Good to see conservatives fight back (Ford v Kavanaugh)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/SBKlr0Dk8z0T4V...92e894a106.jpg

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badrose

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


"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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

Fact check: Witnesses do not refute Ford allegations, despite what Kavanaugh, senators say


"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.

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/2.../holding-court

"I only had one beer"

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3f...o.jpg?w968h681

http://craziestgadgets.com/wp-conten...eergoddess.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

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

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...=.ad5fc6a35e06

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...=.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

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.

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/instan...about-that.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/instan...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/instan...about-that.jpg

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.

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

I am the same. I’m getting to the point I loathe all politicians for this very reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

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.