Good to see conservatives fight back (Ford v Kavanaugh)

[Doc]

and using the same tactics as the left!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/27/ahead-pivotal-senate-hearing-witnesses-surface-to-say-christine-ford-may-have-mistaken-them-for-kavanaugh.html

Two men come out and claim it may have been them that "attacked" Ford. Do I believe them? As much as I believe all the women who have come out and claimed BK molested, attacked, gangraped, etc.... them. But prove them wrong, prove them liars..... #menbelieve.

Should be an interesting day. I like what the GOP did by getting a prosecutor who happens to be female. Accomplishes several things. Removes the optics of congressmen beating up on this poor hapless madien. Plus removes the grandstanding which is a congressman craves and is the equivalent to what blood is to Dracula. Although Im not sure a prosecutor is the right move. Perhaps a sex crime defense lawyer would be better however the optics there are not good.

Personally I believe something may have happened to Ford because being groped at a high school party is common, unless your an ugly feminist. Do I think it was BK? No but prove me wrong. Presumption of innocence is a legal definition confined to the courts, but lets be serious here. This is a court and he is on trial. One concocted by the left to derail his nomination. It's Clarence Thomas all over again. Same tactic, different names. Didnt work then and hope it does not work now because of the precedent it sets.

[CitizenBBN]

This is quickly proving to be a sham. I haven't had time to list all the ways in which her original story has fallen apart, much less the even more weak secondary claims, but it's becoming clear this is a politically motivated hit job, timed and staged for political purposes.

I did find time to read up on the polygraph she took. it was a complete joke. the woman and her lawyer met and crafted a statement, and then the polygraphist comes in the room and asks just TWO relevant questions, basically whether she believed she was telling the truth in the statement. That's a sham. Polygraphs are not "lie detectors" and the only way they can be effectively used is by a skilled interrogator asking questions in different ways for a longer period of time, trying to break the person's concentration and frankly use the device and setting as much to intimidate as to measure anything. Asking two simple pre-arranged questions over a pre-arranged statement with no details being asked whatsoever is just her lawyer getting a way to say "she passed a polygraph" to the media.

it's as big a sham as Pitino's lie detector test, completely.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems with this whole scenario.

And yes, the GOP needs to grow a pair and confirm this guy b/c we can't allow this kind of circus sideshow politics to prevail and be encouraged.

[CitizenBBN]

And yes it will be fascinating with these men stepping forward claiming it was them and not Kavanaugh. Like you I think that's politics, but I think it's also fire fighting fire, and if they do make a sworn statement to that effect it's tough to dispute it b/c they just admitted to a possible crime, albeit one for which I presume the statute of limitations has long expired.

and btw, it's unclear there was ever any crime here. If you read her various versions of events carefully all that happened was she was drunk and got groped at a high school party. Now that's not acceptable, but it's a far cry from rape or even attempted rape, which is how this has been characterized.

[ukpumacat]

Call me biased...but this has been a disaster for the Republicans. An absolute disaster. She seems credible, vulnerable and shaken. And she seems about as far from a party sham as one could imagine.

And btw...I am watching it on Fox News. And their entire panel just said the same thing.

[CitizenBBN]

I"m sure it is, and honestly that's what I expected. This was always about a no win scenario unless you are ready to shred this woman, and the GOP leadership wont' do that. IN part b/c it's high high risk, in part b/c they just don't have that kind of balls. Like how Hillary did with Clinton's accusers when he first announced for President, just rip them in the media. that and the media won't do it in this case.

So I figured this was a losing proposition as soon as they agreed to put her on TV. They should have agreed to closed door hearings only, and then by proxy go out and attack her so it's not a direct assault. That's crass, but IMO was the better strategy.


But iirc, Anita Hill was very credible and did a great job as well. Thomas still got on the bench. the other mistake the GOP is making is not calling all these other people who ALL have said they don't recall this incident, to undermine her credibility with otherwise neutral voices. That's how they got through the Anita Hill thing, by having a panel of other women on their vouching for Thomas.

[ukpumacat]

But iirc, Anita Hill was very credible and did a great job as well. Thomas still got on the bench. the other mistake the GOP is making is not calling all these other people who ALL have said they don't recall this incident, to undermine her credibility with otherwise neutral voices. That's how they got through the Anita Hill thing, by having a panel of other women on their vouching for Thomas.

Just from my point of view...Anita Hill was very stoic, measured and strong. The problem with that is that it came across well-coached (whether it was or not).
Dr. Ford is believable, scared, emotional, etc. She comes across terribly credible.

Clarence Thomas was black. That made a difference.

But, the biggest difference is/was that the time we live in is completely different. During this #MeToo day and age this will play entirely different on tv. The way we receive it is entirely different.
I would be pretty shocked if he gets confirmed now. And before today, I thought it was at least 50/50 he would.

[Doc]

I"m sure it is, and honestly that's what I expected. This was always about a no win scenario unless you are ready to shred this woman, and the GOP leadership wont' do that. IN part b/c it's high high risk, in part b/c they just don't have that kind of balls. Like how Hillary did with Clinton's accusers when he first announced for President, just rip them in the media. that and the media won't do it in this case.

So I figured this was a losing proposition as soon as they agreed to put her on TV. They should have agreed to closed door hearings only, and then by proxy go out and attack her so it's not a direct assault. That's crass, but IMO was the better strategy.


But iirc, Anita Hill was very credible and did a great job as well. Thomas still got on the bench. the other mistake the GOP is making is not calling all these other people who ALL have said they don't recall this incident, to undermine her credibility with otherwise neutral voices. That's how they got through the Anita Hill thing, by having a panel of other women on their vouching for Thomas.

One of the few things I respect the GOP for. Liberals would have no issue smearing somebody. Hell, the first thing they do to anybody who disagrees with them is call them a racist.

[ukpumacat]

One of the few things I respect the GOP for. Liberals would have no issue smearing somebody. Hell, the first thing they do to anybody who disagrees with them is call them a racist.

Oh come on. The GOP does do that all the time. They shredded Anita Hill. The only reason they aren't doing it now is for political gain. IT would kill them in the mid-terms if they went after her. That is why they brought in this nice, female prosecutor who served absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Both sides are playing politics here just like they always do.

[ukpumacat]

Btw, just a quick prediction.

I think Kavanaugh is going to come out and try to pull a Clarence Thomas. I doubt he will be nearly as effective. But I am expecting that is what he will do.
The statement he released is very benign. But I have a feeling he is being told he needs to come out far more aggressive and angry.

Guess we will see if he will and if it works.

[Doc]

Oh come on. The GOP does do that all the time. They shredded Anita Hill. The only reason they aren't doing it now is for political gain. IT would kill them in the mid-terms if they went after her. That is why they brought in this nice, female prosecutor who served absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Both sides are playing politics here just like they always do.

Oh come on. They treated her with kid gloves. You had a democrat senator sit on this in order to make it a difficult as poss, then do a bogus polygraph, one Im sure Feinstein arranged.

They brought in a nice female prosecutor for political reasons, sure. But the left will stoop to no low to reach their means. They have gone from disrupting the hearings with numbskull protestors, to calling for conservatives to be harrassed, to outright lying and then be proud of it (see Harry Reid reference to Mitt Romney's taxes where he flat out lied), to the IRS scandal to using Russian created dossier to get FISA warrants. The list goes on and on. These type of tactics are classic leftist. Does the right do unpalateble things? Sure but nothing like liberals where the ends justify the means

[ukpumacat]

This is exactly why the country is so divided imo.
You cite “liberals” as one whole group and say they will stoop to anything.
Sure, some do. Some don’t.
But what I will say about “liberals” is I find them to be far more honest about the fact that BOTH sides are equally guilty.
Conservatives would point out many of the same things you are saying right now. And a lot more.
Liberals could list pages of things they deem just as low. Character assassinations all the same. A long long list. And yet, they would be justified because conservatives actually believe it. They wouldn’t call it character assassination because they would say it’s just telling the truth.
If you watch Sean Hannity right now...every single episode is on how liberals spend all of their time “assassinating character”. Slime balls. Mudslinging. Etc.
Thats what he says with a Republican President and a majority in Congress.
But what were all of his shows about the previous 4 years? Doing that EXACT same thing.
He had show after show after show about Hillary and called her every name in the book.
He killed Susan Rice, Chuck Hagel, etc etc. on a nightly basis.

I could go on and on but there really isn’t a point. Both sides do it. And just as bad. Who you think does it the worst is going to reflect your own personal political leanings.
Liberals cried foul when Obama was being obliterated. Same with Clinton. And now that they are the minority they are doing it right back.
As soon as we have another blue wave...conservatives will start up just the same. It’s the cycle. On and on we go.

[ukpumacat]

Btw, just a quick prediction.

I think Kavanaugh is going to come out and try to pull a Clarence Thomas. I doubt he will be nearly as effective. But I am expecting that is what he will do.
The statement he released is very benign. But I have a feeling he is being told he needs to come out far more aggressive and angry.

Guess we will see if he will and if it works.

Btw, I was right on this one. He changed his prepared remarks. And as an outsider, I would say he’s been very effective as well. I’m back to 50/50 (and yes, I’m allowed to be like Jerry Meyer).

[Doc]

Looks like they picked the wrong guy to accuse. Guy has DOCUMENTATION in his calendars that show what he was doing every day. Nothing that I dont know when or where.....

[Doc]

This is exactly why the country is so divided imo.
You cite “liberals” as one whole group and say they will stoop to anything.
Sure, some do. Some don’t.
But what I will say about “liberals” is I find them to be far more honest about the fact that BOTH sides are equally guilty.
Conservatives would point out many of the same things you are saying right now. And a lot more.
Liberals could list pages of things they deem just as low. Character assassinations all the same. A long long list. And yet, they would be justified because conservatives actually believe it. They wouldn’t call it character assassination because they would say it’s just telling the truth.
If you watch Sean Hannity right now...every single episode is on how liberals spend all of their time “assassinating character”. Slime balls. Mudslinging. Etc.
Thats what he says with a Republican President and a majority in Congress.
But what were all of his shows about the previous 4 years? Doing that EXACT same thing.
He had show after show after show about Hillary and called her every name in the book.
He killed Susan Rice, Chuck Hagel, etc etc. on a nightly basis.

I could go on and on but there really isn’t a point. Both sides do it. And just as bad. Who you think does it the worst is going to reflect your own personal political leanings.
Liberals cried foul when Obama was being obliterated. Same with Clinton. And now that they are the minority they are doing it right back.
As soon as we have another blue wave...conservatives will start up just the same. It’s the cycle. On and on we go.

I don't like what the GOP does. In fact I was very outspoken about their behavior concerning Obama, etc. I found many of their actions embarrassing. But fortunately the democrats under Trump have totally obliterated any embarrassment. Between this stunt and the "Russian probe", its gone from foolish to downright moronic

[Doc]

Thumbs up to Lindey Grahmn

[ukpumacat]

Thumbs up to Lindey Grahmn

His speech was fantastic. And politically, he hit a home run to the Republican base especially.

[ukpumacat]

Looks like they picked the wrong guy to accuse. Guy has DOCUMENTATION in his calendars that show what he was doing every day. Nothing that I dont know when or where.....

He was really strong. He made one mistake Imo (and I totally understand why he made it and I am not sure what I would have advised he do). But he might have really messed up when he said he has never "Drank and not remembered something the next day".

I know it was loaded. They would have tried to say he may have done that on this night. But now there will be a slew of stories (and maybe pictures or videos) about him doing just that.

Heck, anyone that has drank at all has "passed out" and most likely forgotten some things from the night before. That's common. Especially when we were young.
It was a loaded question that he had no way of answering correctly. But it may come back and bite him.

[kingcat]

The bottom line is. One is a liar.

And the biggest question is who actually cares, win or lose?

This wasn't a debate although some would make it out to be.

[ukpumacat]

The bottom line is. One is a liar.



I am actually not convinced of that. I think it is very possible that one of three options could be true:

1. This happened to her but she is wrong about Kavanaugh doing it - I think this is unlikely since she knew him previously but I suppose it is plausible.

2. He did this but was so drunk he doesn't remember - I think this is very possible.

3. He did this when he was drunk, but never saw it as a sexual assault - I actually think this is most plausible. I cannot tell you how many people I know where drinking was involved got into this gray area. I realize in today's #metoo environment everything is more black and white. I think we are all more sensitive of this today. But, 30 years ago...things were just different.

Either way, all 3 of those are possible. And of course one of them lying is possible.

And just for the record...I 100% believe Feinstein USED Ford for political purposes. That is absolutely true. Which is sad and disgusting. Both sides have done the same type of thing...but she did it in this case.
It doesn't disprove Ford in any way, but its ugly politics.

[Doc]

4) she was drunk and thought it was him.....but it wasn't. That is every bit as plausable as him blacking out, or more plausable since she being a female typically don't hold liquor as well as men (due to size) and she was younger and not as familiar with alcohol.

Personally I believe something happened to her, and I believe it wasn't him.

[kingcat]

She says she is 100% sure it was him and she drank only one beer. I believe her.

Oth, I believe he is lying, and knows he should have taken another path towards contrition. Self righteous indignation is a sign of low self esteem and regret.
A common response to guilt.

Next?

[CitizenBBN]

The bottom line is. One is a liar.

And the biggest question is who actually cares, win or lose?

This wasn't a debate although some would make it out to be.

Neither is lying. One of them is accurate in their memory, and one is not.

And yes, I'm quite convinced at this point of which is which.

Unfortunately I have some real up close personal experience with people who absolutely in their soul believe things and events that simply are not real or never happened. They are stunningly good at convincing themselves of slights or insults or entire events that simply didn't happen.

I have no doubt she's convinced herself of the veracity of her statements, but look at them very closely against what few shreds of facts we do have in this case. Notice how she was convinced she was going to be raped, but not that she was raped. It was her perception she was going to be. Notice how not even her self-described friend doesn't remember her version of events, nor does anyone else.


She's not lying, b/c that implies she is sitting there knowing that the event didnt' happen. She's completely convinced it happened, but that doesn't mean it did.

The research on this btw is massive. Studies on witness accounts are replete with these examples, and that doesn't even get into these evoked "memories" from therapies and such.

She's not lying, but she is wrong, and there is zero doubt it is being used for pure political purposes.

[CitizenBBN]

She says she is 100% sure it was him and she drank only one beer. I believe her.

Oth, I believe he is lying, and knows he should have taken another path towards contrition. Self righteous indignation is a sign of low self esteem and regret.
A common response to guilt.

Next?

Except she wasn't always so sure. That's a tell in these situations. In fact her behavior is classic witness mis-identification, which is why in a real court this would be destroyed. Not just b/c of the decades old date, but b/c of everything surrounding it, including her actions over these decades.

Everyone sees what they want to see, but I find it interesting that indignation is a sign of regret. Maybe it's just a sign that some people have worked hard their whole lives and been careful and planned and they dont' care to have their character questioned when they have built up a lot of character over the years.

Or maybe when I get a client doing that to me I just feel regret for something, and should go see a therapist. :)

[ukpumacat]

Based on the little evidence we have, I cannot say who is wrong.
I would lean toward him being wrong or lying but I genuinely don’t know.
Both sides are playing politics with this. I still have no idea what WILL happen now. 50/50 imo.
I could see him getting through. I could also see the Dems getting two votes on their side.

Having said that, the biggest travesty of the day is how little Flake and Sasse spoke. They are by far the two most reasonable on the entire council and I would have rather have heard from either of them than anyone else.
This was a political spectacle that is riveting as it was....didn’t move the needle one way or the other politically speaking.

I will close with this...if he is put through, it will help the Dems in the mid-terms. I do believe that.
If he does not, it will help Republicans. So in a small way I think republicans win either way. They have to measure what is more important to them. I think him on the Supreme Court would be more important. But we will see.

[ukpumacat]

If I were a Republican strategist (and they will be having this meeting tonight)...
I would recommend that they allow a CONFIDENTIAL FBI investigation. And that ONE WEEK from today, they will make their recommendation to the Senate, no matter if any new allegations come forward etc.
I think it gives them more credibility and diffuses what will surely be a rallying cry for Democrats in November.

I’m not sure they will do that. But I would if I were them. They do that and they will get Collins and Murkowski vote as well.

[Catfan73]

He’s dead in the water. Whether she’s remembering events correctly or not makes little difference at this point as he’s being tried in the court of public opinion. When she went off script while responding to Leahy it sure looked like she was speaking from memory while Kavanaugh spent most of his time trying to paint himself as the victim, and it wasn’t a good look.

[ukpumacat]

Except she wasn't always so sure :)

Just a quick correction: that is a false report. She has always been sure it was Kavanaugh and Judge.
I’ve seen or heard nothing (except for a narrative on Fox News repeating it) from her that she has ever been unsure.
She has named him all along (since she started talking about it).
She has some holes as far as how many people were in the house, etc. But she has always been sure on Kavanaugh.

And I think one of the most compelling pieces of evidence is that she knew 3 of these people by name. She clearly knew them. That makes it far less likely she was mistaken about who did it (unless Doc’s theory is true which is she was drunk. Which is also possible).

Can I ask a very strange, controversial and non-partisan question?

Removing all political ties, is this an automatic disqualifier?

If this were a Democratic appointee, would it be disqualifying?

On the surface, I know the easy answer is yes.
But a drunk guy fooling around in High school...I’m just not so sure.
I KNOW it would have been traumatizing for her. And it is sexual assault.
But if he did this drunkenly 36 years ago...and has done nothing since...is it disqualifying (forgetting the political implications of the confirmation)?

[UKHistory]

Citizens comment that both could be telling the truth and it is a memory issue for one of them is plausible.

Memory and perspective and poor communication (alcohol and not knowing the person well) all can contribute.

I think she is credible. Talking about this with a therapist strengthens her case. Saying Mark Judge was in the room also shows her sincerity. A scorned lying woman wouldn’t make up that a witness to what she experienced as an assault would be the friend of the boy she accused.

[Doc]

She says she is 100% sure it was him and she drank only one beer. I believe her.

Oth, I believe he is lying, and knows he should have taken another path towards contrition. Self righteous indignation is a sign of low self esteem and regret.
A common response to guilt.

Next?

I see. She claims she had one beer and is 100% sure it was him.

He can account for where he was every weekend of the alleged summer and is 100% sure he sexually assaulted nobody. He has evidence to that. She has none.

Must be he that's lying.


As I stated, I actually believe both. I believe she was assaulted but not by him. She was MORE abused by the democrats who used as a pawn in a political game.

[Doc]

Unfortunately I have some real up close personal experience with people who absolutely in their soul believe things and events that simply are not real or never happened. They are stunningly good at convincing themselves of slights or insults or entire events that simply didn't happen.
.

So, you know my brother?

[kingcat]

One or the other is lying. The one with the most to lose probably.
If telling the truth, what she lost was many years ago.

But that wouldn't make him a monster...only willing to lie to the justice system and the American people.

No sane way around it...it must be investigated

[Doc]

Can I ask a very strange, controversial and non-partisan question?

Removing all political ties, is this an automatic disqualifier?

If this were a Democratic appointee, would it be disqualifying?


For me, NO regardless of party. Im sure I did far worse when I was in HS. People grow, mature and learn from their mistakes. Im sure I felt a girl up as a HS SR. I know I did as a college freshman. I look at SCOTUS appointees as mature adults who rule on the letter of the law. Events from 3 decades ago don't disqualify to me, be it Kagen or Kavanaugh

[Doc]

One or the other is lying. The one with the most to lose probably.
If telling the truth, what she lost was many years ago.

But that wouldn't make him a monster...only willing to lie to the justice system and the American people.

No sane way around it...it must be investigated

so we base who is telling the truth on who has more to lose? Ridiculous

[CitizenBBN]

Just a quick correction: that is a false report.

it's not false, it just depends on who you believe in the various stories out there. Her story has changed more than once, and there are accounts from people that she wasn't sure, though she says she was always sure. then there are the other variations in it.

One or two are easily enough dismissed. a Therapist's notes could be taken down wrong enough that it's understandable, but there's more of a pattern of and evolving remembrance here than one would see with something like this unless we're dealing with something so traumatic it was partially or completely repressed, which is possible but hasn't been claimed.

She has varied on the number of people, what house it was, when it was, etc. That's a lot of unsure for someone so traumatized by an event she can't live in a house without an escape route nearly 40 years later.

[CitizenBBN]

No sane way around it...it must be investigated

He was nominated for SCOTUS. He's been investigated for months and months, by the FBI, White House, and the opposition. That's what makes the whole "FBI must investigate" thing ring somewhat hollow.He has been investigated.

that doesn't even count the media. The NYT interviewed "dozens" of people per their own account on this 2nd story and decided to not run it b/c o the lack of any substantiation. Since his announcement do you really think that entire floors of reporters and lawyers havent' been engaged full time in investigating every morsel of his life?

If they have the FBI investigate some more OK, but the idea implies that he hasn't had his life examined with one of the biggest microscopes of all time already, and that's just not the case.

[CitizenBBN]

One or the other is lying. The one with the most to lose probably.


Not only is that not necessarily the case, but the idea that the person with the most to lose is the most likely to be lying is disturbing and completely without any basis whatsoever in empirically. Any number of studies haves shown that witness issues have little if anything to do with such factors.

There is a large body of research on this subject, the subject of witness credibility. It shows pretty clearly that even eyewitness accounts from uninvolved bystanders are highly influenced by events after the fact, are easily suggestible, and can be grossly inaccurate.

And it certainly has nothing to do with who has the most to lose. It's well proven that people with nothing to lose are wrong as much as anyone else in these processes. Humans are shockingly poor at remembering details, are easily biased in their memories, and generally make very poor recording devices.

No one here has to be lying for one of them to be wrong, or both of them wrong, or even both largely right.

[KeithKSR]

The bottom line is. One is a liar.

Not necessarily, both could believe they are being truthful. Ford seems awfully sketchy on details for me to think that she could accurately identify her attacker. She was also caught up on several instances of being less than truthful. Claims of being afraid to fly were thoroughly debunked, as were claims that the committee didn’t offer to go to California and speak with her. I lay part of that on her lawyers for likely trying to fix her faulty memory.

[Doc]

No sane way around it...it must be investigated

Had that been the issue, the actual issue, it could have been done had Dianne Frankenstein done what a reasonable legislator interested in the truth does rather than a political hack. For 60 days the left had the accusation and elected to sit on it. Their cries for a delay so the FBI can do an investigation ring hallow because of the delay. It crystal clear they sat on it and waited to release to delay the vote until after the election. I'd been fine with doing it back in August, behind closed doors but no...the left elected to keep their ace in the hole, the insurance policy so to speak, then throw it out now. It reeks of political scumbaggery. They had their chance and elected to blow it

[CitizenBBN]

Citizens comment that both could be telling the truth and it is a memory issue for one of them is plausible.

Memory and perspective and poor communication (alcohol and not knowing the person well) all can contribute.

I think she is credible. Talking about this with a therapist strengthens her case. Saying Mark Judge was in the room also shows her sincerity. A scorned lying woman wouldn’t make up that a witness to what she experienced as an assault would be the friend of the boy she accused.

The studies suggest that speaking to a therapist about things really doesn't add much to the probability of it being accurate. Now it goes to her honestly, but not her accuracy. that's a very significant difference.

As for mentioning other people, again the research shows it's not much of a factor in such situations.

remember, she could believe every single thing she is saying, and remember it that way, and still be very wrong or largely wrong or just wrong enough that it wasn't "assault" but was just an awkward drunken high school event.

And in fairness the same could be said for Kavanaugh. Maybe he flirted with her or grabbed her at some drunken party and was just "making a pass" and didn't give it a second thought, but in her state of mind she thought it was an indication of a real threat of harm and assault. Both are telling the truth, both are "right" to a large extent, b/c the truth is in the middle.

the point is you can't convict an innocent person based on "she sure seemed sincere". The record books are full of minorities and poor people being wrongly convicted of crimes based on the emphatic testimony of a single, respectable pillar of the local community. Just b/c they make a compelling, even sincere, witness doesn't mean we should accept it as necessarily wholly accurate.

That's esp. true when the entire thing is based on her perception that a groping was going to be the beginning of something far worse. Remember she's not claiming she was raped, just that she felt she would be. Doesn't mean she's wrong or that's OK, I'm just pointing out that she can be totally accurate in the honesty of her beliefs and still be wrong that anything deeply wrong was done by Kavanaugh. There's just a lot of steps of gray in this tale still.

And as I said, Kavanaugh was also very convincing to many, and neither should that convince us he must be telling the truth either. Again, he is subject to the same inaccuracies she is in memory and perception.

[KeithKSR]

She says she is 100% sure it was him and she drank only one beer. I believe her.

Oth, I believe he is lying, and knows he should have taken another path towards contrition. Self righteous indignation is a sign of low self esteem and regret.
A common response to guilt.

Next?

She recalls exactly the number of beers she drank, but not where she was? The house almost had to be the home of one of those at the party. Every person she placed being at the party claimed it didn’t happen.

[CitizenBBN]

Can I ask a very strange, controversial and non-partisan question?

Removing all political ties, is this an automatic disqualifier?

If this were a Democratic appointee, would it be disqualifying?

On the surface, I know the easy answer is yes.
But a drunk guy fooling around in High school...I’m just not so sure.
I KNOW it would have been traumatizing for her. And it is sexual assault.
But if he did this drunkenly 36 years ago...and has done nothing since...is it disqualifying (forgetting the political implications of the confirmation)?

I was wondering if this would come up.

It is controversial, but it's the right question to ask.

In the end, even if we accept her story completely, it is still saying that she only believed she was in danger, but there is no other proof she was in danger, and in terms of actual events this was a drunken groping at a high school party nearly 40 years ago.

let's say he did get drunk and grope a girl at such a party. Leave out the rape part, b/c what we can establish without bringing perception into it if we accept her at her word is that she was groped. Does that disqualify him from SCOTUS?

Does it disqualify someone from another job? What's the threshold for bad high school behavior that disqualifies someone from a high ranking job somewhere?


it's an interesting question no doubt.

What if she had gone to authorities and this was investigated and never prosecuted? Does that change things? What if he was prosecuted and was found guilty and served his time and showed contrition and has had no other issues in the remaining years?

I agree, it's a fascinating area of thought on this question.

There's a push now, largely on the left, to expunge the felony convictions of many people so they regain the right to vote, etc. Rights which heretofore were permanently removed. The argument is they have served their time, the crimes are in many cases decades old and they have had no other issues. Is this the same kind of concept?


I imagine Darrell could get some really interesting discussion in his class on this topic by taking on these aspects of it and stepping away from the political maneuvering.

[ukpumacat]

I genuinely believe that none of us can with any accuracy know whether it’s true. There are points to be made on both sides of that.
We also can all probably agree that no matter what happens the decision to push him through or not will be a political one.

Do I think the accusation should disqualify him (taking away all politics and no matter what I would do in their position)? No.

There is virtually no way to prove or disprove it. I would probably not vote him in for political reasons. But I do believe he SHOULD go through.

[Doc]

Last time I though I qas going tk be raped, I remember wher it was, when it was, how many beers I had......

I understand not being 100% clear on minute details....what folks were wearing, what time it was, the date, etc...but to recall you had exactly ONE beer but not where you were isnt something Im buying

[Doc]

I genuinely believe that none of us can with any accuracy know whether it’s true. There are points to be made on both sides of that.
We also can all probably agree that no matter what happens the decision to push him through or not will be a political one.

Do I think the accusation should disqualify him (taking away all politics and no matter what I would do in their position)? No.

There is virtually no way to prove or disprove it. I would probably not vote him in for political reasons. But I do believe he SHOULD go through.

I would agree, as I stated above. Disqualifying him on his rulings if poor one (not just because you disagree, but are incorr ed xt based on the law as written), or on provable actions. That Im fine with but not on innuendo and unsupported accusations. The right didnt like Kagen or Sotomayor but many on the GOP voted for them because from a legal interpretation of the law, they were qualified. Too bad the left does not hold the same standard. They will "Bork" any conservative simply because the ends justify the means

[CitizenBBN]

She recalls exactly the number of beers she drank, but not where she was? The house almost had to be the home of one of those at the party. Every person she placed being at the party claimed it didn’t happen.

Exactly. This is where her whole story falls apart. Her memory is very inconsistent in what she would and wouldn't remember, esp. in light of this being a trauma she claims is severe.

So let's say she did have deeply traumatic experience at a party. She remembers who was in the room, including the standing by friend, and exactly what she had to drink, but has no recollection of exactly when it was, or where it was, or any other circumstances AROUND when and where it was that would help us to narrow it down to a day or date or location.

Totally sure it's him, and sure she wasn't impaired, but cannot narrow down anything that might allow anyone to disprove her claim by showing he wasn't present or couldn't have been him, etc., and nothing that would let even the FBI go and track down additional witnesses to get their statements.

Now, isn't that convenient? She remembers very precisely exactly the facts she needs to keep him off the bench, but very few facts that could be use to substantiate or disprove her story.

And the few she does remember all point to disproving it btw. All of the people she has remembered deny any knowledge of it, including her described friend.

If this were in a real court and not the court of public opinion this would be shredded by a good lawyer. Absolutely shredded, and no prosecutor would even try to bring this case b/c it's clear it would happen.

[CitizenBBN]

BTW, as someone who has had a couple of good scares in his life, non sexual but physical scares, I'm very disbelieving that you are SOBER, go home, wake up the next day traumatized and yet none of the specifics of where you were, or when you were there, are seared into your memory.

No. You wake up the next day, probably in a panic and with sweat soaked sheets, and you remember exactly the events that led to that event. You wonder why you ever went to Suzie's house, you remember when you decided to go into the room, you remember how you wish you'd gone home with Jane, etc. and if it's so traumatic you literally can't sleep in a room without an exit, you for sure remember where you were and how you got there.

You just do. You are in a panic about going back to school on Monday, seeing this person, seeing your friends. Maybe you confide in someone, maybe not, but you will either have these details burned in there or you will repress it in whole or in large part, and she has never claimed any memory repression that I have heard.

that's why I think she's not intentionally lying, but her mind has filled in gaps over the years in ways that makes it unreliable to trust her perceptions of threat in that event.

[KeithKSR]

One of Ford’s witnesses, Leland Keyser, said she didn’t even know Kavanaugh.

[CitizenBBN]

One or the other is lying. The one with the most to lose probably.


I just thought about this, but are you saying maybe she is lying?

She has a lot to lose. She's a confirmed pretty far left member of the "resistance". Before this started it's been reported her social media was scrubbed of her political comments so as to not look like an Anti-trumper.

If she believes in her soul, as many do, that raising Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS bench means the end of abortions in this country, doesn't she maybe think she (and the nation) have a lot to lose?

Wouldn't that make her highly motivated and willing to lie to the American people and Congress?

This whole "lot to lose" thing is a two way street. If Kavanaugh withdraws he's still on the DC bench, drawing a good salary with almost no chance of being removed from a lifetime appointment. His reputation will be tarnished forever, but at this point that's the case regardless of what he does.

If he did it why wouldn't he be afraid more would come out? He could claim this is damaging his family and withdraw in a tear filled statement of denial, and go back to his very good career and avoid that risk of losing it all.

We can play these motives games all day both ways. In the end both sides are DEEPLY motivated to do whatever it takes to either get or stop having another conservative on the bench. Both sides an both individuals potentially have a LOT to lose.

[KeithKSR]

BTW, as someone who has had a couple of good scares in his life, non sexual but physical scares, I'm very disbelieving that you are SOBER, go home, wake up the next day traumatized and yet none of the specifics of where you were, or when you were there, are seared into your memory.

No. You wake up the next day, probably in a panic and with sweat soaked sheets, and you remember exactly the events that led to that event. You wonder why you ever went to Suzie's house, you remember when you decided to go into the room, you remember how you wish you'd gone home with Jane, etc. and if it's so traumatic you literally can't sleep in a room without an exit, you for sure remember where you were and how you got there.

You just do. You are in a panic about going back to school on Monday, seeing this person, seeing your friends. Maybe you confide in someone, maybe not, but you will either have these details burned in there or you will repress it in whole or in large part, and she has never claimed any memory repression that I have heard.

that's why I think she's not intentionally lying, but her mind has filled in gaps over the years in ways that makes it unreliable to trust her perceptions of threat in that event.

Details you “will never forget” generally include where and when something happened.

[UKHistory]

For me, NO regardless of party. Im sure I did far worse when I was in HS. People grow, mature and learn from their mistakes. Im sure I felt a girl up as a HS SR. I know I did as a college freshman. I look at SCOTUS appointees as mature adults who rule on the letter of the law. Events from 3 decades ago don't disqualify to me, be it Kagen or Kavanaugh

Doc,

You are a thoughtful poster. I appreciate your words and positions. I also agree people grow up. But I sure hope you never did to a woman what Dr. Ford says kavanaugh did. So your far worse comment I will take as an exaggeration. Want to think you wouldn’t force yourself on a woman like some dog in heat.

Judges ain’t saints but males drunk or sober who force themselves on women aren’t fit to preside over the lives of others. Listening to ford got me pretty angry. I don’t like the idea of a person bullying others. Forcing themselves on women.

I lean towards ford in this. Regardless kavanaugh showed a lack of composure that is far from a tempered person capable of serving on the bench.

[Doc]

Doc,

You are a thoughtful poster. I appreciate your words and positions. I also agree people grow up. But I sure hope you never did to a woman what Dr. Ford says kavanaugh did. So your far worse comment I will take as an exaggeration. Want to think you wouldn’t force yourself on a woman like some dog in heat.

Judges ain’t saints but males drunk or sober who force themselves on women aren’t fit to preside over the lives of others. Listening to ford got me pretty angry. I don’t like the idea of a person bullying others. Forcing themselves on women.

I lean towards ford in this. Regardless kavanaugh showed a lack of composure that is far from a tempered person capable of serving on the bench.

Oh, I probably grabbed a tit or two. I never raped anybody but then neither did Kavanaugh. While I do believe her story, one that she did have some type of traumatic episode, I do not believe she was ever in danger of rape or death, as she feared. High school boys and girls do inappropriate things, things I know as a 55 year old are wrong. Its part of growing up.

PS: I appreciate the compliment. I try to be reasonable although don't always succeed. I try tonsee the bad sides of bothnsides and admit when the right side is wrong

[Doc]

I'll be honest. I expect BK to screw the pooch. I expected his "calendars" to be bogus, and him coming away looking like a guilty person trying to feign innocence. I really did. But he wasn't by a long shot. His calendars sealed it for me. I mean what HSer keeps those type of extemporaneous records? None that I know of but apparently he did. And I mean he actually did, which is shocking to me. He laid out exactly when he was where and by the time line she provided, he refutiated the accusation. I could not have done that.

[kingcat]

If it could be proven he did attend the party and the situation went down like she said, would that disqualify him at this point in everyone's mind?

That's important to clarify in this discussion I think

By the way, I did read everyone's response to my opinion, but there are too many for me to respond in kind.
I stand by my thoughts on it all yet appreciate the differing views

[ukpumacat]

The right didnt like Kagen or Sotomayor but many on the GOP voted for them because from a legal interpretation of the law, they were qualified. Too bad the left does not hold the same standard. They will "Bork" any conservative simply because the ends justify the means

There is no doubt this is uglier...but they pulled the political card with Garland. They would point at Gorusch and say they didn’t do this then either.
But get close to an election, and this is what we will start seeing on both sides.
If you are a conservative, you justify Garland. Almost everyone I’ve met does.
But it was just as political. And I believe a bad move. Just like this (except this is uglier). Same end, different means. And both justify the means for the end.

[Doc]

There is no doubt this is uglier...but they pulled the political card with Garland. They would point at Gorusch and say they didn’t do this then either.
But get close to an election, and this is what we will start seeing on both sides.
If you are a conservative, you justify Garland. Almost everyone I’ve met does.
But it was just as political. And I believe a bad move. Just like this (except this is uglier). Same end, different means. And both justify the means for the end.

I don't justify Garland. I stated many times I didn't like the tactics used by the GOP. However it was the left who originally floated the idea that a lame duck President should not make a SCOTUS appointment. Of course this isn't a lame duck president. It was also the left that pushed thru the nuclear option, something many openly predicted would come back to haunt them exactly as it has. Dems either thought they would never lose control or that the right was too big of a wimp to do it too.

[Catonahottinroof]

My daughter and I are in Toronto this weekend and this is largely the morning topic at breakfast in the hotel we are staying.
Most here see this as a ruse and would be not taken seriously if this was done through their political machine here.
They have no dog in this fight and the majority of folks I’ve met here have the same opinion.

[ukpumacat]

Looks like they are going to confirm him.
This will majorly help Dems in the mid-terms.
That’s a sacrifice I think the Republicans are willing to make because the Supreme Court holds more power now.
But I expect it nonetheless.
Dems will certainly gain the House. I think this gives them an outside shot at the Senate. The map is very tough but it will be close.
If that happens, we will have a stalemate for two years until 2020.

2020 will be a war. The Dem primary will be fascinating just of itself.

[kingcat]

One thing about it. There will be more voting in future elections than ever. Each party is ruthless and puts party first in every instance
And with the full support of their base.

I hate that the nation is so divided because it will not stand long being so. Our enemies lie in wait like vultures
History taught us nothing

[ukpumacat]

One thing about it. There will be more voting in future elections than ever. Each party is ruthless and puts party first in every instance
And with the full support of their base.

I hate that the nation is so divided because it will not stand long being so. Our enemies lie in wait like vultures
History taught us nothing

And moderates are getting squeezed out during nomination processes making it almost impossible for their to be bipartisan anything.

Flake is retiring on his own and he is one of the most reasonable Senators out there on either side. This is going to get worse, not better. Because both parties are nominating people that are further and further left and right. A moderate has virtually no chance of winning anymore. So expect this to get worse...not better.
Heck, our news programs are now 100% divided on party lines. Further and further into our corners we go.

[ukpumacat]

Is Flake changing his mind? Some think he might be.

[ukpumacat]

One thing about it. There will be more voting in future elections than ever. Each party is ruthless and puts party first in every instance
And with the full support of their base.

I hate that the nation is so divided because it will not stand long being so. Our enemies lie in wait like vultures
History taught us nothing

King, did you just watch what happened? That has to give us all some hope for the future. Even Graham's comments after.

[ukpumacat]

I think Jeff Flake just saved the Senate for the Republicans in the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh is likely to get confirmed next week. Flake is likely to vote for him (as well as Collins, etc). And now the Republicans can spin this as they did ANOTHER FBI investigation. This is good for America Imo, and it will be better for Republicans.

Unless the FBI finds something of course...haha

[Doc]

I think Jeff Flake just saved the Senate for the Republicans in the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh is likely to get confirmed next week. Flake is likely to vote for him (as well as Collins, etc). And now the Republicans can spin this as they did ANOTHER FBI investigation. This is good for America Imo, and it will be better for Republicans.

Unless the FBI finds something of course...haha

Unless the democrats manufacture something of course.....haha

[UKHistory]

Let’s see what the fbi does. Mark Judge who I have come to believe saved Dr. ford from being raped by Bret kavanBRO.

Pure speculation but I think judge jumped on top of his buddy to help Ford Escape but not betraying his friend.

Good for flake. But let’s leave Clarence as the worst harasser on the high court.

[Catfan73]

Toast. What's with the crying? There's no crying in baseball! Er, on the Supreme Court!

[kingcat]

There won’t be any investigation

[Catfan73]

So can a president be subpoenaed? And is this what Kavanaugh's nomination is actually all about, as Dan Rather and others have said?

[UKHistory]

KavanBRO will protect if he can

[CitizenBBN]

There is no doubt this is uglier...but they pulled the political card with Garland. They would point at Gorusch and say they didn’t do this then either.
But get close to an election, and this is what we will start seeing on both sides.
If you are a conservative, you justify Garland. Almost everyone I’ve met does.
But it was just as political. And I believe a bad move. Just like this (except this is uglier). Same end, different means. And both justify the means for the end.

There's a big difference between a party with the power to time votes using that power to time votes and the politics of destroying someone and his family. Garland wasn't attacked in any way, he just wasn't given a hearing at all.

Honestly had the situation been reversed it wouldn't have bothered me a bit for Democrats to do the same thing re votes. I wouldn't have liked that they COULD do it, but it's absolutely not an undermining of the Constitution nor the intent of the Founders for the Senate to decide those kinds of things. Going back to the beginning it was an accepted practice, and is part of the checks and balances of the system.


That's WAY WAY different from a senior Senator sitting on information for months (she really cared about an FBI investigation since she could have started one in July and didn't, huh?), withholding it from the Judiciary Committee And the FBI conducting his background check, funding the person with attorneys and other things, then springing it in an all out media assault at the last minute without in fact letting the FBI conduct a proper non-public investigation first.

One is a procedural use of the rules of the Senate, which are used politically by both parties every day they are in session. The other is a base attack on a human being and his family designed to do as much damage as possible in direct avoidance of the prescribe process for review and investigation and appointments.

[CitizenBBN]

Let’s see what the fbi does. Mark Judge who I have come to believe saved Dr. ford from being raped by Bret kavanBRO.

Pure speculation but I think judge jumped on top of his buddy to help Ford Escape but not betraying his friend.

Good for flake. But let’s leave Clarence as the worst harasser on the high court.

Gee History, could you share those lottery numbers with me? lol

[ukpumacat]

There's a big difference between a party with the power to time votes using that power to time votes and the politics of destroying someone and his family. Garland wasn't attacked in any way, he just wasn't given a hearing at all.

Honestly had the situation been reversed it wouldn't have bothered me a bit for Democrats to do the same thing re votes. I wouldn't have liked that they COULD do it, but it's absolutely not an undermining of the Constitution nor the intent of the Founders for the Senate to decide those kinds of things. Going back to the beginning it was an accepted practice, and is part of the checks and balances of the system.


That's WAY WAY different from a senior Senator sitting on information for months (she really cared about an FBI investigation since she could have started one in July and didn't, huh?), withholding it from the Judiciary Committee And the FBI conducting his background check, funding the person with attorneys and other things, then springing it in an all out media assault at the last minute without in fact letting the FBI conduct a proper non-public investigation first.

One is a procedural use of the rules of the Senate, which are used politically by both parties every day they are in session. The other is a base attack on a human being and his family designed to do as much damage as possible in direct avoidance of the prescribe process for review and investigation and appointments.

Again, the means were different (and in no way justified Imo for neither party). The END goal was the same: block the nomination and get the majority on the court.

[Catfan73]

Again, the means were different (and in no way justified Imo for neither party). The END goal was the same: block the nomination and get the majority on the court.

At what cost though? After this debacle they’re not only going to lose the house but now probably the senate too. To what end? It can’t just be to protect Trump can it? Why would the Senators care that much about that? It can’t be to overturn Roe v Wade; that’ll never happen after Planned Parenthood v Casey. I just don’t get it. Do they not understand that 51% of the U.S. population is female?

[KeithKSR]

Do they not understand that 51% of the U.S. population is female?

The plurality of women I know are upset over the use of Ford as a pawn by the Dems.

[Catfan73]

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/651647131/poll-nearly-6-in-10-to-closely-watch-kavanaugh-ford-hearing-many-undecided-on-tr

[KeithKSR]

How stupid do the Dems think people are? Claiming the word "ralph" had something do with sex is absurd.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ralph

[kingcat]

And how stupid does the judge believe people are? I couldn't care less if he drank a lot, but dont lie about it.

"In Kavanaugh’s yearbook, it lists him as “Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor.”
Beach Week was a week of partying attended by Kavanaugh and his classmates the summer of the alleged result. Kavanaugh said that “ralphing” was a euphemism for throwing up, but that it didn’t imply heavy drinking on his part, but a weak stomach and an intolerance for spicy food".

No...It implies exactly that Judge.

https://fthmb.tqn.com/SBKlr0Dk8z0T4V07lPzJmePIcA8=/5575x3062/filters:fill(auto,1)/businessman-with-angel-wings-528840625-5758eb6f5f9b5892e894a106.jpg

[badrose]

Unless I missed something, no one she said was there at that party has verified anything thing she has said. I believe she believes it but so far there's no shred of evidence.

[Doc]

Unless I missed something, no one she said was there at that party has verified anything thing she has said. I believe she believes it but so far there's no shred of evidence.

Sure there is evidence. She is a women and he is a man who drank. what else do you need?

[CitizenBBN]

Again, the means were different (and in no way justified Imo for neither party). The END goal was the same: block the nomination and get the majority on the court.

So it's the same if I convince you to spot me $20 and if I pull out a gun and and get it from you?

the means matter, a lot, and there is no equivalency between not calling a vote when a duly elected majority chooses to not call one, and political character assassination and withholding vital information in a confirmation process. None. There just isn't.

When Obamacare was rammed through, that wasn't "pulling a political card". The Democrats had the majorities and the votes. I didn't like that they had them, but they did, and that's how the system correctly works.

Likewise, the GOP had the votes and the majority to not call a vote on Garland, so they didn't call a vote. That was nothing at all out of the ordinary for the historical way the Senate operates, going back to Washington.

This handling of the information re Kavanaugh is a wholly different animal. Even if we believe every word this woman has said, all that means is that Feinstein intentionally impeded an investigation and confirmation process, and if it's as much a political scam as it is a real possible wrong or criminal act then it's even worse.

But there is no equivalency to one political party using their votes to stop something they don't want and using the tools of character assassination to stop something. None. The means matter, and as we continue to accept "any means necessary" to get what one side wants, we drift further away from our calling as a nation and more into that of a Third World cabal.

[CitizenBBN]

And how stupid does the judge believe people are? I couldn't care less if he drank a lot, but dont lie about it.

"In Kavanaugh’s yearbook, it lists him as “Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor.”
Beach Week was a week of partying attended by Kavanaugh and his classmates the summer of the alleged result. Kavanaugh said that “ralphing” was a euphemism for throwing up, but that it didn’t imply heavy drinking on his part, but a weak stomach and an intolerance for spicy food".

No...It implies exactly that Judge.



Maybe he didn't inhale.

[kingcat]

As partying types like me can verify, its understandable they may have attended the party yet they have no recall as far as the particular party. And they likely wouldnt unless something reminded them of it or if a particular event was seared into their memory.

I vividly remember some of my wild times and partying, but most are a part of one big party which lasted quite a few years. Locations escape me even if i drove to them, and the only people I recall attending I had major interactions with both good and bad.

That's not to say that in conversation, much less investigation, I couldn't begin to recall more. And I certainly would not be trying too hard to join this soap opera with that info however.

Honestly, as a side note, I have been trying to recall a lot of those days in light of this discussion and others. It seems I remember the ones I stayed at the longest, and had either the most fun or misery, much better than the others. Some are just a blank I'm certain. I even woke up barfing out my car window parked in front of the police station just after high school.
Still dont know how I got there for sure. Spicy foods and all I'm sure. ;)

Plus, I drank a lot of WT back in the day.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm betting if you went to a party, thought you were nearly raped, and had only had one beer, you'd remember where and when it was.

I'm not surprised other potential witnesses don't recall her events or version of them, but she seems to only remember the bare minimum events needed to accuse kavanaugh, and not any that might be used to help form a witness list or otherwise question or even confirm her story.

That's not impossible, but it is a very eyebrow raising coincidence.

[kingcat]

I'm betting if you went to a party, thought you were nearly raped, and had only had one beer, you'd remember where and when it was.

I'm not surprised other potential witnesses don't recall her events or version of them, but she seems to only remember the bare minimum events needed to accuse kavanaugh, and not any that might be used to help form a witness list or otherwise question or even confirm her story.

That's not impossible, but it is a very eyebrow raising coincidence.

It's not really, as most understand the psychology of such matters different than that. Plus, she was a 15 year old girl.
I dont get the she's lying thing at all.
It seems you are stating she very likely is and I don't believe that opinion has much in the way of support from either side. The possibility of being mistaken I understand has at least a shred of validity as well as appearing the overwhelming view from the right.

She should certainly recall who it was though. On that I would agree that, to consider her mistaken is rather eyebrow raising

And I will say again, I am not judging the man as a criminal for what she says he done. The fear that he was going to continue may have had an impact of her view of the situation. or it may completely have gone down as she felt it did.

My issue is that I believe her and don't believe him. He would certainly remember too...and I think he does.
And that if he does, lying to the American people is not befitting a Supreme Court judge. I think we all can agree on that.

[badrose]

It's not really, as most understand the psychology of such matters different than that. Plus, she was a 15 year old girl.
I dont get the she's lying thing at all.
It seems you are stating she very likely is and I don't believe that opinion has much in the way of support from either side. The possibility of being mistaken I understand has at least a shred of validity as well as appearing the overwhelming view from the right.

She should certainly recall who it was though. On that I would agree

The fact that other people whom she said was there have denied being there severely cuts into her credibility. Her overall story does not support strong credibility.

[Doc]

So it's the same if I convince you to spot me $20 and if I pull out a gun and and get it from you?

the means matter, a lot, and there is no equivalency between not calling a vote when a duly elected majority chooses to not call one, and political character assassination and withholding vital information in a confirmation process. None. There just isn't.

When Obamacare was rammed through, that wasn't "pulling a political card". The Democrats had the majorities and the votes. I didn't like that they had them, but they did, and that's how the system correctly works.

Likewise, the GOP had the votes and the majority to not call a vote on Garland, so they didn't call a vote. That was nothing at all out of the ordinary for the historical way the Senate operates, going back to Washington.

This handling of the information re Kavanaugh is a wholly different animal. Even if we believe every word this woman has said, all that means is that Feinstein intentionally impeded an investigation and confirmation process, and if it's as much a political scam as it is a real possible wrong or criminal act then it's even worse.

But there is no equivalency to one political party using their votes to stop something they don't want and using the tools of character assassination to stop something. None. The means matter, and as we continue to accept "any means necessary" to get what one side wants, we drift further away from our calling as a nation and more into that of a Third World cabal.

this

[Doc]

I think Jeff Flake just saved the Senate for the Republicans in the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh is likely to get confirmed next week. Flake is likely to vote for him (as well as Collins, etc). And now the Republicans can spin this as they did ANOTHER FBI investigation. This is good for America Imo, and it will be better for Republicans.

Unless the FBI finds something of course...haha

Disagree. Had BK been rejected because of the sleazy tactics of Feinstein, the GOP would have walked with the election. People see it for exactly what it was. If he gets confirmed it takes away the outrage. An FBI investigation changes not a single democratic vote. If the FBI finds nothing, do you envision any changing their nay vote? That is why its a hoax request. The democrats really didnt want an investigation to find "the truth". They wanted it to delay because the outcome of said investigation is 100% irrelevant in their mind. They are voting NO and have stated so multiple times. So lets at least be honest, an investigation by the FbI that find nothing will change zero votes. ZIP

[Doc]

As partying types like me can verify, its understandable they may have attended the party yet they have no recall as far as the particular party. And they likely wouldnt unless something reminded them of it or if a particular event was seared into their memory.

I vividly remember some of my wild times and partying, but most are a part of one big party which lasted quite a few years. Locations escape me even if i drove to them, and the only people I recall attending I had major interactions with both good and bad.

That's not to say that in conversation, much less investigation, I couldn't begin to recall more. And I certainly would not be trying too hard to join this soap opera with that info however.

Honestly, as a side note, I have been trying to recall a lot of those days in light of this discussion and others. It seems I remember the ones I stayed at the longest, and had either the most fun or misery, much better than the others. Some are just a blank I'm certain. I even woke up barfing out my car window parked in front of the police station just after high school.
Still dont know how I got there for sure. Spicy foods and all I'm sure. ;)

Plus, I drank a lot of WT back in the day.

I vividly remember the first time I got laid, where it was, when it was and who it was with. I recalled how I got there and how I got home. What I dont recall is how many beers I drank...something Mrs Ford is able to recall yet cant remember when it was, where it was, how she got there and how she got home. How convenient

[Doc]

I'm betting if you went to a party, thought you were nearly raped, and had only had one beer, you'd remember where and when it was.

I'm not surprised other potential witnesses don't recall her events or version of them, but she seems to only remember the bare minimum events needed to accuse kavanaugh, and not any that might be used to help form a witness list or otherwise question or even confirm her story.

That's not impossible, but it is a very eyebrow raising coincidence.

Not having cooperation does not.mean it ddid not happen. My issue is he has extemporaneous evidence showing where he was at the possible times.

[CitizenBBN]

It's not really, as most understand the psychology of such matters different than that. Plus, she was a 15 year old girl.
I dont get the she's lying thing at all.
It seems you are stating she very likely is and I don't believe that opinion has much in the way of support from either side. The possibility of being mistaken I understand has at least a shred of validity as well as appearing the overwhelming view from the right.

She should certainly recall who it was though. On that I would agree that, to consider her mistaken is rather eyebrow raising

I've typed multiple times I think she thinks she's telling the truth. But that doesn't mean she's accurate.

I'm sorry, but you've just concluded based on no first hand knowledge that he's lying and she's telling the truth, but yet you act as if you don't get someone else concluding differently? that's showing quite a bit of hubris IMO.

Unlike these very conclusionary statements I've seen, I'm trying to stick to the facts. If I were an investigator I'd want to know when this party was, where it was, etc. so I could get potential witnesses, find ways to establish or disprove an alibi, etc.. That's standard procedure, and how such things should objectively be done.

When doing these things its key to remember that witness accounts and memories are notoriously flawed, so you try to establish facts and get more people's memories involved.


Yes, i find it very convenient she's 100% sure it was Kavanaugh 36 years ago, and states this was a deeply traumatic event in her life, and is sure 100% she only had one beer, yet with that level of recall can't say where it was, or when it was, etc.

is that her lying outright? It's possible. I've known some people who are sociopathic enough to do exactly that, and yet they are otherwise normal people in society with normal lives. it's also possible she's filled in memory gaps over the years, and it's also possible she's filled in those gaps in light of some coaxing from others.

It's also possible Kavanaugh is telling the total truth, lying through his teeth, or likewise that he's being honest but may not have an accurate memory.

But the way to handle these things is not to draw conclusions, but to step through the facts logically, objectively, and so far not one person she's said was there can corroborate any part of her story, there are definitely odd gaps in her memory, and she is coincidentally a pretty far-left professor and "resistance" member who had her social media scrubbed prior to this accusation coming forward. When combined with the actions of Feinstein in this, yes it's questionable. Not definitive, but it is far from a convincing story based on the facts to date.

[CitizenBBN]

Not having cooperation does not.mean it ddid not happen. My issue is he has extemporaneous evidence showing where he was at the possible times.

That's true. I've never said it didn't happen. I'm saying people are saying "I believe her", and that has two key weaknesses:

1) I've known some really believable people who were were serial liars, b/c they really believe their own lies, and
2) she can be telling the complete truth as she perceives it and still not be accurate.

And that's true of Kavanaugh and any witness, so what our legal process does is step back from that testimony and try to find corroboration, and establish and break alibis, with FACTS.

And, as you point out, he seems to be able to account for his whereabouts in some great detail, and she coincidentially can't help us get to a particular date or location.

if we were sitting here as jurists, that's what we should be looking at. Not the emotion behind a statement, but the facts on the paper. The emotion of a statement is empirically proven time and again to not be a reliable indicator of truth, and should not be given much weight compared with the things we can establish factually.

Of course in these cases there are usually precious few facts, but location and timing is a big one. 36 years later there are even fewer, but that means we should be MORE careful with believing emotion, not less.

[CitizenBBN]

I vividly remember the first time I got laid, where it was, when it was and who it was with. I recalled how I got there and how I got home. What I dont recall is how many beers I drank...something Mrs Ford is able to recall yet cant remember when it was, where it was, how she got there and how she got home. How convenient

the problem is also the incongruity of her statements about the deep impact this has had on her with that lack of specific memories.

She's 15, she just thought she barely avoided being raped, and it has bothered her so much she to this day feels trapped and fearful of bedrooms. OK, let's accept all of that as true.

At 15, she goes home, wakes up the next morning, traumatized and fearful. Again, let's assume she just didn't tell anyone for decades, OK. Some do, some don't. But she has to be thinking about it, replaying things in her mind, trying to not think about it yet doing so, etc. The kind of things you'd expect of trauma.

And that's awful, but it also sears into your mind. Over the years it's understandable she's tried to forget, and would naturally lose some details, and it's even understanable she might mis-remember some details, that's only human.

But she seems to remember only the bare minimum of details she needs to convincingly accuse Kavanaugh, and none of the details that could be used to refute her story. Other than some people who were there, all of whom have denied any memory of any of it.

That's a coincidence indeed.

I live by Garak's statement (Star Trek DS9): I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't TRUST coincidences.

[KeithKSR]

And how stupid does the judge believe people are? I couldn't care less if he drank a lot, but dont lie about it.

"In Kavanaugh’s yearbook, it lists him as “Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor.”
Beach Week was a week of partying attended by Kavanaugh and his classmates the summer of the alleged result. Kavanaugh said that “ralphing” was a euphemism for throwing up, but that it didn’t imply heavy drinking on his part, but a weak stomach and an intolerance for spicy food".

No...It implies exactly that Judge.

https://fthmb.tqn.com/SBKlr0Dk8z0T4V07lPzJmePIcA8=/5575x3062/filters:fill(auto,1)/businessman-with-angel-wings-528840625-5758eb6f5f9b5892e894a106.jpg

A teen drinking too much and throwing up isn't something that would disqualify them from being a SC Justice 36 years later.

[CitizenBBN]

kavanaugh is no win with people who want him not there, and that's that.

He comes out emotional in his statement, so now his temperament is in question. had he been reserved they'd have said he must be lying b/c he wasn't enraged at the accusation.

Same with the "Ralph" comment. if he says "yeah it was high school spring break, I drank a lot" they convict him and argue he was drunk and out of control so he must be guilty. If he denies it means he was drinking heavily they say he's lying and that's why he can't sit on the bench.

He'd be an idiot to say he was drinking heavily at any time anywhere near this accusation, and any lawyer in America would stop him from doing it. Even if true. Call that lying if you want, but it's just a fool move to characterize yourself negatively in any way, esp. this way, in this situation.

I wonder how many people who don't believe his somewhat convoluted and twisted interpretation of "ralph" in this case have likewise not believed Strozk's and Page's comments about an "insurance policy" and "we'll stop him."

Stop being hypocrites. Kavanaugh was a frat boy, he was drinking on spring break. doesn't mean he ever had any intent to rape anyone. lots and lots of people drink and don't attack other people.

But if you see through that tactical characterization, or outright lie, then see through the others that are just as obvious, or see through none of them. Either way, stop defending one political side and start defending the truth on all sides.

I somehow Doubt Kavanaugh or any male OR FEMALE ages 16-25 never did anything they weren't proud of, esp. if on display in a senate hearing, but that is a far cry from attempted rape, even if another involved party took it that way.

I think to some of my more "i'm immortal, I'll do whatever I want" moments of alcohol assisted youth, and how those would play if you presented them just right. I doubt any of us would survive it in the context of a Senate confirmation, yet I bet none of us really did anything deeply "wrong" that would disqualify us 36 years later.

[KeithKSR]

I'm betting if you went to a party, thought you were nearly raped, and had only had one beer, you'd remember where and when it was.

I'm not surprised other potential witnesses don't recall her events or version of them, but she seems to only remember the bare minimum events needed to accuse kavanaugh, and not any that might be used to help form a witness list or otherwise question or even confirm her story.

That's not impossible, but it is a very eyebrow raising coincidence.

This is why a lot of women are skeptical. If the event is indeed indelible you are going to remember where it occurred, especially if you can recall the exact number of beers you drank.

None of the people she claims attended the party lived in the general area where she claimed she was at for the party. If she recalled exactly where the party was held it would be easier to disprove the allegations, which may be exactly why she doesn't recall where she was.

I don't buy the event causing trauma being the reason she only recalls part of what occurred. On August 8, 1971 I was attacked by a dog, just a little more than a week before I turned 7. To this day the only details I cannot recall is about a probably 30 second span during the attack. The facial scars have faded over the decades since, the internal scars are still there.

[KeithKSR]

Disagree. Had BK been rejected because of the sleazy tactics of Feinstein, the GOP would have walked with the election. People see it for exactly what it was. If he gets confirmed it takes away the outrage. An FBI investigation changes not a single democratic vote. If the FBI finds nothing, do you envision any changing their nay vote? That is why its a hoax request. The democrats really didnt want an investigation to find "the truth". They wanted it to delay because the outcome of said investigation is 100% irrelevant in their mind. They are voting NO and have stated so multiple times. So lets at least be honest, an investigation by the FbI that find nothing will change zero votes. ZIP

I agree. This was the take of most Dem senators in July.


Schumer, "I’m going to fight this nomination with everything I’ve got."

For them to make claims of wanting a fair hearing is an outright lie. Many Dems have said they will do anything to stop the Kavanaugh nomination from the outset. For this group to set up something to derail the nomination is not inconceivable.

[CitizenBBN]

IMO Keith her claim she explicitly remembers she only had one beer is what totally blows up her lack of recall of other details.

that's an incredibly specific memory. who remembers how many exact drinks they had at a party 36 years later? She claims she only had one beer b/c obviously if she was s*** faced drunk she loses credibility, so that fact she conveniently remembers.

But facts that would be even less detailed and more likely to be remembered, like where she went, who was having the party, etc., are all gone.

She was 15 going to a party with some older high school kids. No doubt there was discussion of it prior to going, maybe even some anticipation of going, and certainly the next day after she, in her mind, narrowly escapes being raped, she recalls a lot about where she went, when it was, etc.,

It just doesn't add up, and IMO the 1 beer thing nails it. She recalls exactly the very specific fact needed to add credibility to her claim, and still can't remember anything that might be used to disprove it.

I mean come on. combine that with her political leanings, how for months now she's had Democratic payroll lawyers working with her, etc. and I think a picture starts to emerge.

Had this been properly introduced in July I as a conservative who wants him confirmed would welcome a FBI investigation b/c I think there's a lot of holes in this accusation. She may believe every word of it, but so far there's a lot of coincidence and holes, very specifically placed it would appear.

[kingcat]

The fact that other people whom she said was there have denied being there severely cuts into her credibility. Her overall story does not support strong credibility.


That's just an incorrect statement and a nice spin some are putting on the story.
The truth is they do not recall that particular party as is very easy to understand. Even having a bias. Which is in fact, lying.
Fact check: Witnesses do not refute Ford allegations, despite what Kavanaugh, senators say (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ct-kavanaugh-exoneration-false-20180928-story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+baltimoresun%2Fsports%2Fhocke y%2Frss2+%28Hockey%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results)


"As negotiations continued, Leland Keyser, a woman Ford told The Washington Post was present at the party where she alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her, came forward to say she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present,” according to an email her lawyer sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, obtained by The Post. In a brief interview at her home in Silver Spring, Keyser said that she did not recall the party, but that she was close friends with Ford and that she believes Ford’s allegation"

[KeithKSR]

Fact check: Witnesses do not refute Ford allegations, despite what Kavanaugh, senators say (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ct-kavanaugh-exoneration-false-20180928-story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+baltimoresun%2Fsports%2Fhocke y%2Frss2+%28Hockey%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results)


"As negotiations continued, Leland Keyser, a woman Ford told The Washington Post was present at the party where she alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her, came forward to say she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present,” according to an email her lawyer sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, obtained by The Post. In a brief interview at her home in Silver Spring, Keyser said that she did not recall the party, but that she was close friends with Ford and that she believes Ford’s allegation"

She is refuting Blakey Ford's claim when she denies knowing Kavanaugh. Word games by lefties do not change the fact that no one corroborates Blasey Ford's claims.

[KeithKSR]

Does anyone else find it odd that she claims to recall things beginning in 2012, a presidential election year?

Kavanaugh was mentioned as a possible SCOTUS pick had a republican won the election that year. Toobin even wrote of Kavanaugh early that year.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/03/26/holding-court

[Doc]

"I only had one beer"

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/05/23/16/beero.jpg?w968h681

http://craziestgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/beergoddess.jpg

[kingcat]

I vividly remember the first time I got laid, where it was, when it was and who it was with. I recalled how I got there and how I got home. What I dont recall is how many beers I drank...something Mrs Ford is able to recall yet cant remember when it was, where it was, how she got there and how she got home. How convenient

So you believe she is lying. That opinion I can understand and just simply disagree with.

But you are a still a better man than I because I have forgotten much more than that about my party times. Like where certain things happened and who rode with who or whose field I walked across to find a keg party. I can recall fights...but I dont know which party it was for sure. But I know I left those parties.

I can remember playing "quarters" in a mobile home somewhere out in the country and thinking I was winning.. I drove there in the fog after losing track of the people I was following. We found the cars parked along the road and knew we were there. I have no idea how I got home but Ii guess I drove. Not certain.
Not sure what local community that was even in. Perhaps fifteen miles or so..maybe seven or eight, which covers probably six towns including E-Town and Radcliff

I could go on and on about the ones I do remember (sort of). But I cant tell you of the ones I do not remember...even though something huge may have happened to someone there at the time. And likely did. Im sure they remember those events, although like me, may not know for sure the day, time or actual locations. I guess i should have wrote those things down every day since it is more common than I believed to do so. but i'd be embarrassed to have done so..as well as for some of the things I have done in my time.

I do remember losing my virginity. But I'm not certain the two are comparable.
And I had smoked one doobie before that..
Because that's how good the stuff was I had back then and I knew my habit.

It was either at my friend Sonny's house or across the street at Debbie's. It was dark in the room I know. (It wasnt Debbie)

[Doc]

So you believe she is lying. That opinion I can understand and just simply disagree with.

But you are a better man than I because I have forgotten much more than that about my party times. Like where certain things happened and who rode with who or whose field I walked across to find a keg party.
I do remember losing my virginity. But I'm not certain the two are comparable.

No, I do not believe she is lying. I believe she is mistaken or remembers incorrectly.

Rest assured, my first time I was hammered. But then being drunk does not make one a rapist or sexual predator. I know many folks who got drunk as teenagers who are not rapists. In fact the majority of people I know got drunk as college freshman, some to extreme points, me included, who were not rapists. In fact its my opinion that there is a HUGE step between overindulgeing and forcing yourself on a woman. I do not believe that because you drink to excess you are guilty of attempted rape

[KeithKSR]

People need to be asking why there has been no public support from Blasey Ford's parents and siblings. A support letter from friends and family has been signed by her in laws, but not by her parents and siblings. Kavanaugh' obviously distraught mother was seated behind him during his testimony Thursday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/christine-blasey-fords-own-family-has-been-nearly-silent-amid-outpouring-of-support/2018/09/26/49a3f4a6-c0d6-11e8-be77-516336a26305_story.html?utm_term=.ad5fc6a35e06

[kingcat]

People need to be asking why there has been no public support from Blasey Ford's parents and siblings. A support letter from friends and family has been signed by her in laws, but not by her parents and siblings. Kavanaugh' obviously distraught mother was seated behind him during his testimony Thursday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/christine-blasey-fords-own-family-has-been-nearly-silent-amid-outpouring-of-support/2018/09/26/49a3f4a6-c0d6-11e8-be77-516336a26305_story.html?utm_term=.ad5fc6a35e06

Then you believe she was lying?

Perhaps she wants to avoid them getting the death threats or having to move away from their home like she has.
Perhaps they do not want to go up against Fox news and the conservative propaganda machine.

These are powerful people capable of ruining anyones life. And yes they exist on both sides. But the power is in Kavanaugh's hands, not theirs.

[KeithKSR]

Then you believe she was lying?

I don't know.

I do know that as the father of three girls and grandfather of two more that I find it highly unusual for her parents and siblings to not support her unless they have reason to doubt her story. You know as well as I do that the parental instinct is to harm those that have harmed your children or grandchildren.

[kingcat]

I am for the investigation.. if having to decide without one I believe she is telling the truth and he is lying. He avoided questions and lashed out using right wing talking points as a shield from questioning. She answered calmly and collectively.

She could conceivably be mistaken about who the culprit was....but that's an eyebrow raising moment for sure to me. Or maybe it happened and was not as bad as she recalls with her fear embellishing the severity of the situation. She was only fifteen.

Or maybe his supporters do not know him near as well as they pretend to and he is lying to them and everyone else. Whatever, there are requirements to becoming a Supreme court justice and forgive me if I do not take his word as gospel because he is conservative.

Whatever is found is great because we will have been informed to the best of our ability. Since when do we not
deserve or expect that?
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/72394352/thats-all-i-have-to-say-about-that.jpg

[kingcat]

A teen drinking too much and throwing up isn't something that would disqualify them from being a SC Justice 36 years later.

Lying to or misleading the American people and the Senators about it would however. Still, the point is no Dem thinks "ralphing is some type of sexual aggression. But "ralphing" awards at a college beach party indicate barfing from drinking too much in this instance.
That is indeed what it implies and not the fact that he has stomach issues.

Thats absurd and not truthful judge.

[KeithKSR]

Lying to or misleading the American people and the Senators about it would however. Still, the point is no Dem thinks "ralphing is some type of sexual aggression. But "ralphing" awards at a college beach party indicate barfing from drinking too much in this instance.
That is indeed what it implies and not the fact that he has stomach issues.

Thats absurd and not truthful judge.

A Dem senator certainly claimed ralphing was something of a sexual nature during the interrogation Thursday.

[KeithKSR]

I am for the investigation.. if having to decide without one I believe she is telling the truth and he is lying. He avoided questions and lashed out using right wing talking points as a shield from questioning. She answered calmly and collectively.

She could conceivably be mistaken about who the culprit was....but that's an eyebrow raising moment for sure to me. Or maybe it happened and was not as bad as she recalls with her fear embellishing the severity of the situation. She was only fifteen.

Or maybe his supporters do not know him near as well as they pretend to and he is lying to them and everyone else. Whatever, there are requirements to becoming a Supreme court justice and forgive me if I do not take his word as gospel because he is conservative.

Whatever is found is great because we will have been informed to the best of our ability. Since when do we not
deserve or expect that?
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/72394352/thats-all-i-have-to-say-about-that.jpg

I don’t see another investigation changing things. The witnesses have all made sworn statements under penalty of felony perjury. A change in testimony makes them susceptible to a perjury charge.

[Doc]

I am for the investigation.. if having to decide without one I believe she is telling the truth and he is lying. He avoided questions and lashed out using right wing talking points as a shield from questioning. She answered calmly and collectively.

She could conceivably be mistaken about who the culprit was....but that's an eyebrow raising moment for sure to me. Or maybe it happened and was not as bad as she recalls with her fear embellishing the severity of the situation. She was only fifteen.

Or maybe his supporters do not know him near as well as they pretend to and he is lying to them and everyone else. Whatever, there are requirements to becoming a Supreme court justice and forgive me if I do not take his word as gospel because he is conservative.

Whatever is found is great because we will have been informed to the best of our ability. Since when do we not
deserve or expect that?
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/72394352/thats-all-i-have-to-say-about-that.jpg

You have already decided he is lying and stated so multiple times:

She says she is 100% sure it was him and she drank only one beer. I believe her.

Oth, I believe he is lying, and knows he should have taken another path towards contrition. Self righteous indignation is a sign of low self esteem and regret.
A common response to guilt.

Next?


One or the other is lying. The one with the most to lose probably.
If telling the truth, what she lost was many years ago.

But that wouldn't make him a monster...only willing to lie to the justice system and the American people.

No sane way around it...it must be investigated

Will an investigation change that? If nothing is found, will you suddenly believe him, or is will it be a "they just didn't find anything" moment? I suspect not because you, like those who oppose him for political reasons, have already determined he is guilty of rape because of those political reasons. Its not based on evidence since there is no evidence. Its based on emotions and a dislike for his policies or the fact that he was put forth by Trump or the fear he will be party to repealing Roe v. Wade or whatever. But I do know its not based on EVIDENCE because there is no evidence, none. And its a sad sad day when a man is convicted of something as henious as sexual assualt based on nothing, absolutely nothing other than a woman stating I'm 100% sure it was him despite him having evidence to show otherwise.

[kingcat]

Rape? Doc, have you actually read my posts? I wont even attempt to defend that. Disregarding everything I have stated on that subject based on emotion and a dislike for policies or opinion by anyone who for any reason might not support Trump, and the fear he is being unfairly questioned in every discussion outside of your Family Feud "good answer" private club..
;)

Why didnt you inform Senator Flake of the lack of evidence and save the FBI time and resources? And you do have a shot at being correct, but you know literally zero in reality

I have made it clear..if i have to make a decision without more information I believe he is lying and she is telling the truth.

Like i said, I have made that clear and also made it clear I could be wrong. You have made it clear that you believe the judge cannot be guilty of such a thing and that she is either lying or mistaken...likely in defense of the president versus the candidate himself

I know neither one of these people personally. Opinions are all I can offer.
I do wish it was more welcomed for what it is instead of discarded only because I am a Democrat.

And the emotionally driven animosity isnt coming from my direction.....but yours.

I still love ya' though. In politics, you loathe Democrats...after all these years believe me, I get that.

[Doc]

you have made it clear you believe he is lying. You stated that clearly, in those exact words. No need to defend it as its what you believe. No problem. People are free to believe what they want. I sense an investigation will not change your mind. I could be wrong but doubt it. I do know that an investigation wont change Feinstein or Harris or Bookers etc minds because they have zero interest in the outcome of an investigation. At least be honest about that. At least be honest about the delay ruse, no different than the reason the accusation letter was withheld from the committee


Also, I did not mean to say you believe he is guilty of rape but rather many of those who politically disagree have. They HAVE accused him of ochestrating a gang rape or "train" on a woman, so yeah, he has been accused and in the minds of some convicted of rape.

And I dont loathe democrats. I loathe dishonest people. My business partner is a die hard democrat and I don't loathe him at all. I respect his opinion even though we disagree. I loathe people like Feinstein, and McComnell, who do the wrong thing

[Catonahottinroof]

I am the same. I’m getting to the point I loathe all politicians for this very reason.
you have made it clear you believe he is lying. You stated that clearly, in those exact words. No need to defend it as its what you believe. No problem. People are free to believe what they want. I sense an investigation will not change your mind. I could be wrong but doubt it. I do know that an investigation wont change Feinstein or Harris or Bookers etc minds because they have zero interest in the outcome of an investigation. At least be honest about that. At least be honest about the delay ruse, no different than the reason the accusation letter was withheld from the committee


Also, I did not say you believe he is guilty of rape but rather those who politically disagree. The HAVE accused him of ochestrating a gang rape or "train" on a woman, so yeah, he has been accused and in the minds of some convicted of rape.

And I dont loathe democrats. I loathe dishonest people. My business partner is a die hard democrat and I don't loathe him at all. I respect his opinion even though we disagree. I loathe people like Feinstein, and McComnell, who do the wrong thing

[CitizenBBN]

Then you believe she was lying?

Perhaps she wants to avoid them getting the death threats or having to move away from their home like she has.
Perhaps they do not want to go up against Fox news and the conservative propaganda machine.

These are powerful people capable of ruining anyones life. And yes they exist on both sides. But the power is in Kavanaugh's hands, not theirs.

Yeah, Kavanaugh is wrecking this person's life, lol.

The power is with her and the DNC machine backing her, pure and simple. It's shooting fish in a barrel right now to accuse a man of such things, and very dangerous to attack the woman accuser. if you can't agree with that you're not watching the news on any subject iMO, b/c that's the current rage.

I have no doubt she'll get threats and have a lot of fallout, the idea that Kavanaugh has the power here is absurd, sorry but it is. There is no basis politically or socially or otherwise where he is wielding power.

That's why these attacks are so effective, and why it was used against Thomas and now Kavanaugh. It's nearly impossible to disprove for sure, and is very emotionally effective.

[CitizenBBN]

So those who are more left leaning on here all believe she is telling the truth, and he is lying.

Those who lean right believe he is telling the truth and she is lying.

Wow, sure is a surprise. lol. :)

The truth, as nearly always, is likely in the middle. Nearly 40 years ago, in high school, statistically it's almost likely she was groped in some capacity, and maybe it was Kavanaugh, but that's a far cry from attempted rape, and the details are highly circumspect and there are possible other motivations.

But I am fascinated how much of people's conclusions are based on their obvious slant coming into this and their emotional read of people, which as I've pointed out empirically has almost no support in terms of reliability.

but that's why some leaders are great and others fail. People will buy into the well presented emotional appeal far easier than they will a cold, objective presentation of facts. It's how we all work, me included, but we need to know that and try to not fall into that approach.

[KeithKSR]

Yeah, Kavanaugh is wrecking this person's life, lol.

The power is with her and the DNC machine backing her, pure and simple. It's shooting fish in a barrel right now to accuse a man of such things, and very dangerous to attack the woman accuser. if you can't agree with that you're not watching the news on any subject iMO, b/c that's the current rage.

I have no doubt she'll get threats and have a lot of fallout, the idea that Kavanaugh has the power here is absurd, sorry but it is. There is no basis politically or socially or otherwise where he is wielding power.

That's why these attacks are so effective, and why it was used against Thomas and now Kavanaugh. It's nearly impossible to disprove for sure, and is very emotionally effective.

The lawyers and Dems set up a go fund me account for her, Friday evening it was over half a million dollars, and the claim is she has nothing to gain.

[KeithKSR]

So those who are more left leaning on here all believe she is telling the truth, and he is lying.

Those who lean right believe he is telling the truth and she is lying.

Wow, sure is a surprise. lol. :)

The truth, as nearly always, is likely in the middle. Nearly 40 years ago, in high school, statistically it's almost likely she was groped in some capacity, and maybe it was Kavanaugh, but that's a far cry from attempted rape, and the details are highly circumspect and there are possible other motivations.

But I am fascinated how much of people's conclusions are based on their obvious slant coming into this and their emotional read of people, which as I've pointed out empirically has almost no support in terms of reliability.

but that's why some leaders are great and others fail. People will buy into the well presented emotional appeal far easier than they will a cold, objective presentation of facts. It's how we all work, me included, but we need to know that and try to not fall into that approach.

I think both may feel they aren’t lying. I do view her memories as quite odd in the details she doesn’t remember. She may have subconsciously assigned the act to Kavanaugh when he was in the news in 2012 as a potential Romney SCOTUS choice.

[Doc]

So those who are more left leaning on here all believe she is telling the truth, and he is lying.

Those who lean right believe he is telling the truth and she is lying.

Wow, sure is a surprise. lol. :)

The truth, as nearly always, is likely in the middle. Nearly 40 years ago, in high school, statistically it's almost likely she was groped in some capacity, and maybe it was Kavanaugh, but that's a far cry from attempted rape, and the details are highly circumspect and there are possible other motivations.

But I am fascinated how much of people's conclusions are based on their obvious slant coming into this and their emotional read of people, which as I've pointed out empirically has almost no support in terms of reliability.

but that's why some leaders are great and others fail. People will buy into the well presented emotional appeal far easier than they will a cold, objective presentation of facts. It's how we all work, me included, but we need to know that and try to not fall into that approach.

I don't believe I've seen a single person say she was lying, only that her recollection was wrong. That is what I believe. The evidence supports that it was not Kavanaugh.

[DanISSELisdaman]

Not accusing either of lying, but here's something that I've wondered about. She is a college professor in psychology if I remember right. Would it be stretching it to far, to say a person of her training and understanding of emotional behavior, would probably be able to pull off a convincing job of looking credible? Just throwing that out there. Another thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is, (according to one report I read, that might or might not be true), she claimed to have had another door added in 2012, because of her feelings of claustrophobia, but according to the builders permit, is was actually 2008. If true, that's a pretty big oops IMO.

[ukpumacat]

But there is no equivalency to one political party using their votes to stop something they don't want and using the tools of character assassination to stop something. None. The means matter, and as we continue to accept "any means necessary" to get what one side wants, we drift further away from our calling as a nation and more into that of a Third World cabal.

Again, I agree they are not equivalent. I haven't made that argument. Just stating the end goal was the same. And in other posts that both parties have committed egregious character assassinations. Its just that when you are on one side or the other we call it "being honest" (or a character assassination depending).
I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh when I was in college every single day. And there wasn't a day that went by that he wasn't literally calling Bill Clinton a murderer. That lasted for like two years (amongst many other things about many other people). Same with Hannity. Same with just about every politician in Washington.

[ukpumacat]

So those who are more left leaning on here all believe she is telling the truth, and he is lying.

Those who lean right believe he is telling the truth and she is lying.

Wow, sure is a surprise. lol. :)

The truth, as nearly always, is likely in the middle. Nearly 40 years ago, in high school, statistically it's almost likely she was groped in some capacity, and maybe it was Kavanaugh, but that's a far cry from attempted rape, and the details are highly circumspect and there are possible other motivations.

But I am fascinated how much of people's conclusions are based on their obvious slant coming into this and their emotional read of people, which as I've pointed out empirically has almost no support in terms of reliability.

but that's why some leaders are great and others fail. People will buy into the well presented emotional appeal far easier than they will a cold, objective presentation of facts. It's how we all work, me included, but we need to know that and try to not fall into that approach.

Just to be clear, I have no idea. I gave 3 options where neither are lying and Doc added a 4th that I agree could be a possibility. I think it is possible either could be lying or neither.
In fact, I will say again (as I already have) that I think none of us have nearly enough evidence to know either way (which is why it tends to be "political" which side most of us lean toward).

[ukpumacat]

Disagree. Had BK been rejected because of the sleazy tactics of Feinstein, the GOP would have walked with the election. People see it for exactly what it was. If he gets confirmed it takes away the outrage. An FBI investigation changes not a single democratic vote. If the FBI finds nothing, do you envision any changing their nay vote? That is why its a hoax request. The democrats really didnt want an investigation to find "the truth". They wanted it to delay because the outcome of said investigation is 100% irrelevant in their mind. They are voting NO and have stated so multiple times. So lets at least be honest, an investigation by the FbI that find nothing will change zero votes. ZIP

I'm thinking you misread my post. I do not think any Senators vote changes because of this investigation (except the 4 on the fence possibly).
I wasn't talking about the Senators vote on Kavanaugh.

I am talking about the mid-term election. And you re-stated exactly what I believe. I think if Kavanaugh been rejected, it HELPS the Republicans in the mid-terms.
And if he was accepted with no investigation it HELPS the Democrats in the mid-terms.

So the fact that Flake delayed so that there is an investigation Imo means it is fairly politically neutral. Which means the Dems will take the House (as expected) and the Reps will hold onto the Senate (as expected).
If I was a Republican...this couldn't have turned out better (outside of the accusations never happening in the first place). He will likely get confirmed. And the Dems don't have as much "outrage" with the one week investigation as they would have. Win win in a political sense. And you can thank Flank for that.
Imo, the agreement with Flake was a poor political decision by the Dems (unless Kav doesn't get confirmed at all).

[Doc]

Not accusing either of lying, but here's something that I've wondered about. She is a college professor in psychology if I remember right. Would it be stretching it to far, to say a person of her training and understanding of emotional behavior, would probably be able to pull off a convincing job of looking credible? Just throwing that out there. Another thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is, (according to one report I read, that might or might not be true), she claimed to have had another door added in 2012, because of her feelings of claustrophobia, but according to the builders permit, is was actually 2008. If true, that's a pretty big oops IMO.

If I had a psychology professor who was so traumatized that she needed a second door in her house, I'd likely ask for another psychology teacher.

[CitizenBBN]

Beginning thoughts from Alan Dershowitz, who once again proves he his one of the most clear headed and honest thinkers of our age:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alan-dershowitz-we-now-live-in-an-age-that-borders-on-sexual-mccarthyism (rest is the WSJ, which you may or may not be able to read)

He's a civil libertarian and a defense lawyer, but he's true to it no matter who it might be. Maybe the last true high profile civil libertarian left, after the ACLU caved.

[DanISSELisdaman]

If I had a psychology professor who was so traumatized that she needed a second door in her house, I'd likely ask for another psychology teacher.

Yeah, no kidding!!

[ukpumacat]

Beginning thoughts from Alan Dershowitz, who once again proves he his one of the most clear headed and honest thinkers of our age:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alan-dershowitz-we-now-live-in-an-age-that-borders-on-sexual-mccarthyism (rest is the WSJ, which you may or may not be able to read)

He's a civil libertarian and a defense lawyer, but he's true to it no matter who it might be. Maybe the last true high profile civil libertarian left, after the ACLU caved.

I agree, btw, that he should not be denied a seat based on allegations alone.

Having said that, the Supreme Court has become an absolutely political entity now. We see it in the votes. We see it in the decisions. And we see it in the nomination processes.
Because of that, the judges being confirmed often have to act as politicians.
Whether it SHOULD deny him a seat (I do not believe it should) is different than whether it will of course. This accusation would cost many politicians an election. And in a similar way, it may cost him a seat on the High Court.

Again, I don't think it should. And I actually don't think it will. I think he will be confirmed by the end of this week or early next week. And as I've said a few times...I think them doing this investigation hurts the Dems in the mid-terms and helps Kavanaugh on the bench. They would have been far better, politically speaking, to let Flake go along with the other Republicans and let the "outrage" swell into the mid-terms.

[Doc]

This "he is a sloppy drunk" accusation that is now floated is a joke. Having been thru multiple lower level government background checks, I can personally atest that alcohol consumption and behavior is a most basic level point for these checks, and I'm sure this was investigated 6 times in his case. Were he a belligerent or combative drunk he never would have gotten this far. As for his temperment, his actions on the bench have never come in question in 12 years. He should be indignant over a false accusation, and he should have been combative IN RETURN to combative nature that the democrats on the committee came at him

[DanISSELisdaman]

Fords ex-boyfriend is now saying, that she helped a friend prepare for a polygraph. That would shoot a major hole in her testimony.

[CitizenBBN]

Fords ex-boyfriend is now saying, that she helped a friend prepare for a polygraph. That would shoot a major hole in her testimony.

Those questions in the testimony may not have been a dumpster fire after all, if it was to set her up for perjury.

It didn't sell on TV, but the end game may blow up in her face. We'll see.

[CitizenBBN]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

Numerous things contradicted by his statement.

1) She claimed a fear of flying to delay testimony. He says she had no fear.

2) She lived in a small apartment with only one door.

3) She never mentioned Kavanaugh or being assaulted to him, they dated 6 years 1992-98 (not definitive of course but interesting).

4) He said he saw her help a friend prepare for a polygraph test, saying that woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and US Attorney's office.


Per her statement under oath she said she had: "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process was stressful and uncomfortable.

[KeithKSR]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

Numerous things contradicted by his statement.

1) She claimed a fear of flying to delay testimony. He says she had no fear.

2) She lived in a small apartment with only one door.

3) She never mentioned Kavanaugh or being assaulted to him, they dated 6 years 1992-98 (not definitive of course but interesting).

4) He said he saw her help a friend prepare for a polygraph test, saying that woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and US Attorney's office.


Per her statement under oath she said she had: "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process was stressful and uncomfortable.

She had the second door added to her house in 2008, not 2012. The purpose wasn’t to provide another egress for her, but to have an entrance to allow renters an egress to part of her home she was renting to them.

[goodycat]

I agree, btw, that he should not be denied a seat based on allegations alone.

Having said that, the Supreme Court has become an absolutely political entity now. We see it in the votes. We see it in the decisions. And we see it in the nomination processes.
Because of that, the judges being confirmed often have to act as politicians.
Whether it SHOULD deny him a seat (I do not believe it should) is different than whether it will of course. This accusation would cost many politicians an election. And in a similar way, it may cost him a seat on the High Court.

Again, I don't think it should. And I actually don't think it will. I think he will be confirmed by the end of this week or early next week. And as I've said a few times...I think them doing this investigation hurts the Dems in the mid-terms and helps Kavanaugh on the bench. They would have been far better, politically speaking, to let Flake go along with the other Republicans and let the "outrage" swell into the mid-terms.


The Supreme Court isn't just now becoming a political entity. The problem for some (including most of the media) is the Court is more conservative now, so their outcomes must be dismissed as purely political. However, in the 1960's and 1970's the Court was overtly political and these same people had no problem with it because the Court was liberal back then. Whether you support abortion or not, the Roe v. Wade decision was essentially a legal sham. There was no constitutional basis (whether you consider the text of the constitution or the Court's precedent) for that decision. Also, the Court at that time was very hostile to religion in its establishment clause cases (school prayer, public religious display -- nativity scenes, etc. decisions). You could also include affirmative action, labor disputes, etc. You could make a very persuasive argument that the Court was more political back then than it is now. The only thing that has changed is that the "right side" isn't necessarily winning anymore.

[CitizenBBN]

You could make a very persuasive argument that the Court was more political back then than it is now. The only thing that has changed is that the "right side" isn't necessarily winning anymore.

This. The warren court was one of the more activist courts in history, though some of the courts of old were also very activist at times.

The court isn't being political unless you disagree with their decision, then they're being political, lol

The court has in fact always been political in its way, going way back to key decisions like Marbury v Madison, which went a long way to establishing judicial review in the first place. That was Marshall clearly being "activist" and very political in his decision, b/c he could render the notion of review, knowing he had no real way to enforce it.

The Court has also always taken a reading on public sentiment in decisions as well. They can be very slick in their ability to render decisions without going so far as to alienate the population to a point where their credibility is undermined.

In the end there is very little black letter basis for their influence, it comes from the respect they have built as an institution and their image as an arbiter of the other branches. The Court is generally very political in how they guard that image and power.

For example, they will choose to not take cases. The court shifted the 2nd Amendment strongly with the MacDonald and Heller decisions, but instead of following those up by clarifying carry rights, they have for subsequent years simply refused to hear those cases. The reason is that if they enforce the precedents of Heller and MacDonald they will move that pendulum even further, and that would be too far too fast for the current social and political climate. They move in smaller steps on purpose, consciously.

So it's always been well aware of politics, and is nearly always very deft at preserving its influence in its choices, even though it is often split in the actual decisions. They still all act together to preserve that political power.

[Doc]

The Supreme Court isn't just now becoming a political entity. The problem for some (including most of the media) is the Court is more conservative now, so their outcomes must be dismissed as purely political. However, in the 1960's and 1970's the Court was overtly political and these same people had no problem with it because the Court was liberal back then. Whether you support abortion or not, the Roe v. Wade decision was essentially a legal sham. There was no constitutional basis (whether you consider the text of the constitution or the Court's precedent) for that decision. Also, the Court at that time was very hostile to religion in its establishment clause cases (school prayer, public religious display -- nativity scenes, etc. decisions). You could also include affirmative action, labor disputes, etc. You could make a very persuasive argument that the Court was more political back then than it is now. The only thing that has changed is that the "right side" isn't necessarily winning anymore.

"Elections have Consequences" -- Barrach Obama --January 23, 2009

[Doc]

So now that the FBI investigation found nothing, I guess all those who clamored for it like like Feinstein, Booker, Harris, etc... are going to vote "Yea" :lmao:

[ukpumacat]

The Supreme Court isn't just now becoming a political entity. The problem for some (including most of the media) is the Court is more conservative now, so their outcomes must be dismissed as purely political. However, in the 1960's and 1970's the Court was overtly political and these same people had no problem with it because the Court was liberal back then. Whether you support abortion or not, the Roe v. Wade decision was essentially a legal sham. There was no constitutional basis (whether you consider the text of the constitution or the Court's precedent) for that decision. Also, the Court at that time was very hostile to religion in its establishment clause cases (school prayer, public religious display -- nativity scenes, etc. decisions). You could also include affirmative action, labor disputes, etc. You could make a very persuasive argument that the Court was more political back then than it is now. The only thing that has changed is that the "right side" isn't necessarily winning anymore.

Oh trust me, I absolutely know the court has been "political" for some time. It should probably be in a different thread/post but I would love to talk about the case that I believe started that (its a fantastic case to debate as I have had students do in the past).

[ukpumacat]

This guy really does seem to get it...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-sasse-says-he-urged-trump-not-to-pick-kavanaugh-slams-president-for-mocking-ford

[CitizenBBN]

This guy really does seem to get it...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-sasse-says-he-urged-trump-not-to-pick-kavanaugh-slams-president-for-mocking-ford

In that he basically said to nominate a woman b/c she couldn't be attacked with these kinds of charges. I guess politically that's astute, but what's interesting is the two women on the list are both arguably more conservative.

I don't disagree with him, as it would also help to diffuse the use of Roe v Wade to pump up the Democratic base. But that doesn't mean the woman he chose wouldn't have had some smear used against her either, it just would have been harder to pull off IMO.

[CitizenBBN]

Oh trust me, I absolutely know the court has been "political" for some time. It should probably be in a different thread/post but I would love to talk about the case that I believe started that (its a fantastic case to debate as I have had students do in the past).

Something from the Marshall court perchance? :)

[goodycat]

Oh trust me, I absolutely know the court has been "political" for some time. It should probably be in a different thread/post but I would love to talk about the case that I believe started that (its a fantastic case to debate as I have had students do in the past).

Sounds interesting. I’m always up for a good discussion like that

[KeithKSR]

This guy really does seem to get it...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-sasse-says-he-urged-trump-not-to-pick-kavanaugh-slams-president-for-mocking-ford

There would have been issues getting either Collins or Murkowski to support either of the two ladies, which is the reason Kavanaugh was nominated.

[kingcat]

I say get it over with already and move on to the next episode.

Politics has overtaken pro wrestling and Americans thrive on it. And many actually believe it's real.

:party0052:

[KeithKSR]

Cloture motion passes, final confirmation vote will be held after 30 hours of debate, which means sometime Saturday.

[ukpumacat]

Sounds interesting. I’m always up for a good discussion like that

When I have time I will start a thread on this board with it. Its a fun discussion. And one that is not a "party line" opinion.

[Doc]

So it appears Collins is a yes. She milked for all it was worth so the political traction she garnered from the national eyes will likely keep her in congress for years to come. Her monolgue was accurate but I could have done without the "Me Too", where it refers to the reasons to find Kavanaugh "not guilty"....."YEAH, ME TOO"

And yes, I know its not a trial but a job interview. Of course I've never heard of or been a part of a job interview where the applicant is accused of sexual assault and gang rape.

[Doc]

Manchin is a yes as well.

Appears Pence can sleep late tomorrow,

[KeithKSR]

Flake(y) shows why he had no shot at reelection with a solid maybe.

[Catonahottinroof]

Kavanaugh’s confirmation is now official.
The politics of this nation has become an abomination...on both sides ��

[Catfan73]

IMO the Republican side of the aisle just made a huge mistake.

[CitizenBBN]

IMO the Republican side of the aisle just made a huge mistake.

Yes and no. Will help energize the base for the Dems, but they did just seat a Justice, and that's a win for them.

GOP should probably hold the Senate, may even gain a seat, but that's not guaranteed. House will be in question, going to depend on turnout.

But the Dems helped the GOP base turn out as well with the 11th hour opposition tactics, based on the poll numbers. If they still turn out even though Kavanaugh got seated it could end up being a political wash.

But you can't not seat a Justice even for sake of midterm elections. Kennedy went ahead and retired b/c there was a good chance the GOP would lose in the midterms, as the party out of the Presidency does almost always.

So the GOP gets a shift in the court, albeit not a huge one, at a time when they really probably won't lose any more than they might have lost anyway. It wasn't an unreasonable move.

If there was a mistake, it was not nominating a woman simply to have a candidate who is much harder to smear and attack. IMO if anything should be second guessed, that's where the mistake happened. Kavanaugh is a good candidate, with a good record, and funny enough is somewhat less conservative than the female options.

They would have gotten a more conservative Justice with probably less political blowback with a woman nominee.

[Doc]

The democrats needed nothing to energize there base. They are already energized due to Trump. This will make little difference in adding to that. However the right and middle likely did get a push, and a big one, from this. The process and tactics used really inflammed a lot of people.

[ukpumacat]

Yes and no. Will help energize the base for the Dems, but they did just seat a Justice, and that's a win for them.

GOP should probably hold the Senate, may even gain a seat, but that's not guaranteed. House will be in question, going to depend on turnout.

But the Dems helped the GOP base turn out as well with the 11th hour opposition tactics, based on the poll numbers. If they still turn out even though Kavanaugh got seated it could end up being a political wash.

But you can't not seat a Justice even for sake of midterm elections. Kennedy went ahead and retired b/c there was a good chance the GOP would lose in the midterms, as the party out of the Presidency does almost always.

So the GOP gets a shift in the court, albeit not a huge one, at a time when they really probably won't lose any more than they might have lost anyway. It wasn't an unreasonable move.

If there was a mistake, it was not nominating a woman simply to have a candidate who is much harder to smear and attack. IMO if anything should be second guessed, that's where the mistake happened. Kavanaugh is a good candidate, with a good record, and funny enough is somewhat less conservative than the female options.

They would have gotten a more conservative Justice with probably less political blowback with a woman nominee.

Ya, I agree Chuck.

[kingcat]

The SNL skit was fabulous. The McConnell dude looked just like him..which is quite an accomplishment. Dems didnt escape the joking around either. The Chuck Schumer guy was spot on.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=lgO3pBfrgxs