Kavanaugh

[Beebs52]

Why do these Confirmation Hearings turn into character assassinations only when conservatives are nominated?

Two things come to mind:

1) Only Republicans choose to nominate sexual abusers and harrassers.

2) When Republicans don't like the nominee, they simply don't hold hearings.

Bless your heart again and again. Foolish comment.

[flockofseagulls104]

Why do these Confirmation Hearings turn into character assassinations only when conservatives are nominated?

Two things come to mind:

1) Only Republicans choose to nominate sexual abusers and harrassers.

2) When Republicans don't like the nominee, they simply don't hold hearings.

1. Well, it's difficult, because all republicans are sexual abusers. Especially well-respected judges with long spotless records. The Senate Democrats must be incredible sexual abuse investigators. They can sniff it out better than anyone.
2. Like Breyer, Vader-Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan?

[silverscreenselect]

2. Like Breyer, Vader-Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan?

All of whom were nominated when Democrats were in control of the Senate and held hearings, the same way both parties had done for decades until Mitch McConnell decided on a power play.

Clarence Thomas left a record that was pretty obvious if anyone decided to look for it. Kavanaugh may have had a bit of bad luck in being the first nominee after the Me Too movement heightened public awareness of sexual abuse, but it still doesn't change what he's done.

Your problem is that you don't like the fact that your candidate got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And you're not even amenable to an investigation that would tend to prove or disprove these charges as well as can be expected after this length of time. You're not even amenable to all the witnesses being called to testify. You and McConnell and Grassley just want a show hearing.

[flockofseagulls104]

2. Like Breyer, Vader-Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan?

All of whom were nominated when Democrats were in control of the Senate and held hearings, the same way both parties had done for decades until Mitch McConnell decided on a power play.

Clarence Thomas left a record that was pretty obvious if anyone decided to look for it. Kavanaugh may have had a bit of bad luck in being the first nominee after the Me Too movement heightened public awareness of sexual abuse, but it still doesn't change what he's done.

Your problem is that you don't like the fact that your candidate got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And you're not even amenable to an investigation that would tend to prove or disprove these charges as well as can be expected after this length of time. You're not even amenable to all the witnesses being called to testify. You and McConnell and Grassley just want a show hearing.

Right. Wow. I'm just FULL of problems, ain't I?

"prove or disprove"
Did you not read my post quoting Biden on FBI investigations? No, of course not, Mr Ryerson. That was yesterday. No need to consider that in your knee jerk, snarky response. I got you, babe.

[silverscreenselect]

"prove or disprove"
Did you not read my post quoting Biden on FBI investigations?

And what's your point? That you can take a line form something that Joe Biden has since admitted was one of his worst moments as a Senator and use it as proof that we are somehow better off judging this case solely by the testimony of these two people rather than by taking into account whatever the FBI might have turned up? Biden wound up not calling other witnesses and admitted later it was a mistake.

You claim you want to make a "fair" decision but you don't want to know all the facts. Do you think that somehow a decision based on admittedly incomplete information is better than one in which more witnesses are heard and investigated? Only in your right-wing view of things are we better off with fewer facts than more facts. Or do you think the Senators would just get confused if they had more information?

Why don't you want other witnesses to testify and there to be further investigation?

[silverscreenselect]

Wow. I'm just FULL of problems, ain't I?

You're full of something all right.

[flockofseagulls104]

Only in your right-wing view of things are we better off with fewer facts than more facts.

Sonny and Cher: "They say our love won't pay the rent...."

[Bob78164]

And now there are four. The most recent recounted her 1998 experience in a letter to Senator Cory Gardner. She says there were at least four witnesses, including her own daughter.

Based on how Senators Murkowski and Collins have been reacting to developments, I don't think it will be possible for the Senate to confirm Kavanaugh without conducting a real investigation. They may take a vote just to get it over with, but if they do that I think it's a vote they'll lose. --Bob

[Estonut]

That's right, aSShole, I'm a BAAAAAAD man. I personally prevent every abused woman from reporting their abuse.

That's right. You don't prevent abused women from reporting, but collectively, you sure as hell discourage it. You don't even treat this allegation as a coin flip on credibility; you're insisting she come up with an impossible standard of proof before you believe her. And considering the doubt that keeps mounting day after day about Kavanaugh's credibility and the way he now seems to be changing his tune about how he was a choir boy in high school and college (after his handlers undoubtedly let him know that his original story wasn't playing too well), there are some significant doubts about that credibility.

Women do invent stories. But it doesn't happen very often, and now we have three different women alleging various versions of the same thing. And keep in mind that the Democrats have never asked specifically for a down vote on Kavanaugh. They've asked for the FBI to investigate, and the Republicans are stonewalling. Presumably, now that the FBI knows what to look for, they can get to the bottom of a lot of these allegations. Under your standards, any criminal victim would have to prove his or her case before the police would even be bothered to investigate.

Hopefully, the FBI will get to the truth. They should also investigate the rest of her therapist's notes, not just those whose release she cherry-picked. They should also investigate her finances. The story she originally laid out stunk, especially the embellishments provided by her husband.

If this has no political slant aspect to it, why are all the accusers staunch Democrats? Do you think that Republican women who might have been assaulted in the same manner would now keep silent out of party loyalty?

[Bob78164]

That's right, aSShole, I'm a BAAAAAAD man. I personally prevent every abused woman from reporting their abuse.

That's right. You don't prevent abused women from reporting, but collectively, you sure as hell discourage it. You don't even treat this allegation as a coin flip on credibility; you're insisting she come up with an impossible standard of proof before you believe her. And considering the doubt that keeps mounting day after day about Kavanaugh's credibility and the way he now seems to be changing his tune about how he was a choir boy in high school and college (after his handlers undoubtedly let him know that his original story wasn't playing too well), there are some significant doubts about that credibility.

Women do invent stories. But it doesn't happen very often, and now we have three different women alleging various versions of the same thing. And keep in mind that the Democrats have never asked specifically for a down vote on Kavanaugh. They've asked for the FBI to investigate, and the Republicans are stonewalling. Presumably, now that the FBI knows what to look for, they can get to the bottom of a lot of these allegations. Under your standards, any criminal victim would have to prove his or her case before the police would even be bothered to investigate.

Hopefully, the FBI will get to the truth. They should also investigate the rest of her therapist's notes, not just those whose release she cherry-picked. They should also investigate her finances. The story she originally laid out stunk, especially the embellishments provided by her husband.

If this has no political slant aspect to it, why are all the accusers staunch Democrats? Do you think that Republican women who might have been assaulted in the same manner would now keep silent out of party loyalty?

So you think the standard out to be, "report an attempted rape, get investigated yourself"?

If evidence comes to light suggesting that an accuser's account is invented, there will be time enough for these intrusive inquiries. But in the absence of such evidence, the focus of the investigation should be on the allegations themselves. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Insanity thy name is...

[flockofseagulls104]

That's right, aSShole, I'm a BAAAAAAD man. I personally prevent every abused woman from reporting their abuse.

That's right. You don't prevent abused women from reporting, but collectively, you sure as hell discourage it. You don't even treat this allegation as a coin flip on credibility; you're insisting she come up with an impossible standard of proof before you believe her. And considering the doubt that keeps mounting day after day about Kavanaugh's credibility and the way he now seems to be changing his tune about how he was a choir boy in high school and college (after his handlers undoubtedly let him know that his original story wasn't playing too well), there are some significant doubts about that credibility.

Women do invent stories. But it doesn't happen very often, and now we have three different women alleging various versions of the same thing. And keep in mind that the Democrats have never asked specifically for a down vote on Kavanaugh. They've asked for the FBI to investigate, and the Republicans are stonewalling. Presumably, now that the FBI knows what to look for, they can get to the bottom of a lot of these allegations. Under your standards, any criminal victim would have to prove his or her case before the police would even be bothered to investigate.

Hopefully, the FBI will get to the truth. They should also investigate the rest of her therapist's notes, not just those whose release she cherry-picked. They should also investigate her finances. The story she originally laid out stunk, especially the embellishments provided by her husband.

If this has no political slant aspect to it, why are all the accusers staunch Democrats? Do you think that Republican women who might have been assaulted in the same manner would now keep silent out of party loyalty?

Why, SSS, do you care whether I support the FBI investigating these accusations? I have no say in the matter. It's just my opinion. It's a waste of time, which is what the dems want. If they already investigated him 6 times, and didn't find out he ran a rape ring, I don't think it ever really existed. I mean, C'mon. Doesn't that seem pretty far-fetched, even to you?

[Estonut]

That's right. You don't prevent abused women from reporting, but collectively, you sure as hell discourage it. You don't even treat this allegation as a coin flip on credibility; you're insisting she come up with an impossible standard of proof before you believe her. And considering the doubt that keeps mounting day after day about Kavanaugh's credibility and the way he now seems to be changing his tune about how he was a choir boy in high school and college (after his handlers undoubtedly let him know that his original story wasn't playing too well), there are some significant doubts about that credibility.

Women do invent stories. But it doesn't happen very often, and now we have three different women alleging various versions of the same thing. And keep in mind that the Democrats have never asked specifically for a down vote on Kavanaugh. They've asked for the FBI to investigate, and the Republicans are stonewalling. Presumably, now that the FBI knows what to look for, they can get to the bottom of a lot of these allegations. Under your standards, any criminal victim would have to prove his or her case before the police would even be bothered to investigate.

Hopefully, the FBI will get to the truth. They should also investigate the rest of her therapist's notes, not just those whose release she cherry-picked. They should also investigate her finances. The story she originally laid out stunk, especially the embellishments provided by her husband.

If this has no political slant aspect to it, why are all the accusers staunch Democrats? Do you think that Republican women who might have been assaulted in the same manner would now keep silent out of party loyalty?

So you think the standard out to be, "report an attempted rape, get investigated yourself"?

If evidence comes to light suggesting that an accuser's account is invented, there will be time enough for these intrusive inquiries. But in the absence of such evidence, the focus of the investigation should be on the allegations themselves.

Did I say that? Her original story itself suggests that at least some of her account is invented. I believe you stated that you believe a "full investigation" by the FBI is warranted. I agree, but that applies to both of them.

[Bob78164]

Hopefully, the FBI will get to the truth. They should also investigate the rest of her therapist's notes, not just those whose release she cherry-picked. They should also investigate her finances. The story she originally laid out stunk, especially the embellishments provided by her husband.

If this has no political slant aspect to it, why are all the accusers staunch Democrats? Do you think that Republican women who might have been assaulted in the same manner would now keep silent out of party loyalty?

So you think the standard out to be, "report an attempted rape, get investigated yourself"?

If evidence comes to light suggesting that an accuser's account is invented, there will be time enough for these intrusive inquiries. But in the absence of such evidence, the focus of the investigation should be on the allegations themselves.

Did I say that? Her original story itself suggests that at least some of her account is invented. I believe you stated that you believe a "full investigation" by the FBI is warranted. I agree, but that applies to both of them.

There's no evidence that her account is invented other than Kavanaugh's denial that it occurred. Four named people are willing to say that years in the past, she described an attempted rape when she was in high school. In each case, she identified one of her assailants either by name or as a federal judge or prominent lawyer well known in D.C.

She's been saying this about Kavanaugh since President Obama's first term. There's no evidence that it's a recent politically motivated invention. --Bob

[Beebs52]

So you think the standard out to be, "report an attempted rape, get investigated yourself"?

If evidence comes to light suggesting that an accuser's account is invented, there will be time enough for these intrusive inquiries. But in the absence of such evidence, the focus of the investigation should be on the allegations themselves.

Did I say that? Her original story itself suggests that at least some of her account is invented. I believe you stated that you believe a "full investigation" by the FBI is warranted. I agree, but that applies to both of them.

There's no evidence that her account is invented other than Kavanaugh's denial that it occurred. Four named people are willing to say that years in the past, she described an attempted rape when she was in high school. In each case, she identified one of her assailants either by name or as a federal judge or prominent lawyer well known in D.C.

She's been saying this about Kavanaugh since President Obama's first term. There's no evidence that it's a recent politically motivated invention. --Bob

Why didn't she report it to officials then?

[Estonut]

So you think the standard out to be, "report an attempted rape, get investigated yourself"?

If evidence comes to light suggesting that an accuser's account is invented, there will be time enough for these intrusive inquiries. But in the absence of such evidence, the focus of the investigation should be on the allegations themselves.

Did I say that? Her original story itself suggests that at least some of her account is invented. I believe you stated that you believe a "full investigation" by the FBI is warranted. I agree, but that applies to both of them.

There's no evidence that her account is invented other than Kavanaugh's denial that it occurred. Four named people are willing to say that years in the past, she described an attempted rape when she was in high school. In each case, she identified one of her assailants either by name or as a federal judge or prominent lawyer well known in D.C.

She's been saying this about Kavanaugh since President Obama's first term. There's no evidence that it's a recent politically motivated invention.

Her original 3 witnesses did not corroborate her recollections, IIRC one was a friend.

You really believe that, in 2012, with Obama's second term approaching and 8 years of Hillary to follow, that she was concerned then about Kavanaugh being selected for the Supreme Court one day?

[flockofseagulls104]

There's no evidence that it's a recent politically motivated invention.

More evidence than she's supplied so far.

[silverscreenselect]

If they already investigated him 6 times, and didn't find out he ran a rape ring, I don't think it ever really existed. I mean, C'mon. Doesn't that seem pretty far-fetched, even to you?

They weren't looking for that and quite possibly never even asked questions about that.

[Bob78164]

Did I say that? Her original story itself suggests that at least some of her account is invented. I believe you stated that you believe a "full investigation" by the FBI is warranted. I agree, but that applies to both of them.

There's no evidence that her account is invented other than Kavanaugh's denial that it occurred. Four named people are willing to say that years in the past, she described an attempted rape when she was in high school. In each case, she identified one of her assailants either by name or as a federal judge or prominent lawyer well known in D.C.

She's been saying this about Kavanaugh since President Obama's first term. There's no evidence that it's a recent politically motivated invention.

Her original 3 witnesses did not corroborate her recollections, IIRC one was a friend.

You really believe that, in 2012, with Obama's second term approaching and 8 years of Hillary to follow, that she was concerned then about Kavanaugh being selected for the Supreme Court one day?

In 2012, she told her husband that she was almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge. I think she named him to her husband but I don't remember. She first disclosed the incident to him (without details) when they first got married.

The evidence is solid that her account is not a recent invention. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

You really believe that, in 2012, with Obama's second term approaching and 8 years of Hillary to follow, that she was concerned then about Kavanaugh being selected for the Supreme Court one day?

No, but if she knew the identity of her attackers, she would very possibly with concerned about the very fact that he was walking around free while she continued to be plagued by the event. That could easily be what drove her into therapy in the first place.

[flockofseagulls104]

There's no evidence that it's a recent politically motivated invention.

More evidence than she's supplied so far.

Here's the guy that should be investigated. As trump said, I would have liked to be in the room where they planned all this.

[Estonut]

If they already investigated him 6 times, and didn't find out he ran a rape ring, I don't think it ever really existed. I mean, C'mon. Doesn't that seem pretty far-fetched, even to you?

They weren't looking for that and quite possibly never even asked questions about that.

It is astounding the things you think you know.

[silverscreenselect]

There's no evidence that it's a recent politically motivated invention.

More evidence than she's supplied so far.

Here's the guy that should be investigated. As trump said, I would have liked to be in the room where they planned all this.

That room must have been very crowded. There looks to be two more women (total of five now) who have accused Kavanaugh. The most recent one was an attempted rape in Rhode Island on a boat in 1985.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... story.html

[Estonut]

There's no evidence that her account is invented other than Kavanaugh's denial that it occurred. Four named people are willing to say that years in the past, she described an attempted rape when she was in high school. In each case, she identified one of her assailants either by name or as a federal judge or prominent lawyer well known in D.C.

She's been saying this about Kavanaugh since President Obama's first term. There's no evidence that it's a recent politically motivated invention.

Her original 3 witnesses did not corroborate her recollections, IIRC one was a friend.

You really believe that, in 2012, with Obama's second term approaching and 8 years of Hillary to follow, that she was concerned then about Kavanaugh being selected for the Supreme Court one day?

In 2012, she told her husband that she was almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge. I think she named him to her husband but I don't remember. She first disclosed the incident to him (without details) when they first got married.

The evidence is solid that her account is not a recent invention.

Wrong. She said she told NO ONE until 2012, in therapy with her husband.

Here is my post with my comments about her original account.

I repeat, do you really believe that, in 2012, with Obama's second term approaching and 8 years of Hillary to follow, that she was concerned then about Kavanaugh being selected for the Supreme Court one day?

[Beebs52]

More evidence than she's supplied so far.

Here's the guy that should be investigated. As trump said, I would have liked to be in the room where they planned all this.

That room must have been very crowded. There looks to be two more women (total of five now) who have accused Kavanaugh. The most recent one was an attempted rape in Rhode Island on a boat in 1985.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... story.html

There were goats and actual satyrs involved!