .....

Stay classy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151184)

politically...well done.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1151193)

because in American politics...thanks primarily to the dems over the years...there are no rules, no decency.... no low that is ever too low too low if the result is "well done" politically....it's only "ends justify the means"....repubs better know and understand this and declare war...

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1151188)

I like how republicans can still support sexual abusers when they are republicans but can move to impeach a president who had consensual relationships .....

Stay classy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1151196)

Using a Spence line: Some people are saying that Fienstein had this information for months and sat on it. If this is true that she waited isn't that hypocritical that she wants justice?

Using a Spence line: I'm hearing that the accuser is a super progressive SJW type which further offers the chance this is a ruse.

In High School I was accused of raping a girl at a dance. I was the primary subject for 4 or 5 days. I was half a mile away drinking (somewhat legally) with my HS Crush and several of our friends when this "rape" happened. So I know "girls" can lie, she eventually admitted she'd made it up. I also know enough of "boys" can lie about stuff like this too.

Do I think that girl that accused me falsely over 30 years ago rehabilitated herself? Sure hope so. She almost ruined my life at that point. If she ran for office or were to appointed to a court - should I bring this forth?

Are we going to hold allegations from High School as tests of character today?

How many of you fine folks of superb character going to stand up to your screwing up as a teenage boy in High School?

Lastly. Seems like EVERYTHING Democrats do is like a tantrum of a 4 year old. We're gonna die if this happens. OMG Handmaidens Tale. If you don't agree with me you are a Nazi. You are all Fascist.

No matter WHO or what, I no longer think Dems cannot be trusted. The way Dems act it is impossible to know if they are telling the truth or lying. Reps are not much better but noit as bad as Dems.

I don't think we can fix this. I hope I am wrong.










How is he a sexual abuser?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151198)

Funny that the accuser didn't care that Kavanaugh was nominated to he DC Court of Appeals.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1151200)

Probably wasn't aware until his nomination made big news.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151184)

from an ethical and feminist perspective, the democrats were very sleazy holding onto this during his fbi background check and the entire hearing ( though likely the gop would have done the same). from a political perspective, it was brilliant.

if the gop ignores this, it gives the dems something else to include in their message in their midterms, namely, that they will try to decrease our take home pay, and they care more about assault victims ( though not enough to report it within two months of receiving the complaint).

politically...well done.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1151202)

It could have also been held on the request of the accuser. I doubt anyone wants to step into the spotlight like this...they could have held it back until they needed it as a measure of last resort.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151198)

I am not sure it's fixable either. We need ethical leaders in both parties who would truly rather lose honorably than win by cheating. It's hard to imagine getting to that point, from where we are.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1151204)

We need term limits and to take the money and the domination by lawyers out of politics.
It is that simple.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151203)

The accuser claims to have told a psychiatrist there were 4 people in the room, her letter to Feinstein says there was one person in the room, and that one person denies that there was an assault. There is no credibility here, none, although something else can come to light.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1151206)

The psychiatrist rapidly writing things down could have simply made a mistake. I think the fact that there is 6 year old documentation of an event makes it unlikely the entire thing is a fabrication although it also doesn't mean it's true. She reportedly passed a polygraph test also.

That the witness denies it doesn't kill the story as he has every motive to lie.

That being said, given how hard these guys partied in school it's possible neither remembers anything about it.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151207)

Is it also possible that this is pure political BS?

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1151208)

Unlikely for the reasons I cited above.


Sure, he wrote a book that goes into their their hard partying days. If it could have resulted in an assault that doesn't look good for him.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1151206)

That the witness denies it doesn't kill the story as he has every motive to lie.
.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1151204)

We need term limits and to take the money and the domination by lawyers out of politics.
It is that simple.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151210)

So we are all responsible for the actions of those who drank with us in high school? If I'm at a party hanging out with my friends, and someone who I have nothing to do with commits a crime, that says something about me? What, exactly?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151211)

The FBI does a background check on the nominee. Why wasn't the letter given to the FBI, at that time?

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1151212)

Personal donations of $100 max. No Corps, No PACs, no Unions

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1151204)

We need term limits and to take the money and the domination by lawyers out of politics.
It is that simple.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1151215)

How would she have known the FBI was performing a background check? Even then, if he wasn't charged at the time the FBI wouldn't have had anything to find, it's a background check for items on the record.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151219)

And you know this how, exactly? They don't make any additional inquiries? And IF that's true, that's more reason for Feinstein to have gotten this on the record before they started the check.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1151220)

There's only so much research they can do...what are they supposed to interview every person he's ever had contact with?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151221)

Not yet anyway, but in short order, your side will make sexual assault accusations as utterly meaningless as they have already made racism accusations.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151221)

I agree they can't spend 100 years looking., But it sounds like you completely made it up, when you said they can only investigate what's already on the record.

I doubt anyone, on either side, would consider it frivolous to investigate a sexual assault complaint. Not yet anyway, but in short order, your side will make sexual assault accusations as utterly meaningless as they have already made racism accusations.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1151225)

you win, Jim

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1151226)

He should have picked a woman

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1151230)

He should have picked whoever was most qualified, regardless of skin pigmentation or genetalia. Stop with the identity politics for two seconds.

Why is having a penis, a negative attribute in a SCOTUS justice? Please explain?

Originally Posted by DZ (Post 1151231)

This troubles me as does every sexual assault accusation. Be interesting to see what proof she has that she was assaulted.

He obviously has been painted as someone with unparalleled integrity based on the testimony we've heard about. If it comes down to a
"he said/she said" argument he would prevail (unless of course more women start coming out).

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1151232)

There are some qualified women and it automatically disarms one argument. Of course it may not have worked, just like Merrick Garland didn't.

Currently it is a political appointment, certainly with this president. Notice Kavanaugh wasn't on the list...........

"Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled a list of 11 judges he would consider nominating to fill the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, an unusual move for a presidential candidate that underscores his efforts to appeal to conservatives.

The list includes: Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.
In a statement, Trump said he planned to use the list "as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices" and said the names are "representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value."
The announcement is the latest example of Trump's unorthodox campaign. Presidential candidates rarely mention specific people they would nominate and instead often talk about the profile of potential nominees. But Trump was questioned during the Republican primary campaign about his allegiance to conservative causes and releasing the list could quell those concerns."

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1151215)

How would she have known the FBI was performing a background check? Even then, if he wasn't charged at the time the FBI wouldn't have had anything to find, it's a background check for items on the record.