Brett Kavanaugh now under FBI investigation

[cd98]

A confirmation hearing isn't a court. Judicial standards of proof do not and never have applied.

Senators vote their conscience. That's it.

Pure political determination. Always has been, always will.

That is true so they should go to a vote and let the consequences of November fall where they may. But a legal standard is the only standard that we have to show that both the accuser and the accused can prove their case with any legitimacy, so that is the standard that I use to determine if Kavanaugh should or should not be on the bench. Anyone can make up a good story and even get some facts that corroborate to some minor degree. But if it has no evidence, you can't presume anyone is guilty of attempted rape, in my book. With the only exception being Harvey Weinstein-like scenario where 30 women come forward. Then you can see smoke and fire. But this is far from that not only in number of allegations, but in concrete and verifiable facts.

[baseline bum]

What Ford is trying to do is delay this tell midterms

What does that matter? Even in the best case the Republicans will still control the senate until 2019 and could confirm that faggot as late as the end of December.

[Winehole23]

That is true so they should go to a vote and let the consequences of November fall where they may. But a legal standard is the only standard that we have to show that both the accuser and the accused can prove their case with any legitimacy, so that is the standard that I use to determine if Kavanaugh should or should not be on the bench. Anyone can make up a good story and even get some facts that corroborate to some minor degree. But if it has no evidence, you can't presume anyone is guilty of attempted rape, in my book. With the only exception being Harvey Weinstein-like scenario where 30 women come forward. Then you can see smoke and fire. But this is far from that not only in number of allegations, but in concrete and verifiable facts.let the Senators hear both sides and decide for themselves.

if one side fails to show it loses by default.

[cd98]

C'mon man, seriously?
It is not rocket science. How many crimes looked unsolvable, no witnesses, no tape, too long ago, etc?
The FBI has experts that can find avenues to the truth. Their questioning might trigger a memory - which can lead to a kernel of a lead. This could come from her, from the other witness, from K.
They can piece together and actually discover that a party did take place, then they trace that. Then the attendees, then the address. There will be dead ends. There will be breakthroughs.

Say they come back empty. What is the harm? They can say - not enough evidence and then K can be confirmed with no stain to his record.

Say they come back with some additional facts - and then after having these facts - K - or Ford - get asked about these facts and one of them lies under oath?

So many ways this could end up - but at least the truth will emerge.

Trump will not authorize this. He will bury it. Spin it. Lie to your face and you will believe the liar with over 5,000 lies on his resume since taking an oath.

Cases like this are never investigated to begin with, and not just because they would be barred by statute of limitations anyway. The FBI are not hypnotists. They can't make someone remember things. Either a person remembers it or they don't. Coaxing something to remember something they don't is what leads to speculation and is not evidence. You can argue all day that the story is credible. But I agree. It is a credible story. But just because it's a credible story doesn't make it true.

[Winehole23]

WH might do well to drop Kavanaugh. He isn't very popular.

a SCOTUS with 22% accused sex abusers overturning Roe v Wade won't go over too well.

[boutons_deux]

Apparently there are two contemporaneous friends she confided the wanna-rape attack to, and they are supposed to come forward.

all y'all's elite Jesuit HS Catholic product is dead meat

[cd98]

What does that matter? Even in the best case the Republicans will still control the senate until 2019 and could confirm that faggot as late as the end of December.

I think Dems want the Republicans to have a vote. It helps their November message.

[cd98]

let the Senators hear both sides and decide for themselves.

if one side fails to show it loses by default.

I'm fine with a hearing even though it won't change the fact that it's a he said/she said. I think it will help Ford and hurt Kavanaugh. But I don't think it will change anything unless new, verifiable allegations are made.

[baseline bum]

WH might do well to drop Kavanaugh. He isn't very popular.

a SCOTUS with 22% accused sex abusers overturning Roe v Wade won't go over too well.

He's not going to overturn Roe vs Wade technically. Just overturn it in practice via death by 1000 cuts. Ginsburg's objection to previous abortion laws that women of money will always be able to get an abortion by crossing state lines will still hold.

[cd98]

WH might do well to drop Kavanaugh. He isn't very popular.

a SCOTUS with 22% accused sex abusers overturning Roe v Wade won't go over too well.

That's something to weigh, but Roe v. Wade is never being overturned. I think there's a legit debate as to how the opinion was decided, but practically speaking, it is too explosive to overturn. Everyone has complained that this bench is too conservative as is and yet you get Obamacare upheld and gay marriage. I mean, do people really think Roe is in danger? It's not. It's just a way to drive your party to get out and vote.

[baseline bum]

That's something to weigh, but Roe v. Wade is never being overturned. I think there's a legit debate as to how the opinion was decided, but practically speaking, it is too explosive to overturn. Everyone has complained that this bench is too conservative as is and yet you get Obamacare upheld and gay marriage. I mean, do people really think Roe is in danger? It's not. It's just a way to drive your party to get out and vote.

Roe vs Wade is in danger in red states.

[Winehole23]

cd98 is apparently oblivious to the legal trend in various states

[Winehole23]

it's just a matter of time before Roe is tested

[baseline bum]

cd98 is apparently oblivious to the legal trend in various states

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt would have for sure gone 5-4 Republican with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh replacing <seat McConnell left empty> and Kennedy.

[leemajors]

"What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep," said Brett Kavanaugh "jokingly" during a 2015 speech at the Catholic University's Columbus School of Law in Washington DC. "That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

[cd98]

cd98 is apparently oblivious to the legal trend in various states

I believe I said that Roe v. Wade would not be overturned. I didn't say that there won't be limits imposed on abortion. But don't worry, you can still get an abortion in Texas if you need one. https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-you-rights/abortion-in-texas

[baseline bum]

I believe I said that Roe v. Wade would not be overturned. I didn't say that there won't be limits imposed on abortion. But don't worry, you can still get an abortion in Texas if you need one. https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-you-rights/abortion-in-texas

It will be overturned in practice when red states make new laws to shut down abortion clinics with a rock solid 5-4 Republican majority in the court.

[Chucho]

Did anyone here not do dumb things as teenagers
?

Rape is wrong period but people do dumb things as teenagers

The last defense you want to use is The Avante Defense.

[cd98]

It will be overturned in practice when red states make new laws to shut down abortion clinics with a rock solid 5-4 Republican majority in the court.

So if Garland was nominated all the guns would go away too?

[baseline bum]

So if Garland was nominated all the guns would go away too?

Garland was nominated.

[cd98]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/888379343772274688/PoNcn89F_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC)Ed Whelan@EdWhelanEPPC
(https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC)

(https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1042180930620796928)


By one week from today, I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will have been clearly vindicated on this matter. Specifically, I expect that compelling evidence will show his categorical denial to be truthful. There will be no cloud over him.
5:37 PM - Sep 18, 2018 (https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1042180930620796928)


Yikes. That's quite a promise. I wonder what's coming.

[cd98]

Spoke too soon. More coming out from Dems on corroborating the story contemporaneously. This is going to get interesting from both sides...

[Spurs Homer]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/888379343772274688/PoNcn89F_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC)Ed Whelan@EdWhelanEPPC
(https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC)

(https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1042180930620796928)


By one week from today, I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will have been clearly vindicated on this matter. Specifically, I expect that compelling evidence will show his categorical denial to be truthful. There will be no cloud over him.
5:37 PM - Sep 18, 2018 (https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1042180930620796928)


Yikes. That's quite a promise. I wonder what's coming.


It is called wishful thinking - or the fact that corrupt repugs are beginning their "nothing to see here folks- judge K is confirmed - and then - what? Trump tweeted what? oh -look - a squirrel!" spin.

[clambake]

Did anyone here not do dumb things as teenagers
?

Rape is wrong period but people do dumb things as teenagers

you need therapy.

not a joke.

[Winehole23]

A Senate Judiciary Committee aide said chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley will offer to send staffers to California to interview professor Christine Blasey Ford, if that makes her more comfortable.


The aide said the letter to Ford’s lawyer will be made public soon.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegation-dle/index.html

[Spurminator]

We ask 17 year olds to choose their college, take entrance exams, and make a host of other life-changing decisions. We often try them as adults for drug, theft, and assault charges. We give them felonies that will forever impact their ability to get a normal 9-5 job.

Yet somehow it's unfair to expect that an attempted sexual assault as a 17-year-old would prevent you from someday becoming a Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Why is it that conservatives are only forgiving of youthful indiscretion when the stakes are the highest?

[CosmicCowboy]

We ask 17 year olds to choose their college, take entrance exams, and make a host of other life-changing decisions. We often try them as adults for drug, theft, and assault charges. We give them felonies that will forever impact their ability to get a normal 9-5 job.

Yet somehow it's unfair to expect that an attempted sexual assault as a 17-year-old would prevent you from someday becoming a Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Why is it that conservatives are only forgiving of youthful indiscretion when the stakes are the highest?

Because we don't automatically assume there was an indiscretion like you do. The "I don't remember when the party was, I don'r remember where the party was, I don't remember how I got there, I don't remember how I got home from there, I don't remember who was there" is not very compelling evidence.

[Pavlov]

Because we don't automatically assume there was an indiscretion like you do. The "I don't remember when the party was, I don'r remember where the party was, I don't remember how I got there, I don't remember how I got home from there, I don't remember who was there" is not very compelling evidence.So your theory is she made it up to impress her therapist years ago?

[Spurminator]

Because we don't automatically assume there was an indiscretion like you do. The "I don't remember when the party was, I don'r remember where the party was, I don't remember how I got there, I don't remember how I got home from there, I don't remember who was there" is not very compelling evidence.

That's a separate argument, though.

One argument in support of Kavanaugh is that he is entitled to due process and a single accusation (without due process) should not prevent him from getting a job he's otherwise entitled to. I agree with that argument.

A separate argument is being made, even more vocally, that we shouldn't prevent Kavanaugh from being a SCOTUS Justice *even if he did do it* because how can we judge people for something they did as a 17 year old almost 40 years ago? That argument is incompatible with a lot of real-world precedent.

[cd98]

We ask 17 year olds to choose their college, take entrance exams, and make a host of other life-changing decisions. We often try them as adults for drug, theft, and assault charges. We give them felonies that will forever impact their ability to get a normal 9-5 job.

Yet somehow it's unfair to expect that an attempted sexual assault as a 17-year-old would prevent you from someday becoming a Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Why is it that conservatives are only forgiving of youthful indiscretion when the stakes are the highest?

Well I don't think you are accurate when you say Republicans think that an attempted sexual assault should not be disqualifying. I think their point is that they don't believe an allegation that has so little backing it up. It's one thing to destroy someone's career with hard evidence. But this would destroy a man's career on no evidence, just he said/she said.

But to take your conclusion and apply it to both sides, wouldn't you think Bill Clinton's behavior (and I'm not talking the allegations he got when he was an adult) would have disqualified him? Or what about Obama's admitted drug use? I'm sure you would be all in on Bush's drug use and alcoholism. What youthful indiscretions are acceptable and what are the lines? And does someone have the opportunity to redeem himself?

And if you are talking only about sexual crimes, then where were you every day that Ted Kennedy was in office?

[Pavlov]

Well I don't think you are accurate when you say Republicans think that an attempted sexual assault should not be disqualifying. I think their point is that they don't believe an allegation that has so little backing it up. It's one thing to destroy someone's career with hard evidence. But this would destroy a man's career on no evidence, just he said/she said.

But to take your conclusion and apply it to both sides, wouldn't you think Bill Clinton's behavior (and I'm not talking the allegations he got when he was an adult) would have disqualified him? Or what about Obama's admitted drug use? I'm sure you would be all in on Bush's drug use and alcoholism. What youthful indiscretions are acceptable and what are the lines? And does someone have the opportunity to redeem himself?

And if you are talking only about sexual crimes, then where were you every day that Ted Kennedy was in office?butwhatabouttheseotherguysidonotlilke

[Spurminator]

Well I don't think you are accurate when you say Republicans think that an attempted sexual assault should not be disqualifying. I think their point is that they don't believe an allegation that has so little backing it up. It's one thing to destroy someone's career with hard evidence. But this would destroy a man's career on no evidence, just he said/she said.

No, I don't think that's the point people are making when they say "Why judge someone for something they did as a teenager?"

[cd98]

So your theory is she made it up to impress her therapist years ago?

That's the problem. Kavanaugh's name is never mentioned and there were 4 people in the room, not two. Ford's attorney says that it was a mistake by the therapist, but we don't know. That's the problem with the claim. I think it is absolutely conceivable, but it's also possible it is a lie. Given the timing politically, it looks like a lie, but sometimes these stories turn out to be 100% true. Problem is, if the evidence is weak to non-existent, then how can you just assume someone is guilty, at least if you are being a reasonably objective person and not partisan.

[Pavlov]

That's the problem. Kavanaugh's name is never mentioned and there were 4 people in the room, not two. Ford's attorney says that it was a mistake by the therapist, but we don't know. That's the problem with the claim. I think it is absolutely conceivable, but it's also possible it is a lie. Given the timing politically, it looks like a lie, but sometimes these stories turn out to be 100% true. Problem is, if the evidence is weak to non-existent, then how can you just assume someone is guilty, at least if you are being a reasonably objective person and not partisan.It's not a trial. It's a job application.

[cd98]

No, I don't think that's the point people are making when they say "Why judge someone for something they did as a teenager?"

Well, then I think you are reading something other than what the GOP has said. I've not heard one Senator say that it doesn't matter what someone did as a teenager.

[cd98]

It's not a trial. It's a job application.

Yes, but you still have to have some fair standard to apply. What happens if the next time a Democrat nominates a Supreme Court justice, someone comes forward with a credible, but uproveable story about the candidate being a child abuser? You can come up with a story for anyone that is nominated. In your book, it's just a job application, so just find another person.

[cd98]

butwhatabouttheseotherguysidonotlilke

Well there is some hypocrisy there even if you don't want to admit it. Though I do not deny that in politics, everyone is a hypocrite.

[Pavlov]

Yes, but you still have to have some fair standard to apply. What happens if the next time a Democrat nominates a Supreme Court justice, someone comes forward with a credible, but uproveable story about the candidate being a child abuser? You can come up with a story for anyone that is nominated. In your book, it's just a job application, so just find another person.Republicans will come up with any story possible.

Secret Muslim noncitizen ring a bell?

[Spurminator]

Well, then I think you are reading something other than what the GOP has said. I've not heard one Senator say that it doesn't matter what someone did as a teenager.

I don't think I directed the statement specifically to Republican Senators or GOP officials.

I do expect that sentiment to come out if there is a hearing, though.

[cd98]

Republicans will come up with any story possible.

Secret Muslim noncitizen ring a bell?

Yes, that one. But there are million examples from both sides of the political spectrum. I don't know if the allegation against Kavanaugh is true or not. Based on what I know, I would tend to disregard it without something more concrete. But if it is false, it would be a new low.

But that doesn't get around that fact that there should be some standard. The whole Muslim or where was he born thing was believed by fringes (which includes Trump though we all know he didn't really believe it), but what is the standard that we should impose upon such allegations?

[cd98]

I don't think I directed the statement specifically to Republican Senators or GOP officials.

I do expect that sentiment to come out if there is a hearing, though.

Not at a hearing. A Republican play is that this never happened, not that it was okay because he was 17. Maybe some internet dude says so, but internet dudes say way worse.

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

I am registered user. i don't give a fuck about your feelings or pretend status.:lmao

[Spurminator]

Not at a hearing. A Republican play is that this never happened, not that it was okay because he was 17. Maybe some internet dude says so, but internet dudes say way worse.

We'll see. They may not say it outright, but I expect the implication to be there in some form.

Meanwhile, some internet guys who have implied that we are overreacting to actions committed by a 17 year old Kavanaugh:

Ari Fleischer (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/19/pitts-ari-fleischer-wants-to-know-if-were-being-fair-to-kavanaugh/)
Lance Morrow, WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-spectral-witness-materializes-1537225498)
Meghan McArdle (https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo/status/1040683385029632005), Washington Post
Tom Nichols, author, former Senate aide (https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1041465453984575488)
Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal, Fellow at the Manhattan Institute (https://www.city-journal.org/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-16176.html)
"A lawyer close to the White House"
(https://lawandcrime.com/politics/twitter-users-think-lawyer-was-slandering-himself-in-pro-kavanaugh-statement-about-sexual-assault/)Donald Trump, Jr. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/17/donald-trump-jr-brett-kavanaugh-accusation-instagram)

[cd98]

We'll see. They may not say it outright, but I expect the implication to be there in some form.

Meanwhile, some internet guys who have implied that we are overreacting to actions committed by a 17 year old Kavanaugh:

Ari Fleischer (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/19/pitts-ari-fleischer-wants-to-know-if-were-being-fair-to-kavanaugh/)
Lance Morrow, WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-spectral-witness-materializes-1537225498)
Meghan McArdle (https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo/status/1040683385029632005), Washington Post
Tom Nichols, author, former Senate aide (https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1041465453984575488)
Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal, Fellow at the Manhattan Institute (https://www.city-journal.org/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-16176.html)
"A lawyer close to the White House"
(https://lawandcrime.com/politics/twitter-users-think-lawyer-was-slandering-himself-in-pro-kavanaugh-statement-about-sexual-assault/)Donald Trump, Jr. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/17/donald-trump-jr-brett-kavanaugh-accusation-instagram)

Senators aren't saying it. But you act as if it isn't a legitimate question. I mean if you kill someone or rape someone at 17, then yes, that's disqualifying. But I think you have to be careful in judging a person that is in his 50s for anything he did as a teenager. If that is the new standard, each party would probably lose 95% of their representatives in Congress.

I mean Ted Kennedy drove drunk and into a lake and left his lover of the night to die and didn't report it and he still got re-elected. And he was an adult. Are you sure we want to start digging into what our politicians did in high school?

[Spurminator]

Senators aren't saying it. But you act as if it isn't a legitimate question. I mean if you kill someone or rape someone at 17, then yes, that's disqualifying. But I think you have to be careful in judging a person that is in his 50s for anything he did as a teenager. If that is the new standard, each party would probably lose 95% of their representatives in Congress.

And that goes back to my original statement that we freely and frequently judge other 17 year olds for a lot less, when their upward potential is nowhere near SCOTUS.


I mean Ted Kennedy drove drunk and into a lake and left his lover of the night to die and didn't report it and he still got re-elected. And he was an adult. Are you sure we want to start digging into what our politicians did in high school?

I don't think Ted Kennedy should have stayed in Congress, and I don't think he would have if Chappequiddick had happened today. That's a good thing.

[cd98]

And that goes back to my original statement that we freely and frequently judge other 17 year olds for a lot less, when their upward potential is nowhere near SCOTUS.



I don't think Ted Kennedy should have stayed in Congress, and I don't think he would have if Chappequiddick had happened today. That's a good thing.

Yes, but he was accused of boorish and groping behavior until he was so sick he couldn't get out of bed. But enough of Kennedy, he's gone now. I guess I don't know what you mean by judging 17 year-olds for a lot less.

[ducks]

So your theory is she made it up to impress her therapist years ago?

I think she got raped but not by him around 1980-1984

[Pavlov]

Yes, that one. But there are million examples from both sides of the political spectrum. I don't know if the allegation against Kavanaugh is true or not. Based on what I know, I would tend to disregard it without something more concrete. But if it is false, it would be a new low.

But that doesn't get around that fact that there should be some standard. The whole Muslim or where was he born thing was believed by fringes (which includes Trump though we all know he didn't really believe it), but what is the standard that we should impose upon such allegations?Great, you get right on that.

[Pavlov]

Yes, but he was accused of boorish and groping behavior until he was so sick he couldn't get out of bed. But enough of Kennedy, he's gone now. I guess I don't know what you mean by judging 17 year-olds for a lot less.You going to being up some other Democrat for deflection now?

[Pavlov]

I think she got raped but not by him around 1980-1984You forget what year you raped her?

[ducks]

I would never rape any woman especially a under 18

[Chris]

-can't remember what happened
-can't remember where it happened
-refuses to testify

Sounds legit :tu

[ElNono]

I am registered user. i don't give a fuck about your feelings or pretend status.

cool story

[ElNono]

And that goes back to my original statement that we freely and frequently judge other 17 year olds for a lot less, when their upward potential is nowhere near SCOTUS.

I don't think Ted Kennedy should have stayed in Congress, and I don't think he would have if Chappequiddick had happened today. That's a good thing.

I understand the standard you're looking for, but with the current polarization, it ain't happening. He will be confirmed before the elections, IMO.

[pgardn]

Well I don't think you are accurate when you say Republicans think that an attempted sexual assault should not be disqualifying. I think their point is that they don't believe an allegation that has so little backing it up. It's one thing to destroy someone's career with hard evidence. But this would destroy a man's career on no evidence, just he said/she said.

But to take your conclusion and apply it to both sides, wouldn't you think Bill Clinton's behavior (and I'm not talking the allegations he got when he was an adult) would have disqualified him? Or what about Obama's admitted drug use? I'm sure you would be all in on Bush's drug use and alcoholism. What youthful indiscretions are acceptable and what are the lines? And does someone have the opportunity to redeem himself?

And if you are talking only about sexual crimes, then where were you every day that Ted Kennedy was in office?

It’s going to destroy his career ?
He’s going to jail ?
Then Merrick Garland also had his career destroyed without even having a look at his 17-year-old behavior

[ducks]

Juanita Broaddrick
@atensnut
If you want the FBI to go back that far HillaryClinton @MSNBC to investigate Ford’s allegations.... let’s investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Seems only fair.
7:24 PM - Sep 18, 2018

36.2K

[pgardn]

Juanita Broaddrick
@atensnut
If you want the FBI to go back that far Hillary (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3641)Clinton @MSNBC to investigate Ford’s allegations.... let’s investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Seems only fair.
7:24 PM - Sep 18, 2018

36.2K

K

Bill doesn’t make it the Supreme Court .
And he’s an asshole.

[ducks]

Should not matter

[ducks]

Democratic Senate candidate Phil Bredesen said Wednesday that the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault "has a very credible story." But he said the Judiciary Committee should consider proceeding with a vote if she does not testify under oath.

[ducks]

K

Bill doesn’t make it the Supreme Court .
And he’s an asshole.

Brett has not either













Yet

[ducks]

Now we know why she did it
For
The
Money
Kavanaugh Accuser Says She's Received 'Death Threats,' Supporters Raise $100,000 For Security Costs

[boutons_deux]

Maddow teed off on Republican lies, particularly hammering Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch:


Orrin Hatch was on the judiciary committee back at the time of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill controversy.

He has now gone so far as to say,

‘The FBI does not do investigations like this.’

That is exactly wrong. That is 100 percent completely wrong.

I mean here is

Sen. Hatch himself in 1991 in the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings,

expressing his delight, his satisfaction,

that the FBI was investigating those claims as part of their background check on Clarence Thomas.

They immediately ordered this FBI investigation which was a very right thing to do.

It’s the appropriate thing to do.’

Not just right – very right!

Which is why it was done then.

So when Orrin Hatch today says the FBI doesn’t do investigations like this.

Honestly, what was he praising back in 1991?

What was he so excited about then if the FBI doesn’t actually do this.

Being a hypocrite, having a partisan double standard,

I understand that is like breathing in politics these days, I get it.

But flat-out asserting this is not done,

it would be crazy,

it would be a departure from precedent to have the FBI investigate something like this

when these guys themselves have been through this process before,

it strikes me as odd.

It’s just a weird place to have a sticking point.

This is not a normal kind of fight."


https://www.politicususa.com/2018/09/19/maddow-gop-hypocrites-kavanaugh.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[Chris]

CNN doing hard core damage control.

1042223314805121030

[Spurs Homer]

CNN doing hard core damage control.

1042223314805121030

GOP terrified of an FBI investigation. Gotta bend over and give the sexual assaulter in chief a badly needed win before he gets indicted. The new sexual assaulter SC Justice can then act as a complicit bought and paid for hack on the SC.

[Chris]

Gotta bend over and give the sexual assaulter in chief a badly needed win before he gets indicted.

Trump?

Who did Trump sexually assault?

[Chris]

1042607969647702017

[pgardn]

Now we know why she did it
For
The
Money
Kavanaugh Accuser Says She's Received 'Death Threats,' Supporters Raise $100,000 For Security Costs

because of idiots like you.

She made the accusation so she could illicit death threats against her knowing she could pocket any security money for herself to use for... a vacation from her home? Permanently....

Brilliant Ducks.
She really thought this one out, thanks for your help in spawning the funding.

[Chris]

Baby killin' is big business. All hands are on deck.

[Spurs Homer]

Trump?

Who did Trump sexually assault?

a few of the 20 accusers that trump threatened to sue and we are still waiting for those lawsuits

[Chris]

a few of the 20 accusers that trump threatened to sue and we are still waiting for those lawsuits

Still can't get a definite answer from anyone on this board. *shrug

[ducks]

Broaddrick said Clinton was "asking for things she denied the victims of her husband."

Broaddrick recalled how the former secretary of state met her a short time after the alleged rape.

"She grabbed ahold of my arm... and she says with this very angry look on her face... 'do you understand everything that you do?'," Broaddrick said. "At that moment, I felt she knew [about the alleged rape] and she was telling me to keep quiet."

[ducks]

Democrats under fire for pushing misleading Kavanaugh videos

[ducks]

But the clip, first unearthed by MSNBC, cut out prior remarks by Kavanaugh showing that he was referring to three friends.

“I, by coincidence, three classmates of mine at Georgetown Prep were graduates of this law school in 1990 and are really, really good friends of mine,” Kavanaugh said in a recording of the full speech, naming his friends.

“And they were good friends of mine then, and they are still good friends of mine as recently as this weekend when we were all on email together,” he added. He then made the “what happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep” remark.

Conservatives criticized Warren, and other outlets who spread the unedited clip, for taking Kavanaugh out of context.

"For them, there’s no time for context," The Washington Examiner's Becket Adams wrote. "There's a Supreme Court nominee to torpedo!"

Warren’s remark came shortly after Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., faced criticism from fact checkers for tweeting out a video of Kavanaugh appearing to describe some contraceptives as “abortion-inducing drugs” at his hearing.

The remarks came as he was describing a case involving the pro-life Priests for Life, who were challenging the ObamaCare contraception mandate.

[Spurs Homer]

Still can't get a definite answer from anyone on this board. *shrug

many pussies were grabbed by the sexual assaulter in chief

[ducks]

many pussies were grabbed by the sexual assaulter in chief

Exact number ?
Proof ?
All better looking then you get

[Spurminator]

Hey ducks.

You have no friends and no one likes you. You are the most unintelligent person most of us will ever encounter.

You're a piece of shit. Go fuck yourself.

[ducks]

Clinton should keep talking she helps the red wave

[ducks]

“Trump rapes hotter chicks than you get” is seriously your retort?
Says the mark cuban lover
That said stock market crash with trump :cooldevil

[ducks]

You pee on underage girls

Got proof?
Since the answer is no be quiet

[Othyus Lalanne]

cool story

Lame defense.


Hey ducks.

You have no friends and no one likes you. You are the most unintelligent person most of us will ever encounter.

You're a piece of shit. Go fuck yourself.

What pussy would care about his social status over here?

[ducks]

WATCH: MSNBC's Morning Joe Slams Democrats For 'Moving The Goal Posts' On Giving Kavanaugh's Accuser A Hearing

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36068/watch-msnbcs-morning-joe-bashes-democrats-moving-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand

[ducks]

https://twitter.com/JacobAWohl/status/1042625983495303169?s=20

[ducks]

https://twitter.com/JacobAWohl/status/1041896700044967938?s=20

[ducks]

Ouch
https://twitter.com/JacobAWohl/status/1042623582134710272?s=20

[Chris]

Jessica Leeds
Ivana Trump
Jill Harth
Kristen Anderson
Cathy Heller
Temple Taggart
Karena Virginia
Jennifer Murphy
Rachel Crooks
Natasha Stoynoff
Ninni Laaksonen
Jessica Drake
Summer Zervos
Cassandra Searles

Cool, now show me the convictions for each since sexual assault is a crime.


among others.

Who are the others? Your mom?

Anything besides links to convictions are either: accusations or theory.

Thanks in advance.

[Chris]

https://i.imgur.com/Jw6r9Jv.gif

[Chris]

mono does the tap-out thing :tu

[Pavlov]

Chris and duxx are super shook.

[Spurminator]

What pussy would care about his social status over here?

Who said over here?

[boutons_deux]

'Beyond Shameful': Attempting to Put Victim on Trial, Collins Wants to Let Kavanaugh's Lawyer Question His Accuser

"Collins seems to have forgotten that Brett Kavanaugh is the one who has been accused of a crime, not Christine Blasey Ford."

Collins sent a letter (https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1042100101102161921) calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow Kavanaugh's counsel to cross-examine Ford during Monday's scheduled hearing.

Ultraviolet founder Shaunna Thomas added (https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/09/18/ultraviolet-senator-collins-dead-wrong-christine-blasey-ford-not-trial-burden):

"This is not a trial. It is Brett Kavanaugh's sexual assault hearing and

a job interview for the highest court in the land, and

the burden of proof is solely on Brett Kavanaugh."

giving Kavanaugh's lawyer time to grill and possibly slime Ford would be a distraction from the actual purpose of Monday's hearing:

To decide whether Kavanaugh is fit to serve on the Supreme Court.

The goal of these next Senate hearings is to determine whether Kavanaugh can be trusted to make decisions about our most fundamental freedoms—and the verdict is already an overwhelming no."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/09/18/beyond-shameful-attempting-put-victim-trial-collins-wants-let-kavanaughs-lawyer

K is a petty ratfucker Repug partisan, not a judge with a distinguished judicial career.

K is another example of how the oligarchy is degrading, rigging govt to oligarchy's benefit.

If not K, then Federalist assholes have many ratfucking K clones in the wings.

America is fucked and unfuckable.

[Fabbs]

^^ accusers should not be allowed to be questioned?
GTFO.


Burden of proof is on Kavanaugh? Ah no you don't have to "prove" what you did not do.

Burden of proof is on accuser.

[hater]

Hey ducks.

You have no friends and no one likes you. You are the most unintelligent person most of us will ever encounter.

You're a piece of shit. Go fuck yourself.

:lmao snowflake epic meltdown

[hater]

Says the mark cuban lover
That said stock market crash with trump :cooldevil

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

^^ accusers should not be allowed to be questioned?
GTFO.


Burden of proof is on Kavanaugh? Ah no you don't have to "prove" what you did not do.

Burden of proof is on accuser.

She has said all she's going to say, while admitting missing details, but not who violently tried to rape her and who was in the room, probably for sloppy seconds.

Misogynist Repugs want to drag her before Congress so they can slanderously Anita-Hill her.

[Fabbs]

, but no who violenlty tried to rape her and who was in the room,

This is an example of why cross exam is necessary.

[CosmicCowboy]

Boo, there is no way they would "Anita Hill" her in the age of MeToo with an election coming up.

They would use a female attorney and softball question her, but if she refuses even that then they need to put this down as an unsubstantiated, questionable allegation and move on with a vote to confirm.

[Winehole23]

CC predicts Republicans will use kid gloves on Ford

[CosmicCowboy]

CC predicts Republicans will use kid gloves on Ford

and a female attorney.

No Senator is gonna want to question her.

[Winehole23]

we'll see or we won't.

is there a precedent for Senators using outside counsel to question people at hearings?

would such a person even have standing to speak?

[CosmicCowboy]

we'll see or we won't.

is there a precedent for Senators using outside counsel to question people at hearings?

would such a person even have standing to speak?

My bet is that they won't need to, as she will refuse to testify under oath.

[Fabbs]

we'll see or we won't.

is there a precedent for Senators using outside counsel to question people at hearings?

would such a person even have standing to speak?
Likewise is there a precedent for accusing someone of rape via an appointment hearing?

[Fabbs]

My bet is that they won't need to, as she will refuse to testify under oath.

[Winehole23]

Likewise is there a precedent for accusing someone of rape via an appointment hearing?who is Clarence Thomas?

not rape, I know, but something in a similar vein -- non-consensual sexual attention

[Winehole23]

My bet is that they won't need to, as she will refuse to testify under oath.how do you know? I hear people on the other side saying they're sure Kavanaugh will withdraw.

what makes everyone so damn certain of their own predictions?

[Spurs Homer]

All she asks for is an FBI investigation. Under the penalty of perjury -so if her statements prove to be false she could be prosecuted. She is still willing to. She passed a polygraph.
GOP/Kavanaugh/Trump - running away from an FBI investigation because they are hiding something. Trump lies that the FBI does not do "that sort of thing" and Trumptards swallow this and open wide for more.

The FBI conducted his background investigation. New allegations surfaced. Only the white house can authorize the FBI to re-open K's background. It would only take a few days. Anita Hills took 2-3 days.

What are they hiding? Why won't K step up and demand an FBI investigation to clear his good name if he is innocent?

Why is Trump scared to do his duty - to authorize the FBI to take care of business and get this done the right way. The honorable way?

[Fabbs]

All she asks for is an FBI investigation. Under the penalty of perjury -so if her statements prove to be false she could be prosecuted. She is still willing to. She passed a polygraph.
I'd like to have an FBI investigation into a lot of things.
I'm not getting one.

Polygraphs? Huge range and plenty of times people have passed when lying and failed when telling the truth.

[cd98]

All she asks for is an FBI investigation. Under the penalty of perjury -so if her statements prove to be false she could be prosecuted. She is still willing to. She passed a polygraph.
GOP/Kavanaugh/Trump - running away from an FBI investigation because they are hiding something. Trump lies that the FBI does not do "that sort of thing" and Trumptards swallow this and open wide for more.

The FBI conducted his background investigation. New allegations surfaced. Only the white house can authorize the FBI to re-open K's background. It would only take a few days. Anita Hills took 2-3 days.

What are they hiding? Why won't K step up and demand an FBI investigation to clear his good name if he is innocent?

Why is Trump scared to do his duty - to authorize the FBI to take care of business and get this done the right way. The honorable way?

That's just playing dumb. Obviously the FBI investigation is to delay a vote so that no one can be confirmed before the mid-terms and the Dems have a shot of blocking Trump from nominating a judge. No one is scared of anything related to an investigation, but to be honest, the one you should be demanding an investigation from would be the local authorities as they have jurisdiction and the FBI does not. No clue as to why no one has demanded it.

[CosmicCowboy]

All she asks for is an FBI investigation. Under the penalty of perjury -so if her statements prove to be false she could be prosecuted. She is still willing to. She passed a polygraph.
GOP/Kavanaugh/Trump - running away from an FBI investigation because they are hiding something. Trump lies that the FBI does not do "that sort of thing" and Trumptards swallow this and open wide for more.

The FBI conducted his background investigation. New allegations surfaced. Only the white house can authorize the FBI to re-open K's background. It would only take a few days. Anita Hills took 2-3 days.

What are they hiding? Why won't K step up and demand an FBI investigation to clear his good name if he is innocent?

Why is Trump scared to do his duty - to authorize the FBI to take care of business and get this done the right way. The honorable way?

35 years ago
Never reported to anyone until now.
Can't remember when it happened.
Can't remember where it happened.
Can't remember how she got there.
Can't remember how she left there.
The only three names she claims were there all say it never happened.

What the fuck are they gonna investigate? If she refuses to testify under oath her credibility is highly suspect.

We all get that blue team will do anything to keep a conservative tie-breaker justice from being appointed.

[Pavlov]

That's just playing dumb. Obviously the FBI investigation is to delay a vote so that no one can be confirmed before the mid-terms and the Dems have a shot of blocking Trump from nominating a judge. No one is scared of anything related to an investigation, but to be honest, the one you should be demanding an investigation from would be the local authorities as they have jurisdiction and the FBI does not. No clue as to why no one has demanded it.You're either misinformed or lying.

The FBI investigated Antia Hill's claims and it only took three days.

[Pavlov]

I don't know why Trump insisted on the worst appointee since Harriet Miers. That was before the allegations.

[RandomGuy]

Boo, there is no way they would "Anita Hill" her in the age of MeToo with an election coming up.

They would use a female attorney and softball question her, but if she refuses even that then they need to put this down as an unsubstantiated, questionable allegation and move on with a vote to confirm.

You have way more confidence in elected Republicans than I do.

There is a reason they dont' want an FBI investigation, as Dr. Ford has requested.

Why do you think that the Republicans in congress don't want an investigation, but the woman making the accusations DOES?

[RandomGuy]

35 years ago
Never reported to anyone until now.
Can't remember when it happened.
Can't remember where it happened.
Can't remember how she got there.
Can't remember how she left there.
The only three names she claims were there all say it never happened.

What the fuck are they gonna investigate? If she refuses to testify under oath her credibility is highly suspect.

We all get that blue team will do anything to keep a conservative tie-breaker justice from being appointed.

She has told her story to multiple people before now, years before he became the nominee, so bullshit on your first statement.

She hasn't had a chance to speak to the rest of it definitively under oath, so the rest of your statements are unsubstantiated, questionable allegations in and of themselves.

Why the fuck aren't they going to investigate? It is felony assault by a nominee supreme court justice, FULLY within the statute of limitations of Maryland.


We all get that red team will do anything to get a conservative tie-breaker justice appointed.

No matter how morally repugnant that is.

Advocating that we ignore this kind of thing, and ramming this guy down our throats right before the election is bullshit.

Jeez dude, is there any kind of disgusting behavior you WILL hold a Republican responsible for? jesus
.

[benefactor]

Hey ducks.

You have no friends and no one likes you. You are the most unintelligent person most of us will ever encounter.

You're a piece of shit. Go fuck yourself.

[RandomGuy]

35 years ago
Never reported to anyone until now.
Can't remember when it happened.
Can't remember where it happened.
Can't remember how she got there.
Can't remember how she left there.
The only three names she claims were there all say it never happened.

What the fuck are they gonna investigate? If she refuses to testify under oath her credibility is highly suspect.

We all get that blue team will do anything to keep a conservative tie-breaker justice from being appointed.

Women almost NEVER make this stuff up. The ones that do tend to fall into a predictable pattern, easily identifiable to researchers.

Her story does not in any way fit that pattern.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/583778370/a-false-report-highlights-how-women-who-report-sexual-assault-are-treated

Much more common is women who tell their true stories and are not believed.

I have long ago given up any confidence that you will ever examine your underlying assumptions against anything that approaches evidence, but on the off chance you want to get off your lazy ass and think for a change, here is some of that.

[Spurs Homer]

She can be prosecuted for making false statements - yet she still wants the fbi involved.
k is hiding behind the corrupt gop/trump.
why?

[CosmicCowboy]

She has told her story to multiple people before now, years before he became the nominee, so bullshit on your first statement.
.

who? The only one mentioned was the couples therapist in 2012 and it was FOUR unidentified guys that assaulted her according to the therapists notes.

[RandomGuy]

Funny bit of full circle nonsense.

For those of you who don’t know, I went to Georgetown Prep, where both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch went as well. When I came forward with allegations regarding Gary Orr, a former priest, sexually assaulting me…Mark Judge (Kavanaugh’s friend in this who despicable story of sexual assault) reached out to alums saying that Gary Orr was a great priest and that I had obviously been corrupted by liberalism into a homosexual and therefore was most definitely lying.

THEN, years later when Orr admitted to raping a whole cadre of children, he said that Orr was raping kids because of the unchecked liberalism at Prep, and that regardless of whether or not I was telling the truth, I was a homosexual and had it coming. Google “Mark Judge Gary Orr” and you will see what a f*cking loon this guy is, and with what malice he writes his right wing bullshit.

So…for me to hear that this son of a bitch is involved in the allegations of Kavanaugh attempting to rape a girl in high school comes as no surprise to me. It’s always the loudest most arrogant voices that are trying to hide the truth beneath the din of their own pompous voices.

And by the way, the story that this woman is telling is one that I know was repeated dozens of times in my 4 years at Prep.

“Men For Others” indeed…LOL.

[boutons_deux]

If it were Obama, Repugs would investigate

-- W Goldberg

[RandomGuy]

who? The only one mentioned was the couples therapist in 2012 and it was FOUR unidentified guys that assaulted her according to the therapists notes.

So, no there is no disgusting behavior you will hold a Republican responsible for. Any excuse, any inconsistency is all you need to decide that a woman willing to brave death threats and personal ruin is making it up, just because "democrats".

Got it.

[RandomGuy]

If it were Obama, Repugs would investigate

-- W Goldberg

If it were an Obama nominee, they would make the Benghazi shit look like a middle school term paper.

[CosmicCowboy]

So, no there is no disgusting behavior you will hold a Republican responsible for. Any excuse, any inconsistency is all you need to decide that a woman willing to brave death threats and personal ruin is making it up, just because "democrats".

Got it.

nice change of subject. Back your shit up or shut the fuck up.

[Pavlov]

nice change of subject. Back your shit up or shut the fuck up.She's willing to be interviewed by the FBI. Somehow to you this means she's lying.

[CosmicCowboy]

You guys automatically assume Kavanaugh assaulted her because it benefits blue team.

I will remain skeptical until she agrees to testify under oath.

[Pavlov]

You guys automatically assume Kavanaugh assaulted her because it benefits blue team.You automatically think she's lying because it benefits red team.


I will remain skeptical until she agrees to testify under oath.How is being interviewed by the FBI different?

[Winehole23]

Merrick Garland was kept on ice for 442 days, what's the rush?

[Winehole23]

The world's greatest deliberative body shouldn't hurry judgement just because there's an election around the corner.

Isn't making the right call on a lifetime appointment worth it?

[Pavlov]

Honestly I'm more interested in how rapey magically paid off all his debts last year.

[DarrinS]

Honestly I'm more interested in how rapey magically paid off all his debts last year.

What's your conspiracy?

[Pavlov]

What's your conspiracy?I have none. I would like for him to say how it was all paid off last year.

Pretty simple.

[Winehole23]

“We have not received financial gifts other than from our family which are excluded from disclosure in judicial financial disclosure reports,”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/

[RandomGuy]

You guys automatically assume Kavanaugh assaulted her because it benefits blue team.


You have automatically assumed she is lying because it benefits red team.

See how that works?

I give the benefit to just about any woman who makes such claims, because they almost universally are telling the truth, if you think that I make an exception in this case, you are wrong.

Repeating your lie about what I believe will not make your lie any more true the 2nd or 3rd time around.

[Fabbs]

I give the benefit to just about any woman who makes such claims, because they almost universally are telling the truth,
I'd like to see your authoritative source along with sample size.

[djohn2oo8]

You guys automatically assume Kavanaugh assaulted her because it benefits blue team.

I will remain skeptical until she agrees to testify under oath.
She took a polygraph and passed. And Is ASKING to be investigated. :lol

if Kavanaugh has nothing to hide he should ask to be investigated himself. But he seems dead quiet.

[Winehole23]

polygraph exams are hot garbage. that's why they're not admissible in court.

[djohn2oo8]

polygraph exams are hot garbage. that's why they're not admissible in court.
Yet and still, she has witnesses. And is asking to be investigated. People who make up allegations don’t ask to be investigated by the FBI

[RandomGuy]

You guys automatically assume Kavanaugh assaulted her because it benefits blue team.

I will remain skeptical until she agrees to testify under oath.

Critical thinking question:

What percentage of rape accusations are, in fact, false?

Researchers say it is pretty small. I predicted you would ignore evidence to that effect, because it means you would have to challenge your underlying assumption that Republicans can't do bad things.

You blew right past it, as predicted.

[Winehole23]

Yet and still, she has witnesses. And is asking to be investigated. People who make up allegations don’t ask to be investigated by the FBIthe Senate should look into it. it probably won't though.

[spurraider21]

I have none. I would like for him to say how it was all paid off last year.

Pretty simple.

[White House spokesman Raj Shah] told The Post that Kavanaugh’s friends reimbursed him for their share of the baseball tickets and that the judge has since stopped purchasing the season tickets.

what's your conspiracy?

[RandomGuy]

I'd like to see your authoritative source along with sample size.

Why sure. That is a good thing.

All things told, from everything I have read getting a good handle on the exact number is hard, mainly because of the way statistics are compiled, and often, not even reported in the first place.

Getting the actual statistics, and understanding what you are looking at involves a few confounding factors that should be understood first.

Let's start by examining why women who are telling the truth may sometimes falsely recant:
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/583778370/a-false-report-highlights-how-women-who-report-sexual-assault-are-treated

From there on to what we can know.

[djohn2oo8]

[/FONT][/COLOR]what's your conspiracy?
This White House usually tells the truth?

[RandomGuy]

I'd like to see your authoritative source along with sample size.

We can start with the first study I ran across. First sample 136.



One of the most controversial disputes affecting the discourse related to violence against women is the dispute about the frequency of false allegations of sexual assault. In an effort to add clarity to the discourse, published research on false allegations is critiqued, and the results of a new study described. All cases (N = 136) of sexual assault reported to a major Northeastern university over a 10-year period are analyzed to determine the percentage of false allegations. Of the 136 cases of sexual assault reported over the 10-year period, 8 (5.9%) are coded as false allegations. These results, taken in the context of an examination of previous research, indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%.
Lisak D1, Gardinier L, Nicksa SC, Cote AM. (2010)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21164210

[spurraider21]

This White House usually tells the truth?
it's their official statement. the alternative would be a conspiracy theory

[RandomGuy]

I'd like to see your authoritative source along with sample size.

We have one beginning study, that points to others, but some more context in terms of getting to know how statistics are compiled, and how that is difficult to get really good data.

First reporting, like many things is voluntary:


Since 1929, crime data, such as
reported rapes, has been submitted
voluntarily by police departments
regarding certain crimes. The data
becomes a part of the federal report
known as the Uniform Crime Report
(UCR). Through the UCR, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) issues
guidelines and definitions related to
processing sexual assault cases.
Although not all police departments
follow these guidelines, they do seek
to process and clear cases from their
active case log. UCR identifies three
main ways to clear a case: cleared
by arrest, cleared by exception,
and unfounded (Archambault &
Lonsway, 2007). Each category has
subdivisions. The unfounded category
has two subdivisions: false allegations
and baseless.
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

I could march through the rest of the studies, but the above white paper summarizes a lot of what we do know.


A multi-site study of eight U.S. communities
including 2,059 cases of sexual assault found
a 7.1 percent rate of false reports (Lonsway,
Archambault, & Lisak, 2009).
y A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston
from 1998-2007 found a 5.9 percent rate
of false reports (Lisak et al., 2010).
y Using qualitative and quantitative analysis,
researchers studied 812 reports of sexual
assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1
percent rate of false reports (Heenan
& Murray 2006).

Thousands of samples out of quite a few research papers.

Enough to get a reasonable, evidence based conclusion:

Women generally do not lie.

Inconsistencies, despite what CosmicCowboy is so desperate to prove to support his "Republicans can't do any bad things" theory seems to imply, don't mean women are not truthful generally about these physical assaults.

[RandomGuy]

What's your conspiracy?

Want to deny some more science on this Darrin?

What's your conspiracy? Did the big bad woman make it up so she can have the pleasure of fleeing her home from death threats?

[DarrinS]

Want to deny some more science on this Darrin?

What's your conspiracy? Did the big bad woman make it up so she can have the pleasure of fleeing her home from death threats?


She has an opportunity to hell her story. What science am I denying, btw?

[djohn2oo8]

1042847120032755712

[Reck]

1042847120032755712

This is what she should have done from the start. Someone gave her terrible advice when she said the only way she'd testify is if there is an FBI investigation. Now she's having to backtrack.

Her testifying will have more immediate impact on the senators who are on the fence. If she makes a compelling argument this guy is finished. Instead she gave the republicans a reason to say welp, lets vote.

That said, pretty pathetic how she's getting death threats by rape enablers. Republicans voters have no morals.

[CosmicCowboy]

The world's greatest deliberative body shouldn't hurry judgement just because there's an election around the corner.

Isn't making the right call on a lifetime appointment worth it?

Garland would disagree :lol

[RandomGuy]

She has an opportunity to hell her story. What science am I denying, btw?

Truthful women often wait.

She has told her story to more than one person, years before now.

The science that says that women rarely make things up. Read up a few posts.

[DarrinS]

1042825426769461249

Stay tuned

[RandomGuy]

Garland would disagree :lol

They didn't hold a vote, or a hearing.

They didn't deliberate at all.

Kind of hard to claim the high ground for red team on that one.

[Pavlov]

what's your conspiracy?

I don't have one. I would like for him to say how it was all paid.

Under oath.

Too scary for Darrin?

[Reck]

1042825426769461249

Stay tuned

You know who else was under oath and lied? Sessions...Trump Junya etc.

They all got a pass cuz magic R.

[pgardn]

polygraph exams are hot garbage. that's why they're not admissible in court.

This is not going to be used in court

If it’s hot garbage why did her attorney have her take one ?

[Winehole23]

This is what she should have done from the start. Someone gave her terrible advice when she said the only way she'd testify is if there is an FBI investigation. Now she's having to backtrack.

Her testifying will have more immediate impact on the senators who are on the fence. If she makes a compelling argument this guy is finished. Instead she gave the republicans a reason to say welp, lets vote.
and vote they may.

apparently CBF can't testify on Monday, but can later in the week.

[boutons_deux]

Ford is in two populations

the huge majority of women who are sexually harassed, brutalized, or raped and who don't report it.

the tiny minority of women who are raped and do report it

Ford is an educated, informed woman knowing full well that her accusations would derange her life, maybe for years, even end her life (she is in hiding due to death threats), but she came forward anyway.

Bigger balls than any chickenshit dickless Repug in Congress.

For the tiny minority who do report, 400K rape kits not processed in USA, and in good 'ol rapist boy state:

After crowdfunding law, Texans raise nearly $250,000 toward testing rape kits

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/08/crowdfunding-Texas-rape-kit-testing-victoria-neave-wendy-davis/

[Winehole23]

This is not going to be used in court

If it’s hot garbage why did her attorney have her take one ?I don't have a theory on that.

Because the polygraph has folklorical validity? People believe in it for some reason?

[RandomGuy]

She has an opportunity to hell her story. What science am I denying, btw?

Doesn't answer my question Darrin.

Did the big bad woman make it up so she can have the pleasure of fleeing her home from death threats? Is that your conspiracy theory?

[Spurs Homer]

A few arrests at the hill - this might start getting the same attention as the health care issue.

[RandomGuy]

This is not going to be used in court

If it’s hot garbage why did her attorney have her take one ?

WH might not opine, but I will: Because she wants people to believe her.

Fairly simple. WH was right, that polygraphs are not at all reliable though.

Can't blame the woman for wanting to prove herself.

[boutons_deux]

polygraph tests are not admissible in court

her lawyer was suckering the stupid fucks in "court of public opinion" who think polygraphs are reliable, or useful.

[djohn2oo8]

polygraph tests are not admissible in court

her lawyer was suckering the stupid fucks in "court of public opinion" who think polygraphs are reliable, or useful.
And now she’s going to testify

[CosmicCowboy]

And now she’s going to testify

That's good.

Waiting for her conditions of "fairness".

[pgardn]

polygraph tests are not admissible in court

her lawyer was suckering the stupid fucks in "court of public opinion" who think polygraphs are reliable, or useful.

So her lawyers are disingenuous

And again this is not a court case

[Reck]

That's good.

Waiting for her conditions of "fairness".

Reffering to old faggots like Orin Hatch and some other out of touch old man within the senate.

Old boy done said that she was "mistaken" even though he knows nothing about her or her experiences in life.

[cd98]

You're either misinformed or lying.

The FBI investigated Antia Hill's claims and it only took three days.

The FBI investigated the Anita Hill case because it had jurisdiction under federal law. It does not have jurisdiction in this case. That is the truth and not a lie or being misinformed. But again, this whole line of arguing by Democrats is only believable to those who want to believe. What is the FBI going to find in a case where the accuser can't name the place or the time or how she got there or where she went after and that she told no one and the only person who has ever said that she named him before the letter to Feinstein was her husband? Kavanaugh and the two others named have said they have no recollection of the events. Ford has said everything that she remembers. If not, it would be leaking. To be honest, the only one that needs investigating is Ford because if she can't get more details, she has a paper thin allegation and they can't do anything with it.

[boutons_deux]

So her lawyers are disingenuous

And again this is not a court case

not lying, just knowing how stupidity, ignorance rules in the court of public opinion, which is EXACTLY what Trash, Nunes, Repugs are doing.

Knowing that Trash and his mafiya are going down, they are all denigrating the FBI/CIA/DoJ as corrupt and politicized to try to turn the people against Mueller. It ain't working, polls show trust is higher in Mueller than in Trash.

[Reck]

And now she’s going to testify

Where did you hear that?

Its been reported that she won’t testify on Monday.

[pgardn]

not lying, just knowing how stupidity, ignorance rules in the court of public opinion, which is EXACTLY what Trash, Nunes, Repugs are doing.

Knowing that Trash and his mafiya are going down, they are all denigrating the FBI/CIA/DoJ as corrupt and politicized to try to turn the people against Mueller. It ain't working, polls show trust is higher in Mueller than in Trash.

Excuse here for minute
There are prominent Republicans who want to hear what she has to say .
Why? Look at the timing of this thing it looks horrible.

So why are Republicans and the president even entertaining having her testify ?

[cd98]

Where did you hear that?

Its been reported that she won’t testify on Monday.

Looks like she's open to testify but not Monday. The problem and what is hitting her credibility is that everything she is doing is in lock step with the Democrats. If she has given her whole story, then while it's sounds believable, it also sounds crafted to be an allegation that can't really be proven, so when she looks like she's working in concert with Democrats, it looks like her story is made up. If she has a full story, then tell the story. It shouldn't take months to prepare. She took a lie detector test over a month ago after hiring an attorney with experience in these types of allegations. To say she can't testify next week because she needs more time just looks like it's lock step with Democrats.

Also, Ed Whelan is saying that they have evidence that is exculpatory and will be released next week. I don't know what it is or even what it could be, but the claim is out there.

[boutons_deux]

It does not have jurisdiction in this case.

how does FBI exclude a rape accusation from a SCOTUS nominee's b/g check?

[CosmicCowboy]

how does FBI exclude a rape accusation from a SCOTUS nominee's b/g check?

They didn't. They included the letter in the background check.

Try to keep up, Boo.

[Winehole23]

They didn't. They included the letter in the background check.the FBI checked out the allegations, is that what you're saying?

[Winehole23]

or do you just mean, they've since included it in the file, having already completed the background check.

[cd98]

how does FBI exclude a rape accusation from a SCOTUS nominee's b/g check?

They've already done a background check. But as I've said many times, how does the FBI investigate a claim that supposedly only three people know about that has no location, no time, no date, no explanation for how Ford got there and no explanation for how she left or where she went. They have no physical evidence for DNA. All they can do is ask Kavanaugh and the three others if they did it and they say they have no idea what Ford is taking about and it is made up. So they go to Ford, and she can only give them what we have so far. End of story. Nothing to "investigate." You act like there is concrete evidence. It is entirely possible that this is a political hit with a story crafted so that it gets an allegation out that can never be proved or disproved, especially because Ford just hired a Democrat political operative and she has been working in concert with the Dems on asking for a hearing, then saying a hearing shouldn't happen, then saying that the FBI should investigate first.

[Pavlov]

The FBI investigated the Anita Hill case because it had jurisdiction under federal law. It does not have jurisdiction in this case. That is the truth and not a lie or being misinformed. But again, this whole line of arguing by Democrats is only believable to those who want to believe. What is the FBI going to find in a case where the accuser can't name the place or the time or how she got there or where she went after and that she told no one and the only person who has ever said that she named him before the letter to Feinstein was her husband? Kavanaugh and the two others named have said they have no recollection of the events. Ford has said everything that she remembers. If not, it would be leaking. To be honest, the only one that needs investigating is Ford because if she can't get more details, she has a paper thin allegation and they can't do anything with it.
Great, then you should really want the FBI to investigate.

What are you afraid of?

[RandomGuy]

That's good.

Waiting for her conditions of "fairness".

Fairness would be Brett serving jail time for felony assault. His crime has no statute of limitation in Maryland.

You probably don't care about fairness to the victim though. He has the magic "R" behind his name after all.

Just guessing.

[cd98]

Great, then you should really want the FBI to investigate.

What are you afraid of?

I'm not afraid of anything. I've said they should get the local authorities that have jurisdiction to investigate. That actually makes sense. But getting the FBI to investigate is just a Democrat ploy to try and delay the vote. Knowing that he has passed several background checks and knowing that outside of this story that appears crafted, he has no similar allegations against him, I'm confident that he should be voted in as a Supreme Court justice. Now, if Ford actually provides some reason to investigate other than some well-crafted, but evidence-less story, then I'm all ears to reconsider.

[Winehole23]

"it is entirely possible" = pure speculation

[cd98]

Fairness would be Brett serving jail time for felony assault. His crime has no statute of limitation in Maryland.

You probably don't care about fairness to the victim though. He has the magic "R" behind his name after all.

Just guessing.

Let the local authorities investigate him for attempted felony assault. But when there turns out to be no evidence and the investigation is dropped, are you going to acknowledge that you were wrong in assuming guilt by being a member of a different political party?

[RandomGuy]

They've already done a background check. But as I've said many times, how does the FBI investigate a claim that supposedly only three people know about that has no location, no time, no date, no explanation for how Ford got there and no explanation for how she left or where she went. They have no physical evidence for DNA. All they can do is ask Kavanaugh and the three others if they did it and they say they have no idea what Ford is taking about and it is made up. So they go to Ford, and she can only give them what we have so far. End of story. Nothing to "investigate." You act like there is concrete evidence. It is entirely possible that this is a political hit with a story crafted so that it gets an allegation out that can never be proved or disproved, especially because Ford just hired a Democrat political operative and she has been working in concert with the Dems on asking for a hearing, then saying a hearing shouldn't happen, then saying that the FBI should investigate first.

Possible, but highly unlikely.

Her story does not fit the normal pattern of false reports, and women in general do not decide to brave death threats for such things.

The more likely explanation, the one that requires fewer assumptions overall, is that she is telling the truth.

Waiting a long time, having inconsistencies in her story, and other things are all fully consistent with someone who is telling the truth. I have provided a raft of scientific research on this.

Occam's razor suggests she is simply telling the truth.

[RandomGuy]

"it is entirely possible" = pure speculation

It is entirely possible that she is a paid martian operative, because the martians need to have us distracted for their invasion.

If I had a dollar for "it is entirely possible" followed by some bullshit conspiracy theory...

[RandomGuy]

Let the local authorities investigate him for attempted felony assault. But when there turns out to be no evidence and the investigation is dropped, are you going to acknowledge that you were wrong in assuming guilt by being a member of a different political party?

Guilty people have charges dropped all the time for lack of evidence. "not guilty" does not mean "innocent".

[RandomGuy]

Let the local authorities investigate him for attempted felony assault. But when there turns out to be no evidence and the investigation is dropped, are you going to acknowledge that you were wrong in assuming guilt by being a member of a different political party?

I assume guilt because the odds of the woman lying are low based on the scientific research we have available on such things, and the theory that someone might want to endure death threats and a ruined career to potentially perjure herself to be implausible on its face.

Doesn't really matter which political party the guy is from. That only matters to conservatives, it seems.

[Pavlov]

I'm not afraid of anything. I've said they should get the local authorities that have jurisdiction to investigate. That actually makes sense. But getting the FBI to investigate is just a Democrat ploy to try and delay the vote. Knowing that he has passed several background checks and knowing that outside of this story that appears crafted, he has no similar allegations against him, I'm confident that he should be voted in as a Supreme Court justice. Now, if Ford actually provides some reason to investigate other than some well-crafted, but evidence-less story, then I'm all ears to reconsider.For some reason you are afraid of an FBI investigation and demand they not investigate.

[Winehole23]

just because something can't be prosecuted to a legal certainty doesn't mean it never happened, or that the allegation is frivolous.

[ducks]

Why is Monday not fair ?

[RandomGuy]

I don't have one. I would like for him to say how it was all paid.

Under oath.

Too scary for Darrin?

That is, indeed a good question. How did the hundreds of thousands of dollars for his gambling debts magically appear?

[ducks]

just because something can't be prosecuted to a legal certainty doesn't mean it never happened, or that the allegation is frivolous.

Should we do this to all rape allegations just not fords

[Pavlov]

Why is Monday not fair ?Why is an FBI investigation not fair?

[cd98]

Possible, but highly unlikely.

Her story does not fit the normal pattern of false reports, and women in general do not decide to brave death threats for such things.

The more likely explanation, the one that requires fewer assumptions overall, is that she is telling the truth.

Waiting a long time, having inconsistencies in her story, and other things are all fully consistent with someone who is telling the truth. I have provided a raft of scientific research on this.

Occam's razor suggests she is simply telling the truth.

Actually, it fits the profile of a well-crafted accusation that is impossible to prove or disprove. Is it a coincidence that she has acted lock stop with the democrats and just hired a democratic operative? Normally allegations from rape are not orchestrated by the democratic party.

[cd98]

just because something can't be prosecuted to a legal certainty doesn't mean it never happened, or that the allegation is frivolous.

That's true. But the timing on this one sounds fishy.

[Winehole23]

what would it harm to wait a day or two?

we had an eight member Supreme Court for over a year after Scalia died.

[Winehole23]

That's true. But the timing on this one sounds fishy.your spidey-sense tingles?

how persuasive.

[CosmicCowboy]

I assume guilt because the odds of the woman lying are low based on the scientific research we have available on such things, and the theory that someone might want to endure death threats and a ruined career to potentially perjure herself to be implausible on its face.

Doesn't really matter which political party the guy is from. That only matters to conservatives, it seems.

A psychology professor in California? If anything, this probably enhanced her career. If in fact there actually were death threats they should definitely be investigated and the idiots arrested. Hopefully she can remember when and where she was when she heard them.

[Pavlov]

A psychology professor in California? If anything, this probably enhanced her career. If in fact there actually were death threats they should definitely be investigated and the idiots arrested. Hopefully she can remember when and where she was when she heard them.
Yeah, death threats are always a boon to one's career.

Dumbass.

[ducks]

Why is an FBI investigation not fair?

Can not prosecute waste of time and funds and manpower

[cd98]

I assume guilt because the odds of the woman lying are low based on the scientific research we have available on such things, and the theory that someone might want to endure death threats and a ruined career to potentially perjure herself to be implausible on its face.

Doesn't really matter which political party the guy is from. That only matters to conservatives, it seems.

You assume guilt because you are a Democrat. Statistics don't matter. What matters is in this case, what evidence does she have of her claim? That's all that matters. Not a percentages of women that come forward and not percentages of false reports. What does she have to substantiate her allegation? At this point, a story that cannot be proven or proved false. It's the perfect story to hang up a judicial nomination. And since Ford is working lock stop with Democrats, I assume that is the case. She adds some evidence, and I'll give it another look.

[Winehole23]

Should we do this to all rape allegations just not fordswhy not?

we're talking about an appointment with life-tenure.

[Pavlov]

You assume guilt because you are a Democrat. Statistics don't matter. What matters is in this case, what evidence does she have of her claim? That's all that matters. Not a percentages of women that come forward and not percentages of false reports. What does she have to substantiate her allegation? At this point, a story that cannot be proven or proved false. It's the perfect story to hang up a judicial nomination. And since Ford is working lock stop with Democrats, I assume that is the case. She adds some evidence, and I'll give it another look.
Great, in the meantime have the FBI investigate. Since you think she's lying about it all, she'll pay the price.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, death threats are always a boon to one's career.

Dumbass.

How exactly were these death threats delivered? Through her lawyer?

[cd98]

For some reason you are afraid of an FBI investigation and demand they not investigate.

I'm not afraid of the FBI investigating. I'm just not for delaying the vote so the Democrats can try and block the confirmation before the midterms. Just like you don't care about Ford's allegations, you just want the Democrats to block the confirmation. If you cared about rape, you'd have been condemning the democratic part for the last, what 40 years, for being the party of Kennedy and the Party of Clinton.

[RandomGuy]

Boo, there is no way they would "Anita Hill" her in the age of MeToo with an election coming up.

They would use a female attorney and softball question her, but if she refuses even that then they need to put this down as an unsubstantiated, questionable allegation and move on with a vote to confirm.

There are more women Senators, mostly Democrats because Republicans don't seem to like women representatives, so that shit would not fly.

That is one thing you are right about.



I would like us to come together and figure out what is the best way to proceed. Not this seat-of-the-ants stuff. The lastest, being a letter from the chairman to the Democrats saying "We have done everything we can to contact her'. That is such bullshit, I can't hardly stand it.

This entire episode will, yet again, outline to women how much the GOP is the party of, by, and for, men.

As a Democrat I can only shake my head at how dumb and churlish this is making the GOP seem in general. It's like there is a target painted on y'alls foot, and someone just handed you a loaded revolver.

[Winehole23]

Can not prosecute waste of time and funds and manpowerno biggie if the FBI can't investigate, there's no federal crime at issue.

let the woman speak to the Senate, then Senators can make up their minds, if they haven't already made them up.

[Winehole23]

How exactly were these death threats delivered? Through her lawyer?she was doxxed. please try to keep up.

[RandomGuy]

I assume guilt because the odds of the woman lying are low based on the scientific research we have available on such things, and the theory that someone might want to endure death threats and a ruined career to potentially perjure herself to be implausible on its face.



You assume guilt because you are a Democrat.

I just said that wasn't what I was doing. Why do you feel the need to lie about that?

[cd98]

Great, in the meantime have the FBI investigate. Since you think she's lying about it all, she'll pay the price.

You outline how an investigation is done. Persuade me how the FBI can magically verify a story that doesn't have a location, a date, a time, details before the incident, details after the incident, and there are only 4 persons involved, 3 of which say it is false, and only the accuser says it is true, but has no details, just a story. You give a good road map for how an investigation can be made, and then I'll tell you if it makes sense to stall the vote so it will happen.

Like I've said, let the local authorities investigate. They actually have jurisdiction. The FBI does not. No federal crime is alleged.

[Cry Havoc]

Hopefully she can remember when and where she was when she heard them.

I wonder how glib you'd be if someone in your family was receiving multiple death threats.

But hey, it's politics, so dehumanize her as much as you can, right?

[Pavlov]

How exactly were these death threats delivered? Through her lawyer?
Hey genius, her personal information was posted here by an asshole. You think maybe it was posted elsewhere too?


Are you just acting like you're an idiot?

[RandomGuy]

How exactly were these death threats delivered? Through her lawyer?

Does it really matter? You are gong there? really?

smh

disgusting.

[cd98]

what would it harm to wait a day or two?

we had an eight member Supreme Court for over a year after Scalia died.

Exactly. This is all about stalling, not about getting to the "truth."

[CosmicCowboy]

she was doxxed. please try to keep up.

When did being doxxed become a death threat?

[Cry Havoc]

she was doxxed. please try to keep up.

She got doxxed on SPURSTALK, and CC has the fucking gall to ask where the threats are coming from.

I'm not sure how far your head needs to be up your ass to try to claim any kind of ignorance about this, but he's trying to set a record.

[Pavlov]

You outline how an investigation is done. Persuade me how the FBI can magically verify a story that doesn't have a location, a date, a time, details before the incident, details after the incident, and there are only 4 persons involved, 3 of which say it is false, and only the accuser says it is true, but has no details, just a story. You give a good road map for how an investigation can be made, and then I'll tell you if it makes sense to stall the vote so it will happen.

Like I've said, let the local authorities investigate. They actually have jurisdiction. The FBI does not. No federal crime is alleged.Yes you have stated your fear of an FBI investigation and demanded they never investigate.

We get it.

[Pavlov]

When did being doxxed become a death threat?

Fuck you, CC. You're a piece of shit.

[Cry Havoc]

When did being doxxed become a death threat?

You titanic asshat.

You literally asked how she was getting death threats.

The entire fucking internet had her phone number and address.

Are you seriously that dense, or are you just that good at playing stupid?

[cd98]

Yes you have stated your fear of an FBI investigation and demanded they never investigate.

We get it.

And I get that you want an investigation by the FBI that lasts until November.

[Pavlov]

And I get that you want an investigation by the FBI that lasts until November. Nope. I'll take one that lasts as long as Hill's or even less.

Easy.

[CosmicCowboy]

She got doxxed on SPURSTALK, and CC has the fucking gall to ask where the threats are coming from.

I'm not sure how far your head needs to be up your ass to try to claim any kind of ignorance about this, but he's trying to set a record.

Already said, If she really got death threats the idiots should be arrested and prosecuted.

[Pavlov]

Already said, If she really got death threats the idiots should be arrested and prosecuted.
So you think she's lying about that too.

Predictable asshole.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you think she's lying about that too.

Predictable asshole.

Actually, she didn't say it. Her activist attorney did.

[Winehole23]

Exactly. This is all about stalling, not about getting to the "truth."there's probably no way of getting at the truth.

in an adversarial system such as ours, sometimes the best you can do is let both sides have a say and let the deciders decide.

or, if you happen to be in the political majority, you can use the rules to exclude things you don't like.

[Pavlov]

Actually, she didn't say it. Her activist attorney did.So you think the attorney is lying after the client was doxxed.

Predictable asshole.

[RandomGuy]

You assume guilt because you are a Democrat. Statistics don't matter. What matters is in this case, what evidence does she have of her claim? That's all that matters. Not a percentages of women that come forward and not percentages of false reports. What does she have to substantiate her allegation? At this point, a story that cannot be proven or proved false. It's the perfect story to hang up a judicial nomination. And since Ford is working lock stop with Democrats, I assume that is the case. She adds some evidence, and I'll give it another look.

Statistics do matter, quite a bit. The multi-trillion dollar insurance industry, and pretty much all scientific research depend on that.

Another easily disproved idea and assertion.

The evidence we have is her claim, and her past statements. That is evidence.

Whether or not it "is a perfect story to hang up a judicial nomination" is irrelevant to the underlying truth of the claim.

This is a logical fallacy, i.e. ad hominem.

So, you have one lie, i.e. I think what I think because "democrat", one disproven statement, i.e. "statistics don't matter", and one flawed logical argument, i.e. "perfect story".

Not a good track record, if your desire is to get to the truth.

Do you always rely on lies and false logic to determine what is true?

[clambake]

there used to a certain amount of dignity attached to you, cowboy.

[Winehole23]

And I get that you want an investigation by the FBI that lasts until November.very doubtful it would take that long, but what harm would it do if it did?

[RandomGuy]

Actually, she didn't say it. Her activist attorney did.

lol "republicans can't do bad things" theory.

[Cry Havoc]

Do you always rely on lies and false logic to determine what is true?

Don't forget fear, surprise, and the ruthless efficiency.

[RandomGuy]

And I get that you want an investigation by the FBI that lasts until November.

As noted Anita Hill's took three days.

I, for one, do not want an investigation that lasts until November. I want an official report ASAP, preferably less than a week.

[CosmicCowboy]

lol "republicans can't do bad things" theory.

There are some really shitty Republicans as well as Democrats.

I am looking forward to her testimony.

[Cry Havoc]

As noted Anita Hill's took three days.

I, for one, do not want an investigation that lasts until November. I want an official report ASAP, preferably less than a week.

+1. Shorter the better. Get to the bottom of this.

[RandomGuy]

Fuck you, CC. You're a piece of shit.

I agree here.

CC is fairly decent person generally, but for some reason modern conservatism has required one to check humanity and morals at the door for the last few years.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt.

[spurraider21]

Actually, she didn't say it. Her activist attorney did.
:lol

[RandomGuy]

There are some really shitty Republicans as well as Democrats.

I am looking forward to her testimony.

Sure there are.

Difference between the two, is that you check your ethics and would vote for a really shitty Republican any day over any decent Democrat.

What does that say about you?

Smh

[CosmicCowboy]

Sure there are.

Difference between the two, is that you check your ethics and would vote for a really shitty Republican any day over any decent Democrat.

What does that say about you?

Smh

I generally choose not to vote for Republicans I don't like. Trump as an example.

[Winehole23]

if I were Kavanaugh and I didn't do it, I might insist on an FBI investigation.

in the case of Anita Hill's testimony to the Senate, it was the basis of a withering cross-examination.

[Cry Havoc]

I agree here.

CC is fairly decent person generally, but for some reason modern conservatism has required one to check humanity and morals at the door for the last few years.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Because you can't continue to support the current GOP without admitting to massive hypocrisy, and the latest right curve by the party has made that all too obvious.

It's a racist, virtue-signaling, fetid pile of crap that is infested by criminals and has a cartoon character behind the wheel. It bows to the rich and invokes the name of their "religion" to prop up multi-billionaires.

For decades it's been seething under the surface, but at least has paid token service to the average American. Now it's a clown car of hatred and boot-licking to big business.

The logic just isn't there anymore, unless you contort it to say that EVERYONE is like this. That's the only way you can salve your soul and still feel like you somehow have the moral high ground.

[Cry Havoc]

I generally choose not to vote for Republicans I don't like. Trump as an example.

Where have you been, short-water?

Trump IS your party. He DEFINES it. He is the EMBODIMENT of the modern Grand Ol' Party. You can't extricate him from the cruise ship of stupid -- he's your fucking pilot. If you cast him off, you aren't in the Republican party anymore. Every single metric we have that measures attitudes indicates this. That's why he can be a complete ratfuck and still have an 80% approval rating amongst righties.

[DMX7]

The situation is actually being handled WORSE than Anita Hill's situation. Embarrassing!

[Winehole23]

cheap nihilism underwrites barbarities, true

[Cry Havoc]

if I were Kavanaugh and I didn't do it, I might insist on an FBI investigation.

in the case of Anita Hill's testimony to the Senate, it was the basis of a withering cross-examination.

Now that it's a national story, why WOULDN'T you insist?

After all, according to Trump, if you didn't do anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide.

[CosmicCowboy]

Where have you been, short-water?

Trump IS your party. He DEFINES it. He is the EMBODIMENT of the modern Grand Ol' Party. You can't extricate him from the cruise ship of stupid -- he's your fucking pilot. If you cast him off, you aren't in the Republican party anymore. Every single metric we have that measures attitudes indicates this. That's why he can be a complete ratfuck and still have an 80% approval rating amongst righties.

Oh Bullshit. Trump is a narcissistic idiot and he only got elected because Hillary was worse. I sincerely hope a legitimate candidate runs against him in the 2020 primary so he can be one and done.

[Winehole23]

Now that it's a national story, why WOULDN'T you insist?

After all, according to Trump, if you didn't do anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide.There is the matter of jurisdiction. Attempted rape isn't a federal crime.

I suppose Trump, the FBI or Kavanaugh himself could say that that, in the interest of verifying that no one could ever blackmail him on the basis of the allegation, his background check should be reopened and the question examined.

[rmt]

A psychology professor in California? If anything, this probably enhanced her career. If in fact there actually were death threats they should definitely be investigated and the idiots arrested. Hopefully she can remember when and where she was when she heard them.

hahaha

[Cry Havoc]

Oh Bullshit. Trump is a narcissistic idiot and he only got elected because Hillary was worse. I sincerely hope a legitimate candidate runs against him in the 2020 primary so he can be one and done.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/it-is-the-era-of-trump-how-the-president-is-remaking-the-republican-party-1535380861

From the ol' liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal.

[Winehole23]

The Trump isn't us line is wearing thin. The whole trend of the GOP for the last 25 years led to him.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Trump isn't us line is wearing thin. The whole trend of the GOP for the last 25 years led to him.

Just as the 25 year trend of the Democrats has led to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's.

[rmt]

The Trump isn't us line is wearing thin. The whole trend of the GOP for the last 25 years led to him.

I think it's actually the whole trend of the Dems that led to Trump.

[cd98]

Democratic is party responsible for Trump too. If they hadn't gone so politically correct and gone insane with safe space etc. a guy like Trump wouldn't have appeal to so many people that like the fact that he doesn't care.

And I say that as someone that can't stand him. But I know liberals that voted for him precisely because what left run amok is doing to his party.

[Pavlov]

Just as the 25 year trend of the Democrats has led to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's.:lmao you just tried to compare a prospective representative from the Bronx to the president of the entire United States.

So many backflips....