Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Who do you believe?


  • Total voters
    453
bk61kxhf03o11.png

From a investigative journalism standpoint, it's worrying that this story was printed at all. I could understand if they any sort of evidence whatsoever. Even a biased best friend backing her up would at least give it some form of credibility. This has nothing. The magazine admits it can't corroborate anything, witnesses refute it, and it's based on a woman piecing together her drunken memory from decades ago.

It's a lower bar than a National Inquirer story about Bigfoot.
 
That is what Republicans did with Garland. Don't cry foul now that the other side is playing dirty.

Republicans took a giant shit on fair play with Garland. I'm a golden ruler. I will treat you with respect to lead with, as that is how I want to be treated. Take the law out of it, and that philosophy allows me to think it is OK to burn someone's house down, because they spit on me. I don't exactly believe in proportionate response.
I’ve told you several times the democrats chose to let that go because they didn’t really want the moderate obama nominated. They decided to wait so hillary could nominate some that would be a rubber stamp for everything progressive.
 
I used to think it was iffy too. But the obvious smear nature of this second allegation makes it seem less iffy that the first was a smear as well. These women are carefully avoiding any detail that can actually be proven or disproven, and the few facts in play in Fords' story have been denied by the folks she says were there.

It's an effective delaying strategy.
Isn't it a bit early to say it's an "obvious smear"?
 
While the guillotines were cutting off heads, "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette," they said.

Personal lives mean more than that, and if you and your family were up for the ridicule, or in worse times and places, the bullet, I think your mind would change.

There is nothing to say we could not be next in one of these shameful episodes.

We must have value, or anyone can say, "I feel my politics needs this!" and take from those lives, and then later our lives.

You sound super-distressed, man. It's bleeding off the page.

Leave the policy out of it, people need to agree that we want Bernie, and his hugging of trees, not Trump and his cut throat cuntiness. Until that happens, let's fling shit

s0208.gif
 
I agree, except for one critical point - Clinton and Trump relished, and had long records, of their public sexual explosions aka "Bimbo Eruptions,"

We laughed off most on Obama, because, he was not really that kind of fellow to his credit.

Bush? Perhaps someone said something, but I don't recall, he was not really that kind of fellow as well to his credit.

Trump/Clinton - "Where is the pussy grabbing at?"

Obama/Bush - "We're married and have children."

1. Kavanaugh by all (as of now) respectable accounts fits more into the Bush/Obama mold on that front. Those respectable accounts say he is a very outstanding person. Maybe he isn't, but it points that way from a lot of credible people.

2. Unlike Clinton and Trump, where despite efforts to ruthlessly crush the "Bimbos," Kanavaughghghgh (His name is hard to spell) has faced absolutely no credible evidence, let alone a history, of anything like this.

I guess that is two objections.

Here is what I honestly think. Everyone has skeletons in their closet. If the Dems are making this up, it is simply because they are incompetent, and couldn't find the real dirt.

Put any person under a microscope, and you could destroy them.
 
I have no idea why you say this with such confidence.

I posted several legitimate accounts as to why not, and if you would like to read a few we can go through our views point by point.

However,

If you are convinced by what I see as a rumor of a rumor of the unsubstantiated, so be it.
 
The part of the Farrow piece that was most interesting to me was the allegation of Kavanaugh's former roommate. I guess the guy is now a tech CEO. He says it was common for Kavanaugh to be shitface drunk. To me, that has some credibility and changes my perception of Kavanaugh a bit. Obviously, it doesn't mean Kavanaugh is guilty of the behavior alleged by Ford/Ramirez.

This is likely fake news, but I saw an article claiming they had yearbook pictures that made the whole school at the time look like a drunken orgy. Would be interesting and not impossible if both were lying.
 
Another thing: why would Kavanaugh have an intact calendar from 1982? I was in here questioning Ford's "therapist notes" from 2012, so I'm certainly going to be extra skeptical of the calendar.

I doubt it's a "calendar" like we're thinking. I think it's a detailed day planner of sorts, as opposed to a wall calendar. We'll see. This guy is a judge. I doubt he'd be submitting a wall calendar with a few notes on it, as evidence. That would be pretty desperate.
 
You sound super-distressed, man. It's bleeding off the page.



s0208.gif

Really? Hmm, maybe I should try my hand at acting.



Hmm, then again I don't think I could be that impressive, that talented.
 
I posted several legitimate accounts as to why not, and if you would like to read a few we can go through our views point by point.

However,

If you are convinced by what I see as a rumor of a rumor of the unsubstantiated, so be it.
I don't recall saying I was convinced of anything.
 
I’ve told you several times the democrats chose to let that go because they didn’t really want the moderate obama nominated. They decided to wait so hillary could nominate some that would be a rubber stamp for everything progressive.

That doesn't change the fact that because Obama actually did want to pick a supreme Court judge, that he picked a absolute centrist that Repuicans should have loved. Pointing out that the Democrats didn't fight in lock step to oppose this absurdity from Republicans, isn't exactly an excuse for how absurd it is to block a corporatist centrist(someone I don't even like) that might have been the least controversial supreme Court nominee ever.
 
Put any person under a microscope, and you could destroy them.

Well sure, but there is destroying them with standards and practices, or inventing a Kafkaesque nightmare.

I honestly think we're in the later, and I don't want to go there in American society, we've pushed enough boundaries that were best left unpushed, that we can agree on even if we disagree on who pushed first ECT.
 
Trump calls new Kavanaugh accusations ‘totally political,’ stands by nominee

President Trump stood foursquare behind Brett Kavanaugh on Monday in the wake of new sexual misconduct allegations against his Supreme Court nominee, calling the uncorroborated claims “totally political” and “unfair.”

The president addressed the latest twist to jolt the most chaotic Supreme Court confirmation process in modern times on the sidelines of the United Nations meeting in New York.

“I am with Judge Kavanaugh,” Trump declared. “For people to come out of the woodwork from thirty-six years ago, and thirty years ago, and never mentioned it, all of a sudden it happened … totally political.”

The president, signaling the White House would dig in and defend Kavanaugh amid the onslaught of allegations, called the situation “one of the single most unfair, unjust things to happen to a candidate.”

The allegations at this stage have gone well beyond the sexual harassment claims leveled by Anita Hill against now-Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991. The latest allegation was made by Debbie Ramirez, who in a New Yorker, article alleged Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a Yale University party.

Ramirez claimed Kavanaugh committed the act while she was intoxicated during a drinking game in the 1983-84 academic year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman. She also claimed she inadvertently touched Kavanaugh's penis when she pushed him away and said the incident left her "embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated."

The report stated that the magazine had not corroborated that Kavanaugh was at the party in question. An anonymous male classmate said he was told that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to Ramirez within the following days.

Ramirez admitted to the magazine that she does not fully remember the alleged incident because she had been drinking at the time. The magazine also reported that Ramirez spent six days "carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney" before telling the full version of her story.

Kavanaugh responded that the event “did not happen” and that the allegation is “a smear, plain and simple.”

The White House, meanwhile, pushed back hard, pointing in part to a New York Times report that said the newspaper could not back up the accuser’s claims.

“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge," the Times wrote in a story that followed the New Yorker report. "Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

The claim followed that of a California woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges Kavanaugh held her down and tried to force himself on her while both were in high school.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, late Sunday slammed Senate Democrats for withholding information from the committee regarding the new sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh.

The Iowa Republican said the committee will attempt to evaluate the new claims, but said in a statement “it appears that they [Democrats] are more interested in a political takedown" than “pursing allegations through a bipartisan and professional investigative process.”

His office released the statement as a third potential allegation arose from Michael Avenatti, the attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims Kavanaugh and others targeted women with "alcohol/drugs" to allow men to gang rape them at high school parties. This accusation has lacked any corroboration to date.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-political-sexual-misconduct-allegations.html

Just do the damn vote and get this over with. I'm tired of this. <1>
 
Early is the key point. The Dems want to be sure that no one calls it the smear it obviously is util it is late. It's a time issue, nothing more.

You say this, but think about it. They had months to dig this up. Kavanaugh has probably had a opposition file for 20 years now.

I'm not saying it is true, but why lie, if you can take him down with the truth?

Do you actually believe Kavanaugh doesn't have dirt in his past?
 
Back
Top