[jlisenbe]

If the Kavanaugh nomination gets derailed, it will be a travesty. It will set up a scenario where corrupt democrats are able to drag up unsubstantiated allegations from decades ago to intimidate qualified candidates. That will be terrible. It will not be a win at all.

[tomder55]

as Lindsey Graham said today . The politics of the day is what goes around comes around . If Kavanaugh is unacceptable ,Barrett will make their heads explode .

time to move the goal posts again .....

Debra S. Katz,Dr Ford's lawyer, on FBI probe: "No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation."

[tomder55]

I think conservatives need maps to the Senate elevators. Evidently that is where Senate confirmations are decided these days . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bshgOZ8QQxU

[talaniman]

If the Kavanaugh nomination gets derailed, it will be a travesty. It will set up a scenario where corrupt democrats are able to drag up unsubstantiated allegations from decades ago to intimidate qualified candidates. That will be terrible. It will not be a win at all.

Says a lot you can totally disregard Dr. Ford or others like her so easily for a well heeled entitled frat boy. Let your nose go and breathe...you have a whole list of wingers standing in line don't you?

as Lindsey Graham said today . The politics of the day is what goes around comes around . If Kavanaugh is unacceptable ,Barrett will make their heads explode .

time to move the goal posts again .....

Debra S. Katz,Dr Ford's lawyer, on FBI probe: "No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation."

Graham wants Sessions job, soon to be vacated, and you guys started this with Merritt Garland, so don't be so high horse. LOL, you thought you were going to just roll over Ford, and get the frat boy in lickety split? Obviously she ain't done but the frat boy might be.

[jlisenbe]

Says a lot you can totally disregard Dr. Ford or others like her so easily for a well heeled entitled frat boy.

"a well heeled entitled frat boy"

Amazing how prejudiced you can be. The guy has worked hard and studied hard, but he belonged to a fraternity, so he must be dirty. Wow.

As to Dr. Ford, she has no evidence. Listen carefully, n-o-e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

[talaniman]

"a well heeled entitled frat boy"

Amazing how prejudiced you can be. The guy has worked hard and studied hard, but he belonged to a fraternity, so he must be dirty. Wow.

As to Dr. Ford, she has no evidence. Listen carefully, n-o-e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

I didn't call him dirty. You know me, if that's what I wanted to say I would have but since you brought it up he is accused of sexual assault, and for the record, she named another guy as a witness. You may need torn clothes bruises and semen, but few victims do.

To be fair he may be found more than dirty after the investigation, but a word of caution, would your daughter need evidence if she was assaulted by a drunk with another one watched? Or would you say where's the evidence? You listen very carefully my friend, THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WOMEN DON'T COME FORWARD!

And according to you it should stay that way!

[jlisenbe]

Perhaps some day you will be accused of a sexual assault that, it is said, happened more than thirty years ago. There will be no evidence at all, other than the famous "another guy" who is unnamed and is, at any rate, not thought to have witnessed anything. The accusers memory will range from detailed to vague to nonexistent. There will be good reason to suspect that there is an ulterior motive to the accusation, and the accuser will be financed by people who despise you. Still, you will be guilty. Why? Because that's your standard of justice. So I would encourage you to listen carefully as well. A person in this country is thought to be innocent until a certain standard of evidence has been met. You might not like that, but I for one am thrilled to have such a standard.

Truth is, it sure appears that you want him to be guilty because of political considerations. God help us all if that version of politics becomes dominant.

"a well heeled entitled frat boy"

So what did you mean by that? It was plainly not a compliment

[Wondergirl]

So what did you mean by that? It was plainly not a compliment

How would you describe him, jl?

[jlisenbe]

However I would describe him, it would not be by the use of offensive group affiliations. I would hope I would evaluate him as an individual, which is what I would hope for anyone.

[Wondergirl]

However I would describe him, it would not be by the use of offensive group affiliations. I would hope I would evaluate him as an individual, which is what I would hope for anyone.

Again I ask, how would you describe him?

[jlisenbe]

OK. Based on what I have seen, he is intelligent, accomplished, caring, and seems to inspire loyalty. His professional life seems to have been sterling.

[Athos]

OK. Based on what I have seen, he is intelligent, accomplished, caring, and seems to inspire loyalty. His professional life seems to have been sterling.

It's his private life that is in question, not his professional life.

Based on credible witnesses, he is a mean, nasty drunk prone to abusing women. These witnesses will be interviewed by the FBI this weekend and next week. The allegations include sexual misconduct.

Based on his testimony before the Senate, Kavanaugh is quick to anger lacking the necessary judicial temperament, shows a marked inability to answer questions directly, and arrogantly responds to senators who are questioning him. These are all strong indicators he sees himself as superior to others - not a good characteristic for someone wanting to be a justice on the highest court in the land.

His near meltdown at the hearing on Thursday revealed much about Kavanaugh including what poker players refer to as "tells".

[excon]

Truth is, it sure appears that you want him to be guilty because of political considerations. God help us all if that version of politics becomes dominant.

Hello j:

Well, Republicans did STEAL the seat, after all.. Why should the Dems let them get away with it?

They should deflect, derail, deny, dispense, and do ANYTHING they can to keep the seat OPEN until the midterms.. Then HOLD the seat open for President Biden to choose.. I think Merick Garland might be available..

excon

[jlisenbe]

Based on credible witnesses, he is a mean, nasty drunk prone to abusing women. These witnesses will be interviewed by the FBI this weekend and next week. The allegations include sexual misconduct.

Which witness said he was a mean, nasty drunk? Which witness said he was prone to abusing women? If you are trying to include Ramierez and the crazy woman who said he was a gang rapist (which no one with even half a brain believes), then you have to drop the adjective "credible".

Democrat strategy. Get a letter alleging sexual abuse, hold onto it privately, tell no one, give the woman legal advice, have the woman come forward at the eleventh hour, ignore the fact that her witnesses do no support her story, ignore the fact that she mysteriously does not know key elements of her story, call for an FBI investigation 2 months after they found out about the story, and then act like moral heroes. If I was a democrat, I would hang my head in shame.

Truth is, the only thing Kavanaugh is guilty of is being a conservative. And we are seeing a clear demonstration that democrats will lie like a dog if they think it will be effective.

and do ANYTHING they can to keep the seat OPEN until the midterms.

Well, you said it. "Do anything they can..." Lie, cheat, defame, destroy. You are getting your wish. Again, I'm glad I'm not a democrat. I hope the American people can see what low-life politicians the democrats have become. They have about as much character as a snail.

[tomder55]

you guys started this with Merritt Garland,

The Biden Rule :

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c45817...-election-year


Like i' said 'what goes around comes around'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.71919c11f07c

[talaniman]

The a lowlife move was denying Garland a fair process. Then you lowered the votes from 2/3 of the senate to a simple majority for SCOTUS appointees after you had the house, senate and white house. Now you can force anybody through and all can be done is delay, and obstruct, and if necessary destroy your nominees. So lets get off the dirty tricks we pull, until you can own your own, fair enough?

I get the clock is ticking, and you're afraid of losing the house, and senate, and politics is dirty and your well heeled frat boy was known as a political operative before he was a judge, which in my mind is not disqualifying in the least, unless there is a chance he may protect his benefactor if it comes to it. Chances are good it will sooner rather than later.

Now disrespecting and assaulting woman by a YOUNG country club, privileged HS'er, maybe while drunk, maybe not, may not be a big deal to you, but it is for sure with women, and REAL men who are honor bound and respect, and protect them. Or maybe you just have not seen enough of the carnage a drunk can cause in the lives of the ones closest to him, or have never experienced enough of carnage from an abusive drunk or sexual predators. You surely don't know while the body heals in time the mind does not, it takes much longer with much help and support, and if all you can say after the compelling story that Dr Ford shared with the nation is she has no evidence then you entirely miss the point of the bigger problem, so have no clue about what half the population faces because of that ignorance. Maybe it just that you have not had trauma at that level close to you, I don't know, but feel if you did maybe you would feel different, maybe not, and I could be wrong.

So maybe the FBI can do what repubs didn't want to do and that's shed lite on the events of July 1st, 1982, or there about. I don't know what will be revealed, but I do know that NO ONE would throw chaos and confusion and the attacks she has endured without it being important to do so for her. I reject the conspiracy and being paid to do so, a typical right wing tactic, seen often to rile themselves up against whatever target is the focus. Obviously works for you. SAD! The good news is her healing is greatly enhanced by standing up for herself effectively, something she couldn't do when she was 15 and pay attention and note how long it took to get where she is after decades of suffering. It's more common than you obviously acknowledge my friend, but as I said you haven't seen this dynamic closely.

Dr. ford also to be fair had advantages most women do not have and that's the interesting part for me because if such a well heeled privileged female could be victimized by such a traumatic event, what would it be for someone without privilege, resources, and support systems to help her life? Man it's good to be a lot tougher to get that healing so badly needed.

I'm not trying to change your mind or put you down JL, just present another view, because I think it better to see a bigger picture than a self serving agenda. I mean do you really want a judge on SCOTUS who hasn't learned or acknowledged his own shortcomings? How can he deal with yours or OURS? I know he looks good on paper, impressive in many aspects, but I would want to see the whole book before I jumped on that bandwagon. Just something to consider.

Well heeled frat boy is anybody who is raised in privilege with the inside track to the country club life.

[jlisenbe]

raised in privilege with the inside track to the country club life.

I hope you realize that your quote is a description of Dr. Ford. She belonged to a country club and attended an elite, private all-girls school. So using your logic, she is bound to be lying.

Then you lowered the votes from 2/3 of the senate to a simple majority for SCOTUS appointees after you had the house, senate and white house.

You failed to mention that this was another step in a process started by Harry Reid and the dems in 2013. It was said then that it would eventually come back and bite them in the rear end, and so it has.

I mean do you really want a judge on SCOTUS who hasn't learned or acknowledged his own shortcomings?

This is the part of this whole debate I despise the most. Make an unsubstantiated, probably false (my opinion) accusation that has been flatly contradicted by four witnesses named by the accuser, but then draw the incredible conclusion that because the accuser is a woman, then surely she must be telling the truth. Then you can say he won't acknowledge his shortcomings. What a sick process this has become, to destroy a man's credibility on such non-existent evidence. There are still those of us who value justice and believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. So no, I won't join you in smearing the name of a good man who's character has been supported by the statements of literally hundreds of people.

And please don't start the false narrative of suggesting that because I'm not going to go along with this injustice, that I am somehow anti-female. I have no respect for any man that would treat a woman disrespectfully, but neither will I just throw a man to the wolves with no evidence to support that action. And this is being done by people who, when they had the opportunity to support a woman who really was taken advantage of, slandered, libeled, and treated like a slut, they passed on that chance to come forward and support Monica Lewinsky. Instead, they fell in line behind a man who was PROVEN to be a man who lied about her and treated her in the most shameful and disrespectful manner possible. Tell me why I shouldn't conclude that the democrats have now turned out to be the biggest collection of hypocrites on the planet, especially with Cory Booker, an admitted sex offender, seated on the committee and asking questions of Kavanaugh.

[talaniman]

One fact that was missing from your narrative (And the rest of right wingdom) was as we all were watching the questions of Ms. Mitchell for Kavanaugh, about the date in his book that included the names Dr Ford had given as being present. Why was she shutdown from continuing her line of questions by the repubs who hired her in the first place?

This is my second assertion of the importance of that so your thoughts please.

[jlisenbe]

What is there to explain? His calendar notes he went to "Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie and Squi." I'd be willing to bet it meant that... he went to Timmy's to drink some beer with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie, and Squi. No mention of girls being there. No mention of trying to make it with a girl. So what are you looking for? And if it was such a big deal, then why didn't any of the dems question him about it?

In the meantime, Dr. Ford says she became upset and left the party. She was miles from home, so how did she get home? That would have been a problem as she had no car. She can't remember how she solved that problem? That's a difficulty for me. I find it hard to believe. Now she might be telling the truth, but I have no way of knowing that. I will not simply assume she is being honest since she is female.

I know. I don't just automatically believe her in order to make a political point, so I must be anti-female.

[talaniman]

That is what the investigation is about but that wasn't the question.

Why was she shutdown from continuing her line of questions by the repubs who hired her in the first place?

I don't expect you to know what you don't have experience in. I get that few do. Most humans are irrational and unaware after traumatic events. Accident victims, soldiers, but if you have been around addicts and alcoholics then you would also know what they have gone through also, and the lengths they go through to get what they want, and what they are capable of. Kavanaugh's buddy wrote a few books on his experiences that may be relevant and revealing.

That was the question for me, was Kavanaugh capable of such a thing and the answer was a decisive YES. That repubs didn't want a deeper PROFESSIONAL look into the allegations was highly suspicious, and the blatant lie that his friends said he didn't do it when actually they didn't KNOW of it was enough to look deeper, yet it was repeated and still is. Too many questions to sweep under the rug about this guy for me, but if his background check into the allegations comes back clean I'm sure you guys will vote him in so what's the problem?

Still would like an opinion on the above question.