kavanaughs accuser comes forward

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Nebe]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

he’s not a sexual abuser. there has been an accusation. there could have been an investigation, but the dems in congress held into it for political reasons. is that classy nebe? how does kavanaugh go about defending himself? there weren’t video cameras everywhere back then.

meanwhile the democrats are +8 in the latest nationwide generic
poll, and that is increasing. the have serious, serious momentum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

and clinton was impeached and disbarred, for lying under oath, not for cheating.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

clinton was also accused not just of assault, but of rape.

[JohnR]

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.

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

How is he a sexual abuser?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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?

Very, very sorry you went through that John.

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.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

politically...well done.

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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...

allnthat matters is that they win, how they win is meaningless. the gop understands we’ll enough to nominate the only presidential candidate who had any chance of weathering this storm.

did this woman ( a democrat college professor naturally) tell anyone at the time? and can someone ask diane feinstein why she sat on this until the last minute of the hearing?

it’s also worth noting that as far as i know, law enforcement has decided there’s nothing there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Here's what should be th eend of this. The accuser named a witness to the assault. The witness has come forward and vehemently denied that the assault took place.

This is all a joke. A pathetic joke.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-...-of-misconduct

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Fair enough.

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.

In every possible sense except the political, this is, as you would say, a nothingburger, a non-starter. Unfortunately for Kavanaugh and his kids, the political sense is all that matters now.

He still gets confirmed, and then the party of the Clintons and the Kennedys will tell America that they care about chivalry.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Is it also possible that this is pure political BS?

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

He does? He was a witness not a participant.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Is it also possible that this is pure political BS?

Unlikely for the reasons I cited above.

He does? He was a witness not a participant.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

The nominee is portrayed as a threat to Roe V Wade, so the left also has every motive to lie and derail his nomination.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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.

[Pete F.]

He should have picked a woman

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He should have picked a woman

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?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

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."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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."

"There are some qualified women "

Agreed.

"automatically disarms one argument."

OK, I see what you mean, for political ease of confirmation, maybe he should have picked a woman. That's really smart actually, you're right.

[scottw]

yeah because they would have been nice to a woman....pleeeese....


democrats love to play dirty then whine about civility

[DZ]

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).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by DZ

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).

He'd prevail in a court of law no question. This is politics. If 1 or 2 senators flip because they don't want to be seen as insensitive to victims, that's all it takes, and that's probably what's behind all this.

[spence]

Originally Posted by DZ

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).

I don't know. If they both testify and she comes off as credible it could be enough to derail his appointment. I also found it interesting he said today he wasn't at that party...if a single person fingers him as being there he's likely done.

Generally speaking I don't like things playing out like this bug given how hard the GOP worked to hide his record I guess it's the bed they made. I'd still like some answers on how he went from being deeply in debt to instantly paying off all his bills and buying a nice house in about 12 months just in time for his nomination.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't know. If they both testify and she comes off as credible it could be enough to derail his appointment. I also found it interesting he said today he wasn't at that party...if a single person fingers him as being there he's likely done.

Generally speaking I don't like things playing out like this bug given how hard the GOP worked to hide his record I guess it's the bed they made. I'd still like some answers on how he went from being deeply in debt to instantly paying off all his bills and buying a nice house in about 12 months just in time for his nomination.

"If they both testify and she comes off as credible it could be enough to derail his appointment."

Well she named a "witness" who vehemently denies the event, so there goes much of her credibility. But to you, people who help the accusation will have instant credibility, people who refute the accusation instantly have some ulterior motive. Have you noticed that?

"if a single person fingers him as being there he's likely done.'

Yes, especially if the person who puts him there, is the CEO of Planned Parenthood. Let's let her decide.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

and why do the dems care lets be realistic it happen in High school ...

Conservatives dont care!! it does not matter to them .. the guy is on their Team just look at Trump he is a sexual abuser! and they dont care ..the GOP haven't Sailed on the USS morality for decades

Because there is a Statute of Limitations. That and this smells like something fabricated. So at best it comes down to a he said she said.

If there was something today (I don't know if you have kids) and something like this happened to one of yours you would want it followed through and investigated.

Oh, and the GOP surely does not corner the market in Sexual Abusers. It is something bad people do and there is no shortage of either in both parties.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd still like some answers on how he went from being deeply in debt to instantly paying off all his bills and buying a nice house in about 12 months just in time for his nomination.

sounds like Obama up until he became a politician....

[wdmso]

and why do the dems care lets be realistic it happen in High school ...

Conservatives dont care!! it does not matter to them .. the guy is on their Team just look at Trump he is a sexual abuser! and they dont care ..the GOP haven't Sailed on the USS morality for decades