The same American public who pretty much entirely wanted Kavanaugh out before the allegations... and the American public who pretty much wanted Kavanaugh in both before and after the allegations... I find it quite strange that nearly all of the people who are in favor of the investigation, already wanted Kavanaugh out prior to the allegations coming forth... Assuming you're telling the truth, and in good faith, I will... you would be the exception, not the rule... if the allegations are what "changed your mind" about Kavanaugh...
Solid post... Unfortunately, I anticipate a blue wave coming... But it would be an upset for Democrats to take back the Senate... They will, however, likely take back the house...
More of the same: Saying the guy Kavanaugh presented himself to be in the Fox interview isn't the person he actually was. Nothing damning, though.
Also, stumbling drunk does not equal blacking out... Nor do memory lapses equal blacking out. Drinking excessively in college by no means, necessarily, translates to sexual assault. And drinking excessively in college shouldn't be a deal-breaker for the Supreme Court....
Certainly doesn't hurt... but we need a date before the calendar means anything, which we don't have...
Character assassination. Victim blaming. Slut shaming. That isn't a quality defense. It IS the standard defense strategy in sexual assault cases. And if some Senators want to engage in it, they shouldn't hide behind a surrogate. That's all I'm saying.
Dr. Ford wrote a letter to Sen Grassley BEFORE Kavanaugh was even nominated telling him about the incident...so that they would have this info before deciding to nominate him....so this " they should have brought this up sooner " bullshit...is...well...bullshit. The fact that BK, a JUDGE, wants a " fair process " but won't demand further investigation or any other witnesses to be included...IMO immediately makes him unqualified for judgeship. He's just a pawn in the game.
I laid out an argument for why the article isn’t credible, ie there is a well established process for the FBI to investigate a SCOTUS nominee prior to the hearings, where allegations like this can be quietly followed up on without the public knowing about it. The Democratic ranking member decided not to follow that option and made the allegation public after the hearing had ended. The FBI can’t investigate this quietly like they normally would now due to the extremely charged political environment. Witnesses will likely not want to talk as they don’t want to become public and get death threats or have to pay large amounts of money in lawyer fees. The author knows all of this and is still pushing for an FBI investigation because Democrats are hoping that any delay will allow other women to come forward and kill this nomination. Which is what you would expect from a Democratic appointee from DOJ to support. If we are posting articles by former DOJ political appointees, I’d be happy to post the one from John Yoo about what standard of evidence the JC should use.
Curious as to what Michael Avenatti comes out with for laughs. I’d bet a whole bunch of money Brett K is no gang raper. That’s just crazy. Kind of a right wing tactic to blatantly make stuff up if you ask me. I guess we’ll see if he’s a total con today or a Woodward and Bernstein news breaker.
Yeah you have to back that claim up as no one from a respectable media outlet has reported that. Dr. Ford contacted the Washington Post tip line, and her Congresswoman, who then put her in touch with Difi and she provided Difi the letter. Difi did not share it with any Republicans on the committee and even tried to find out if Democratic staffers could quietly hire an investigator to check out her claims without alerting Republicans on the committee. She was told that they could not and dropped the investigation idea because she did not want to tip off Republicans to Dr. Ford's charges.
Looks like Ford is going to produce four people with sworn statements to corroborate that she didn’t just drop this at the last minute. This gives her more credibility. Grab some popcorn?
Credibility and Senate Democrats should not be used in the same sentence. Oh wait, there is one exception; Senate Democrats have no credibility. Feinstein, Mazie, Kirsten, Schumer, Blumenthal, Durbin, and Reid unfortunately hasn't faded from my memory yet. What an esteemed group!
So did she tell Grassley that she didn't want to go public with this information as well, or was that just in the letter to Feinstein?
If you are simply berating people why stop at Dems? Is the Pub behavior something you find credible? Asking for a friend.
Story: https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-documents/index.html
You may well be right wrt the economics issue, all I was saying was that I am willing to give his plan a shot. I dont mind a little pain for long term gain. It may not work, but no risk no reward. What exactly has he done that is at odds with the constitution? I haven't seen anything. As far as American values... what are they? You ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers. I haven't seen Trump try to censor the media, even when he calls them fake news he doesn't try to stop them from reporting it. I haven't seen him try to restrict free speech like the Left does. Fundamentally I think we would all be about the same, but again I haven't seen him do anything I cant at least understand. His tweets not withstanding. Yes immigration has been hashed out many times, but it is still a problem. And placing that problem at the feet of Trump, who seems to be at least trying to do something, is disingenuous. And despite what the bleeding hearts will say, most terrorists are muslim. That doesnt mean that most muslims are terrorists and I dont think that Trump has ever said that they were. But being cautious wrt that religion, which is fundamentally at odds with everything America stands for, is a valid stance to have. As for Charlottesville, unless you are blind, you would see that both sides were at fault for what happened there. The Leftist antifa was there to cause a fight, and they got what they wanted. Trumps choice of words may have been poor, but the point stands. They were both at fault. And the media was only looking for him to condemn one side, and when he didnt they went bat shit crazy. I think they only people that see everything Trump says as an appeal to bigotry are already predisposed to seeing everything anyone says through a raciest filter. It you can tell me that everything Trump says wrt any other race is racist, but that what Obama did while he was in office wasn't... then you are drinking the coolaid. I join you in hope that good Americans will prevail, we just disagree on what that looks like. The Left wants everything to be controlled through their PC filters, that change on an hourly basis. The Right just wants to be left alone and allow people to sink or swim on our own merits.
This certainly makes this look less like a political smear on her part... It makes it look like she believes her allegations as opposed to lying... I feel as though we certainly need to tune into the hearing to see if there's any smoke, here... But Kavanaugh deserves the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise... So far, she seems less credible than Anita Hill, in my view.... and I'd say after some research, that the Anita Hill case, unfortunately, even with an FBI investigation, was inconclusive.... The only people who know the truth are Thomas and Hill... which is troublesome... One of them is an unbelievable liar.... and I can't tell which one....
