Kavanaugh Hearing

What party???

One that happened in the early 80's, one that happened in the mid 80's, or one that supposedly happened around whenever Mark Judge started working at Safeway???

 

As mentioned to Louisville, I completely agree with you the Dems intentionally delayed this, for obvious political reasons.

Also agree that to date there is nothing more than Ford's story on her side.

At this point, and as has been mentioned several times earlier, I don't think it should matter. They could do more investigation into other allegations and witnesses, but Kavanaugh already showed himself plenty.

Kavanaugh repeatedly lied to the committee, and to be frank, he acted like a whiny little bitch. His nomination should be done just on his behavior in the hearing.

Pull his nomination and find somebody better suited to the USSC. Find another Gorsuch and put him/her through.

 

You don't reward chicanery. You reject it.

 

I would if you would be OK with #1 if it was you in Kavanaugh's shoes.

I would have be fine with #2 until Difi tried to put out a political contract hit on Kavanaugh using the #MeToo movement as a murder weapon.

 

I don't think you could say definitively that anyone hasn't committed sexual assault. The point though is that they have to weigh what they heard and apply some standard to determine whether it was more likely than not that he did (or whatever standard they want to use). It seems like a lot of people here are parsing yearbook terms or whatever helps them conclude what they want to believe. The simple fact is that there is no corroboration for her story, though she sounds credible. Kavanaugh might have sounded less credible in talking about the specifics of his yearbook, but you also have dozens of people that knew him come forward on their own accord and state that what is alleged is completely out of character for him. Not just his beer buddies, but others including a lot of women. I don't know who I believe, but I don't see enough evidence to say he likely assaulted her. In different circumstances they might pull him to avoid the appearance of putting someone who might have assaulted someone on the court, but not in these politically charged days with the election around the corner.

 

I'm not so quick to giver her a pass.

Let her fade, fine, but is she wants to persist, let's look far and wide and deep, into what motivated her to fabricate this bullshit and levy her bullshit allegation against Kav...

My sources tell me there's some serious smoke there.

A little teaser--Peter Strzok, and the Shill might be conveniently tied in....

No worries--you won't hear a peep about Doc Ford--it was NEVER about her--it was about bringing down Kav, by any means possible.

That's why the talk today isn't about 'fbi investigation into her allegations'--it's about 'perjeruy' and what does 'boof' and 'devil's triangle' mean...

 

After this hearing I now have one regret from my own high school days. Not the drinking. Not the condom in my wallet that I never got to use. But I never kept a calendar.

 

Can't imagine why a man of a sterling reputation until now would be indignant over being called a serial rapist.

 

So despite being a stellar judge for years, they should pull him because he got pissed off at politicians making political hay over a sexual assault allegation that significantly hurt his reputation and family? So what would your excuses be if he sat there stoically answering the questions? He seems like he doesn't care about Ford or sexual assault, so he's obviously evil?

 

If I were Kavanaugh, I'd never be in this situation. He put himself here. And don't start with the political hit BS.

 

That's what I thought. There's the difference between us. I put country over party.

 

Other than the fact none of that was even mentioned at the hearing. I think the only reference to the other 2 women was one of the dem senators asking if he knew their names, and it may have even been the GOP hired prosecutor that asked that (not sure).

No dem was accusing him of being a serial rapist. I'm not even sure that 3rd accuser is accusing him of being serial rapist, just that lots of sex and drunken rape going on at college frat parties,. Uhhh... duh? You could easily present a similar allegation for a huge chunk of frat bros. The fact that he was "there" (as in, in the house) is not necessarily sufficient to any charge. They would need more specifics.

 

I can bury my head in the sand too if I wanted to. I simply choose not to. Just because you can, doesn't make you special.

 

Right.

Everyone but her doesn’t remember that party, with the two that were supposed to have attacked her saying it never happened. Oh, but the female witness says she believes Ford, while also saying that she doesn’t remember ever being at any party with Kavanaugh. So the fact that no one Ford remembers as being at the party remembers being at a party with her must mean that Kavanaugh is guilty and not innocent, correct? The fact that she ran down the stairs and left the party early without telling anyone wouldn’t stick out in their minds?

You view Kavanaugh as guilty until proven innocent, with no evidence other than Ford’s word. Yet when sworn statements from the alleged attendees of the party state that they remember nothing of the such happening, you take that as meaning nothing, and that Kavanaugh is still proven guilty.

No duh they wouldn’t definitively say the party didn’t happen. Why open yourself to a perjury charge unnecessarily? No matter how sure you are the party didn’t happen, you use that wording to cover your ass. So stop obfuscating and just admit Ford’s accusation has nothing to back it up, and this is a political hatchet job.

 

Yet, that's exactly the threat he made while under oath.

Put aside the sexual assault allegation. At minimum, federal judges are supposed to give off the appearance they are not political. What appearance did Kavanaugh give off yesterday? Do you think Kavanaugh lied under oath? Shouldn't both of those things be disqualifying?

 

There are multiple responses that could be taken.

Let's start out with the fact that both sides played games with this nomination. The Pubs held pack Kavanaugh's work for GW and the Starr investigation, which I think is reasonably pertinent and reasonable to request.

Feinstein's last minute dropping of this bomb was out of line, but how do you respond to it? Do you punish (censure) her, or do you punish potential sexual assault victims, and in the process perhaps rush through someone who engaged in sexual assualt during HS and College?

Justice isn't served by punishing victims for the acts of politicians, or by rushing through potentially bad nominations.

So wrt the sexual assault allegations, if they matter to the nomination, they should be investigated and heard.

Bu IMO, the nomination should be done now, because of Kavanaugh's behavior at the hearing yesterday. It should be withdrawn or voted down. He was repeatedly deceitful under oath, disrespectful of the Dem questioners, and almost belligerently out of control in responses, as well as extremely partisan as he is being interviewed to take a lifetime position that is supposed to be non-partisan.

Find another nominee like Gorsuch and get him/her confirmed. That should be what Pubs do next. Quickly.

 

Why don't you try googling Graham's statement. Listen carefully.

What I said is an accurate characterization/paraphrasing of what he said, and he expressly mentioned bill cosby--which is what 'lawyer was no doubt, referring to.

...and DF (I believe/IIRC) expessly said all 3 of the accuser's names, trying to slip it in like there was anything to it...

Hence it was properly addressed, mocked, and summarily dismissed for its patent absurdity.

 

What makes me special is that I can condemn Democrats and Republicans alike for their partisan behavior. It's quite clear from this thread that is something you cannot do. Partisan hackery at its lowest.

 

Kavanaugh did not put himself in that position, Dr. Ford did with an allegation she could not provide disprovable information for.

 

Can you imagine why a federal judge would claim under oath that the allegations against him are a Clinton conspiracy? Do you think that's beneath a sitting federal judge? Do you think that's beneath a SCOTUS nominee? Isn't that the sort of behavior that Alex Jones engages in, and why we can't take a nut like him seriously? Should Kavanaugh have to corroborate his allegation of a Clinton conspiracy?