Big difference between saying he didn't do it and I don't remember the party. Reality and BS! My advise is and has been investigate the allegations. Standard background checks only go back to year 18 unless there is a compelling reason and since she said nothing there is no record. I realize that sometimes all you can do is make a record and file it unresolved, but while you guys were railing what a great guy he was and how credible she was, but had no evidence or a clear memory, and attaching left wing conspiracies you stood fast that after 6 background checks another that went back a bit further wasn't needed, and you were ready to anoint him justice. Then for theater you hire a female to question her, and dismiss her after a question or two during BK's time in the barrel.

That alone didn't pass the smell test and looked RIGGED! I've known this guy for years as a political operative, and a choir boy he never was.

To be clear about this, I have sympathy for Dr. Ford. It would certainly seem that something traumatic happened in her past, and that she today is convinced that Judge Kavanaugh had something to do with. Let the FBI investigate? I'm all for it. Needs to be done with some speed since there aren't many witnesses to speak to, but that's fine with me. But as of today, there is no direct evidence that Kavanaugh was even at the party, much less guilty of what Dr. Ford alleges. I think I would tell her that I am completely willing to believe her story, but something needs to happen to help that process. There are too many forgotten but key details. The witnesses she named have contradicted her story of them being at the party or even, in one case, of knowing Kavanaugh. So even if my heart goes out to her, I'm also aware that I need to be just with Judge Kavanaugh and his family. There just seems to be a mountain of evidence to support his good character. Did he overly indulge alcohol as a young man? Seems likely, and in fact he admits that, but that is a million miles away from proving that he did what Dr. Ford alleges. Now in the minds of some of you that makes me uncaring and anti-female, but I remember the Duke Lacrosse case, the Tawana Brawley case, and a number of others where the lives of innocent men were violently impacted because of accusers who, it turned out, were lying, so I have to admit that it could be the case here. And, of course, Kavanaugh could be lying, but the evidence just does not point in that direction, at least not to me. You are welcome to your own opinion in that regard.

Quote:

---

Big difference between saying he didn't do it and I don't remember the party

---

. I never said they claimed he didn't do it. I did say they contradicted what she said, and that is true. She said they were at the party, but they claimed they were not, and her friend even stated she did not even know Kavanaugh.

Quote:

---

Then for theater you hire a female to question her, and dismiss her after a question or two during BK's time in the barrel.

---

Not sure how the pronoun "you" applies here. I am not a republican and certainly not a senator. I can understand why they chose the lady to ask the questions. As for Kavanaugh, the dems could ask him any question they wanted to. I'm not too sure what they should have asked. "Did you do this? Were you at this party? Did you know Christina Blasey?" He's already answered those questions, so they came down to asking senseless questions about sophomoric entries in a yearbook, flatulence, and the shocking discovery that high school students drink beer to excess.

You haven't told us what you would tell a woman who had been sexually abused but had no evidence to prove it. What would you tell her? That's a wildly tragic and difficult situation.

You tell her you might be confused about who did what to whom

You tell him you find him guilty when the evidence points towards innocence.

That is certainly a female point of view, you are guilty because I say so

read it .... the report from the FEMALE prosecutor who questioned Dr Ford during the Senate Judiciary hearing .


http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...analysis/3221/

Quote:

---

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”

---

Save your breath Tomder. If video tape surfaces showing someone else other than Kavanaugh following CBF up the stairs, there are still some on this board who will maintain Kavanaugh's guilt. They see Dr. Ford as representing all of the women who have been abused in this country with no justice ever served. I can see their point of view as to how tragic that is, but trying to make Kavanaugh pay for the collectives sins of others is not the answer.

Quote:

---

I never said they claimed he didn't do it. I did say they contradicted what she said, and that is true. She said they were at the party, but they claimed they were not, and her friend even stated she did not even know Kavanaugh.

---

I don't think that was a contradiction, she never said they knew of the event she experienced, understandable reaction without an exact time and date, and typical if there was underage drinking was involved. All of which is inconclusive, and begs a closer look.

Quote:

---

Not sure how the pronoun "you" applies here. I am not a republican and certainly not a senator. I can understand why they chose the lady to ask the questions. As for Kavanaugh, the dems could ask him any question they wanted to. I'm not too sure what they should have asked. "Did you do this? Were you at this party? Did you know Christina Blasey?" He's already answered those questions, so they came down to asking senseless questions about sophomoric entries in a yearbook, flatulence, and the shocking discovery that high school students drink beer to excess.

---

My apology for assuming you were a repub, and the pronoun YOU meant not you personally, but the collective views of repubs who speculate and assume without benefit of investigation into the allegations, that this fellow was qualified for SCOTUS, but I feel a lot was papered over or NOT revealed. An innocent man welcomes more scrutiny to clear his name in my view, but KGuy bring specifically catering to the votes he needs raised my suspicions but I KNEW him well before he donned his robes and worked as a politically connected operative know for his hard line and ambitions. Yes I have questioned his responses (CSpan covered the hearings), and history, and I make no bones over the dufus lying all the time about everything, and that makes me question everything he says and does. Now I understand what you want out of KGUY's appointment, likely you will get it... and anything else he brings besides what you want from him.

Quote:

---

You haven't told us what you would tell a woman who had been sexually abused but had no evidence to prove it. What would you tell her? That's a wildly tragic and difficult situation.

---

Read below..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

You tell her you might be confused about who did what to whom

---

How do you know she is confused? Just because you can't believe it, should that stop you from the due diligence of checking it out? Of course not. That requires a process of fact finding. Ask, listen and verify. You should NEVER tell a victim they are confused, you work through that confusion with them, without being dismissive, and I think she has been through and may still be going through that process. That also goes for the accused as to his own veracity, and that goes well beyond whatever image they are projecting. Finding truth is a process. A long one sometimes, years is not unusual.

"Trust but verify!'/Ronald Reagan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Save your breath Tomder. If video tape surfaces showing someone else other than Kavanaugh following CBF up the stairs, there are still some on this board who will maintain Kavanaugh's guilt. They see Dr. Ford as representing all of the women who have been abused in this country with no justice ever served. I can see their point of view as to how tragic that is, but trying to make Kavanaugh pay for the collectives sins of others is not the answer.

---

WRONG! While I respect the prosecutors legal assessment and totally agree with it, an allegation of wrongdoing does Not meet the legal requirements of prosecution. The court of public opinion is an entirely different matter, so we got our investigation all we ask is DUE DILIGENCE.

Trump says he is hands off, but is that the truth behind the scene by this WH? TRUST BUT VERIFY is my position. Do I have a doubt that if something dirty comes to light you guys would change your position? I seriously doubt it, even if there was a video of him doing what was alleged.

We'll see.

Quote:

---

she never said they knew of the event she experienced,

---

She said they were there. They said they were not. Kaiser even said she never know JK. She also said Judge was in the room. He says he was not. Sure sounds like a contradiction to me. So if you really believe in "trust and verify", you just ran into a major roadblock on the verify side.

1. The three witnesses she named do not back her story.
2. She can't remember how she got there or got home.
3. She can't remember the date.
4. She can't remember the house.
5. She evidently did not tell anyone about it, including Leland Kaiser, who was at the time her best friend.

Now without pointing fingers at Dr. Ford and not casting aspersions on her character, there is just nothing there at all to support her story. And if you are JK, how can you establish an alibi when you don't know the time or location of the incident? You can't call a witness to testify about what did NOT happen, so she has a story that he has no way to defend himself against other than to say, "I did not do that." I just can't call that justice. I'm not going to brand a man a criminal on the flimsiest evidence possible.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...gton-p5nvtk37z

Such revelations and allegations cannot go to a court of law at this point, so I guess our debate and the conflicts are a moot point here, but you are entitled to your logic as am I. I'm sure there is much we do not know at this time. I don't stop at my logic though and I hope you don't either.

The above link sort of goes along with Roche's assessment of BK's college reputation.

Do these accounts contradict his answers during his hearing? You tell me.

Quote:

---

Such revelations and allegations cannot go to a court of law at this point, so I guess our debate and the conflicts are a moot point here, but you are entitled to your logic as am I. I'm sure there is much we do not know at this time. I don't stop at my logic though and I hope you don't either.

---

Sounds like a workable plan! Best wishes.

Very simple …..IF the charges against him prove to be true ,I'll be the first calling for his impeachment from the bench. But this stall game has to end this week . If the full Senate votes against him ..se la vie . Next up Amy Coney Barrett. We'll see what Dr Fraud has to say about her .

Tell me doesn't the Statute of Limitations kick in here somewhere, these events are somewhere in the distant past whatever the truth, how can they be introduced as any form of evidence? It seems to me the Senate should stop conducting a star chamber and stick to the task at hand, which is weighting the evidence that can be considered

Quote:

---

Tell me doesn't the Statute of Limitations kick in here somewhere, these events are somewhere in the distant past whatever the truth, how can they be introduced as any form of evidence? It seems to me the Senate should stop conducting a star chamber and stick to the task at hand, which is weighting the evidence that can be considered.

---

I would agree with that. Even if the charges are true (and I don't think they are), how far back do we go into a person's life? A person does something stupid as a teen, so now they have to pay the rest of his/her life?

I am not sure ;but don't believe that Maryland has such a statute of limitations on sexual assault . However ultimately it is irrelevant because this is not a trial . The latest bit of charges involve the amt of drinking he did at Yale.

He did not deny drinking; he said he likes drinking beer; and he said he drank a lot on occasion. So it comes down to some guy's recollection and opinion of what is too much drinking in a college environment . It all comes down to what Vietnam stolen valor Blumenthal and Hire a Chinese spy Feinstein thinks.
Let's be honest here .

I get that it's useless to bring up hypocrisy . Cory Booker wrote an article describing how he groped and he is still a Senator . The same people who supported Clinton for 8 years ,and voted against impeachment when there was material evidence that he did similar or worse ,would now deny Kavanaugh . The same people who rubbed elbows and took donations from Harvey Weinstein knowing he was a sexual predator are sitting in judgement of Kavanaugh The fall back position on all of this will be nothing more specific than character . Kavanugh has a 30 year public record of service that has been investigated 6 times by the FBI ;and a who's who list of people who vouch for his character . 1 week and end this charade .

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/c...mitations.html

Quote:

---

1 week and end this charade .

---

Absolutely. However, how much you want to bet that on Thursday, some "explosive" new detail will emerge that will, according to Cory Booker, warrant several more days of investigation.

Guys, there is one detail of Ford's story that I can't get away from. How did she get home? One would assume she would have come down from the bedroom quite upset. She had no car, and she lived some distance away, so someone had to drive her home. It is beyond amazing to me that she cannot remember how she got home. For that matter, why hasn't the person who drove her home come forward and identified him/herself? If PJ and Leland K were there, surely they would have remembered her emotional (you would think) search for a way home. That is such a mystery to me that I can't get past. And yes, I am not a woman so doubtless I can't relate, but that is still a curious feature of this story.

I got my eye on this guy Ludington from my previous link.

yeah I referenced Ludington in my last comment . "

So it comes down to some guy's recollection and opinion of what is too much drinking in a college environment ".

Rachel Mitchell brings up the issue of how she got home in her report to the Senate:

Quote:

---

Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
o She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country
Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies,
and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
o She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere
that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
o Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and
subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she
did not look like she had been attacked.
o But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward
to identify him or herself as the driver.
o Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not
have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming
downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she
did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.

---

Speaking of Rachel Mitchell we will never have a report on her questioning of Kavanaugh because it was stopped by repubs during the inquiry about his July 1st calendar entry. A bit one sided if we are counting reports.

You keep bringing that up, but what prevented the democrats from asking those questions? Instead we got questions about flatulence, beer drinking, and FBI investigations.

I will remind you the only reason Mitchell was brought in was the phony posturing by the Dems about having all those old white males challenging her narrative and how hostile that would be . The Dems could've easily employed her services ;or brought in their own expert prosecutor to question him .Instead they concentrated on year book references to boofing of boffing ,ralphing ,and Devil's Triangle .

LOL. You blame the dems because repubs don't have a female on the committee? Have they ever? What year?

No, I blame the dems for not asking the kinds of questions you seem to think were so important. If you think those questions were so vital, then stop whining about it and call them up and complain.

Dems got an investigation into the allegations, but the repubs are still scheduling a vote before it's done, so the FIX is still in.

Fix. I like that word, as in, "Putting Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS will help 'fix' what is wrong with that Court."

Yeah I know, stop gay marriage and abortions, is your goal and you would hold your nose and elect a lying cheating dufus and support a lying drunk to get what you want. And if he protects the dufus against witch hunts so much the better.

time to move the goal posts again ...

Top Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein says Friday Senate vote on Kavanaugh would be too soon. Why ? maybe because he allegedly threw ice in 1985

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

time to move the goal posts again ...

Top Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein says Friday Senate vote on Kavanaugh would be too soon. Why ? maybe because he allegedly threw ice in 1985

---

If he's innocent, they can go for a year and nothing will be found.

3 days left . in that time we will find out that :
He watched a pg-13 movie when he was 12 ;
He rode a bicycle without a helmet once;
He recently used a plastic straw in CA.

I wonder what his backround check read like :

http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/139541_5_.jpg

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ng-choom-gang/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

3 days left . in that time we will find out that :
He watched a pg-13 movie when he was 12 ;
He rode a bicycle without a helmet once;
He recently used a plastic straw in CA.

---

Or ... He was a schoolyard bully.
Every year his teachers commented on his terrible temper tantrums.
He over-emoted when cornered.

yeah that . He did not have coaching and like Dr Fraud he is not a trained

“psychologist.” So maybe he did not "emote "to everyone's liking . However confronted with such charges if they are not true , I probably would've had to be restrained . Like others of Irish decadency I tend to argue my case passionately ;ESPECIALLY if confronted with charges against my integrity and character .

by the way calling herself Dr is fraudulent . Professor Fraud is more appropriate .
https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsm...d-s-here-s-why

Dr. Ford has two master's degrees and has a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Southern California. She can legally and ethically be addressed as Dr.

Please google this. Here are two sites:

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Qu...063_Titles.htm

2. Rules for spoken language

• When someone has earned a Ph.D. degree he must subsequently be referred to as “Doctor” in formal speech. The same is true of a person who is a medical doctor, psychologist, dentist, veterinarian, osteophatic or naturopathic physician.
  
• When a holder of a Ph.D. makes a telephone call and is asked “Who is speaking?” or “Who is calling?” he should answer Dr. William Green.
  
• The same applies to any other type of presentation. When introduced to a new acquaintance by a common friend, the friend would say: “I would like you to meet Dr. Ernest Smith..." then, the holder of a Ph.D. should only say, "Ernest Smith at your service." Should the person introducing you leave out your title - “I would like you to meet my friend Ernest, it is appropriate to say amiably: “Dr. Ernest Smith at your service.”
  
• If you are introducing someone who holds a Ph.D. as a speaker before an audience, you must use his title: “I have the pleasure to introduce Dr. William Green, who will instruct us this evening on the fruit of his studies on such and such a topic.”

http://www.formsofaddress.info/Doctorate.html
1) Holders of doctorates who work in academia or research institutions are addressed as Dr. (Name) professionally and socially in a salutation or conversation.

NPR won't call her Doctor . good enough for me .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

NPR won't call her Doctor . good enough for me .

---

NPR is in the minority. The staff probably scraped through high school.

and here I thought NPR was a progessive icon.

Typical angry white man rage that justifies denigrating the credibility and accomplishments of other for fear they are losing their dominant place at the top of the food chain. You have tried dismissed DR. Ford and attacked her credibility since she appeared and obviously repubs think they can still bully and shove the well heeled frat boy to higher prominence to further the right wing agenda.

You think no matter what you will have the cloture vote* Friday and the final vote very shortly after no matter what the investigation reveals. The blatant hypocrisy of Slick Mitch and his fellow prune faces from 2016 to this election makes it very evident that time is of the essence for them, and considering the soon to be very public legal woes of their fearless leader the PROVEN lying, cheating, dufus, I can understand the need for speed.

*Cloture Vote; a method of closing a debate and causing an immediate vote to be taken on the question. To close (a debate) by cloture.

(US: /ˈkloʊtʃər/,

^[1]

UK: /ˈkloʊtjʊər/),

^[2]closure^[3] or, informally, a guillotine^[3] is a motion or process in parliamentary procedure

aimed at bringing debate to a quick end. The cloture procedure originated in the French National Assembly, from which the name is taken. Cloture is French for "fence". It was introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom by William Ewart Gladstone to overcome the obstructionism of the Irish Parliamentary Party and was made permanent in 1887. It was subsequently adopted by the United States Senate[COLOR=#004000] [/COLOR]and other legislatures. The name cloture

remains in the United States;^[2] in Commonwealth countries it is usually closure^[2][COLOR=#004000] [/COLOR]or, informally, guillotine; in the United Kingdom closure and guillotine are distinct motions.

^[4][5]

yeah cloture works after the FBI report and a reasonable floor debate . Then invoke the Harry Reid nuclear option and end it . IF charges later prove to be true ,he can be impeached .

Bottom line on all of this is that 1 . No term limits to judicial appointments and Congress. 2. SCOTUS power grab from Marbury v Madison where they ruled themselves unequal powers of Judicial Review .

It was the first act of the Court “shaping” the Constitution to fit our needs as they see it .. It turned SCOTUS into the final arbiter of constitutional questions. And it really wasn't cited much until the 20th century .As an example ;Lincoln reused to enforce Dred Scott. Andrew Jackson openly defied a decision by Chief Justice Marshall. That is because throughout the 19th century there was an understanding that SCOTUS was an equal branch of government and not one wielding the power of 'final arbiter ' . The reason that SCOTUS appointments are so contentious is because of the unequal almost dictatorial power SCOTUS has over the country . The unelected ,appointed for life black robed oligarchs have way too much power .