world

Accuser of Trump's Supreme Court nominee to testify on Thursday; new allegation from 2nd woman

128 Comments
By Doina Chiacu

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

128 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Something for us to look forward to.

Will she be convincing enough to make the Republican senators nervous of appointing him?

Imagine if some new complainers stepped forward subsequently about more recent incidents.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

"Republicans will be forced to walk a careful line in questioning Ford's account without alienating female voters before the November congressional elections."

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) just announced on Fox that he will vote for Kavanaugh NO MATTER WHAT is revealed about his sexual assault allegation. Lindsey, it seems, does not "want to ruin the man's life." Women should run, not walk, from this misogynist Neanderthal party.

18 ( +23 / -5 )

Trump has called her allegation into question, writing on Twitter on Friday that"if the attack on Dr Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents."

A huge percentage of actual rapes and sexual assault go unreported according to surveys. Shame and a fear of not being believed are common reasons. I think that this was even worse back in the 80s.

The Me Too movement has shown this - thousands of assaults went unreported for years.

It doesn't surprise ne that Trump is unaware of this.

17 ( +19 / -2 )

He could still face charges of attempted rape in Maryland since there is not statue of limitations there. So either investigate it now or investigate it when he's a judge. He can't ignore the law twice

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@CrazyJoe

You need to check your news source. Apparently whatever source you have is quite biased. What the senator actually said was “Unless there's something more, no I'm not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh's life over this.”

Sounds to me that yes, he is sceptical, but is open to hearing and Ford’s testimony. Remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. Sounds like you’ve made up your mind prior to any testimony, which shows your clear bias.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Hirono said Ford had nothing to gain by coming forward. "I believe her," Hirono told CNN's "State of the Union" program."There's credibility to her story."

On what basis does he believe her? Hirono still doesn’t believe Juanita Broderick who actually has credible evidence that she was raped.

He could still face charges of attempted rape in Maryland since there is not statue of limitations there. So either investigate it now or investigate it when he's a judge. He can't ignore the law twice

If she has a case she should bring it. But she can’t even nail down which year it occurred. It is going to pretty difficult to make a case. Note that Anita Hill never pressed charges after her Senate testimony. The Dems have made it clear that the goal is to delay the vote in hopes of winning the Senate and preventing any conservative nominee from replacing Kennedy- a reliable social justice warrior vote on the court.

I would not be surprised if Feinstein throws another grenade into the process sometime this week. They are desperate and the ends always justify the means. Should be an eventful week of character assassination and crazed Leftist rage.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

So, only people who believe her already (Dems) can question her? Not quite how it works. Interesting she isn’t asking for the other 3 people who don’t support her story to be subpoenaed. Just the guy, Judge, who already made his statement like all the others.

"various senators have been dismissive of her account and should have to shoulder their responsibility to ask her questions."

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

If she has a case she should bring it. But she can’t even nail down which year it occurred. It is going to pretty difficult to make a case. Note that Anita Hill never pressed charges after her Senate testimony.

Yeah, imagine that, she didn't want to go through another interrogation after the one by the Senate.

I would not be surprised if Feinstein throws another grenade into the process sometime this week.

One can hope. It would be nice, but I'm suspecting they don't have another one held back. But hopefully I can be proven wrong!

Should be an eventful week of character assassination and crazed Leftist rage.

Yeah, they have to do their best to make sure the 'pubs don't elect a GROPUS to SCOTUS.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

If she has a case she should bring it. But she can’t even nail down which year it occurred. It is going to pretty difficult to make a case. Note that Anita Hill never pressed charges after her Senate testimony. The Dems have made it clear that the goal is to delay the vote in hopes of winning the Senate and preventing any conservative nominee from replacing Kennedy- a reliable social justice warrior vote on the court.

Whether or not she brings a criminal complaint at this stage is irrelevant to the question of whether the rape attempt happened. The only evidence we have (in addition to circumstantial evidence like therapist notes) is going to be her testimony, and his rebuttal.

And yup, the Democrats have obvious political motivations in wanting to sink Kavanagh, whil Republicans have obvious political motivations in wanting to confirm him. None of that tells us anything about whether or not the facts alleged occurred or not. If after seeing both their testimony it seems more likely that the attack occurred, I don’t see how anyone with an ounce of dignity could vote in favor of his confirmation.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

So, only people who believe her already (Dems) can question her?

Sorry coach, I didn't do my homework, so I haven't got the talking points for team red today. Can you explain this a little more? I'm not getting the reference.

Interesting she isn’t asking for the other 3 people who don’t support her story to be subpoenaed.

Maybe you should try reading the article before commenting:

"She has agreed to move forward with a hearing even though the Committee has refused to subpoena Mark Judge," it said."They have also refused to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault."

7 ( +8 / -1 )

MattypdxToday  08:58 am JST

Sounds to me that yes, he is sceptical, but is open to hearing and Ford’s testimony. Remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. 

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a criminal trial. This is not a criminal trial. This is a vetting process for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. There is no "Innocent until proven guilty" standard, there is only, "Do we think this person is suitable to rule on legal matters at the highest court in the land for the rest of their life?"

There are many very qualified judges out there who don't have mysterious and undocumented increases in wealth in a short time, who don't have a curious total reversal on their position on the ability to investigate a sitting president that is more based on which party the president is in than any Constitutional principle, and who don't feel it's necessary to conceal 90% of their paper trail plus all of their legal positions. The onus on Ford is not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh did it. She merely has to show that the alleged assault is likely enough to have happened that he isn't worth taking a risk on.

Or at least, that's all she would have to show if Senate was ruled by true conservatives, and not opportunists attempting radical social experimentation legislated from the bench to undermine the Constitution.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Kavanaugh's defenders seem so absolutely terrified by my question they keep running away from it: Why the rush? You all claim to believe there will be no blue wave in November, so why the unwillingness to take your time and determine truthfully whether or not Kavanaugh is the right man for the job? Why the need to cram this justice down our throats before an arbitrary deadline? Why does this question frighten you so much that you cannot give a simple, straightforward answer?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

A second woman has made an accusation, possibly a third.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

A second woman has made an accusation, possibly a third.

We might be dealing with a Cosby here.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

There are, however, unresolved procedural and logistical issues, Ford's lawyers said, including whether the Judiciary Committee's Republican senators, who are all male, or staff attorneys would question her. Ford's lawyers said "various senators have been dismissive of her account and should have to shoulder their responsibility to ask her questions."

That's absolutely true - true to form, these Republican Senators lack the courage to face this victim and directly ask her questions - just because they know they would look like the misogynists they are to all the female voters out there. 

If they're too scared, perhaps they should ask the President to come and challenge her story - you know, the President that;

  Has at least 20 sexual harassment allegations against him...

  Has cheated on all three wives; next wife with former wife, and with porn stars and Playboy Bunnies with current wife....

  Has admitted to assaulting women - "just grab 'em ___"

  Walks into dressing rooms with 15 year old beauty pageant contestants...

I guarantee it would bring "huge" ratings for Fox News.....

7 ( +8 / -1 )

First it was Republican nominee Clarence Thomas and now it looks like it's going to be Republican nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Surely there are better people to choose from among conservatives, so why are the Republicans so attracted to nominating sexual predators and deviants?

Maybe it's time to change the name of the U.S. Supreme Court to something trashier. Sad.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I am glad she will testify as this has gotten to the point that I believe she must do so .

It may boil down to one person's word against another with absolutely no physical or other evidence to support the allegation.

If her testimony is compelling enough they can (and should) subpoena the other witnesses to get to the bottom of this. If it is not compelling enough then end of story.

If Kavanaugh did this, it is a terrible thing. I am asking a question here...not making a judgment as I do not know how I feel about this.......IF he did this then he did this at the age of 17. Does that excuse him or not? I am not sure. The law treats minors different than adults and arguments are often made that certain acts committed by minors should be treated with leniency.

I am no fan of Trump and I am not in support in Kavanaugh being appointed but if Kavanaugh is removed from consideration based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of one woman (and if she cannot remember the date or place this occurred) I say with no reservations (as a Liberal who is against Kavanaugh) that this would be a travesty and it would set a very dangerous precedence for the future.

It is a dangerous world where a single accuser with no physical evidence that cannot remember the date or the location of a crime/action can ruin a person in this way. It is amazing that some lawmakers I actually HAD respect for are out to lynch Kavanaugh with no evidence. Scary stuff....

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Word is the GOP knew about the second accuser and tried to push Kavanaugh through anyway.

I guess we know why they were in such a rush.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Also a new allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has surfaced, this time from his years at Yale

Senate wants to bury this before the vote but social media is too fast for the old men

5 ( +6 / -1 )

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a criminal trial. This is not a criminal trial. This is a vetting process for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. There is no "Innocent until proven guilty" standard, there is only, "Do we think this person is suitable to rule on legal matters at the highest court in the land for the rest of their life?"

If that is the spiel of the Democrats (and we all that it is,) then why not come out and admit it. Definitely would have a lot more respect for them and they could save a lot of time trying to smear a person, but I get it, maximum affect.

There are many very qualified judges out there who don't have mysterious and undocumented increases in wealth in a short time, who don't have a curious total reversal on their position on the ability to investigate a sitting president that is more based on which party the president is in than any Constitutional principle, and who don't feel it's necessary to conceal 90% of their paper trail plus all of their legal positions.

This is stupid, Kavanaugh has some of the highest credentials, if for some strange reason he won't be confirmed then out of the list of 136 staunchly deep conservatives, if Trump were to pick any of them the Dems would do something to derail that as well. So it's enough to play a stupid game of the GOP should find something else because the fact of the matter is, the person that the President will choose in any case will be a constitutionalist and pro-life which are non-negotiable issues for the Democrats. 

Or at least, that's all she would have to show if Senate was ruled by true conservatives, and not opportunists attempting radical social experimentation legislated from the bench to undermine the Constitution.

Give me a break, Democrats feel that they can smear anyone without a shred of evidence and call it facts. Like when they accused Romney of not paying taxes, the media ate that up because Reid spread that rumor and when the facts and evidence came out that it was all a lie and when Reid was confronted he said "it worked", meaning the objective to demonize and smear Romney. No apologies or anything. These are just the tip of the iceberg at some of the shenanigans that the left play constantly/

The onus on Ford is not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh did it. She merely has to show that the alleged assault is likely enough to have happened that he isn't worth taking a risk on.

Sorry, but that's not how it works, Kavanaugh needs to respond to the allegations that this woman is claiming to have happened, the notion that her lawyers demanded (which is a joke in itself as if they can call the shots) that Kavanaugh goes first which makes no sense in any court of law in any civilized country. The burden is for her to prove that something happened and with No timeline, No idea of location, No evidence of any kind, the only thing that she has is her word which so far doesn't seem to hold water against a man who has a mile long over 30 year history working for the US government with impeccable credentials that would make most lawyers envious, a man who serves on the second highest court in the country who went through 6 grueling background FBI checks way more than top military officials. So it will come down to who do you believe and who sounds more convincing and both people will be under oath, it is illegal to lie to the congress as well as the FBI and in both cases can land you in prison, Kavanaugh knows this as a legal expert and as for Ford, does she know what she is getting herself into by taking an oath? We shall see what becomes of all of this, either way, only one person will emerge the believer. Kavanaugh is pushing to testify, wants to do it immediately while Ford was unwilling, then reluctant and now wants to testify under certain conditions. Says a lot.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Interesting how Mark Judge refuses to testify, and this is allowed. Perjury is a crime.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

She accused him of attacking her and trying to remove her clothing while he was drunk at a party when he was 17 years old and she was 15.

He was a minor at the time of this ridiculous accusation. I honestly can not take this seriously.

And it's got nothing do with me being a Democrat or Republican! Its just utter nonsense. A serious joke. The judge is solid and stand up.( CONFIRM HIM) Even If I don't agree with every judgement he ever made on a case while serving on the bench or his politics. How can we take this seriously when we remove the politics out of the equation? Geraldo Rivera has it nailed. It's all about abortion and woman's right to choose.

For those interested. I think this is the best thing spoken in the media on this whole cluster-fudge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djYQ0aE-du4

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

A second woman has made an accusation, possibly a third.

Now you knew that was going to happen, I was wondering what took so long for the second to come forward and I'm waiting for the 3rd and 4th to come, so let's see what their claims will be and how creative they can make them.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

@Stormcrow,

Surely there are better people to choose from among conservatives, so why are the Republicans so attracted to nominating sexual predators and deviants?

Have you seen a conviction handed down on a sexual assault? Judge K. has not been convicted of crime. This all a political ruse of distraction. Noise from the Democrats. It is a smear campaign and character assassination.

Pure and simple.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

bass4funkToday  09:55 am JST

If that is the spiel of the Democrat

It's not the "spiel of the Democrat", it's the Constitution. This is not a jury trial, it is a confirmation hearing.

By the way, are you ever going to have the courage to answer my question?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Bass: a man who has a mile long over 30 year history working for the US government with impeccable credentials that would make most lawyers envious

Same with Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller. What impact does that have?

who went through 6 grueling background FBI checks

There has been no vetting.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@Laguna - I think Mark Judge should be subpoenaed and compelled to testify if Ms. Ford makes a strong case. I still have trouble with her inability to remember details.

For those that support Trump; I felt the same way when Lois Lerner (IRS) refused to testify for targeting conservative groups. She should also have been compelled to testify.

The law should apply both was, regardless of political affiliation.

Unfortunately the U.S. lawmakers do not see it that way. There are rules for the elite and rules for us lowly peons.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

An accusation is not proof of guilt. On the other hand how many 15 year old girls, at a drinking party with older boys, would ever approach their parents with what occurred there?

Kavanaugh Accuser’s Schoolmate Says Assault Was Chatter at School Afterward

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/kavanaugh-accusers-schoolmate-says-assault-chatter-school-afterward

Here is nonsensical defense from Kavanaugh's legal team for why the assault didn't happen. It wasn't on his calendar! Too young to be held accountable, old enough to keep a meticulous calendar. Got it.

Twitter Roasts Brett Kavanaugh For Calendars He Claims To Have Kept At 17

https://www.yahoo.com/news/twitter-roasts-brett-kavanaugh-calendars-225334582.html

And now:

Second Woman Accuses Brett Kavanaugh Of Sexual Misconduct In New Yorker Bombshell

https://www.yahoo.com/news/yorker-bombshell-second-woman-accuses-002935481.html

There are now other accusers of Kavanaugh for sexual misconduct. Ask yourself Why won't the Republican Senate call on the key eye witness, Mark Judge, to testify under oath? He was there, why not have him come in and tell the truth? Why won't Kavanaugh ask him to say he is innocent and clear his name? Why won't Kavanaugh answer any questions under oath about his younger years? We already know his character: Kavanaugh has lied repeatedly under oath, including lying under oath about receiving stolen material. Kavanaugh's conduct should have him disbarred, not being considered for the highest court in our country. So why are the crooked Republicans rushing his confirmation? Because they know Trump is also guilty of even worse and will be indicted soon. They need Kavanaugh as the swing vote on the Supreme Court to protect Trump. That is what this is all about.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Slickdrifter

It would be nice to see Kavanaugh match Ms. Ford by voluntarily taking a polygraph about the sexual assault, which she passed, and begging for an FBI investigation.

Why hasn't he?

I also think it would be a good idea to expand the investigation direct the focus on any classmates of Kavanaugh's who may have heard rumors or stories about him, or from this other one, Mark Judge, bragging or boasting about it at the time. It's highly possible that they had no shame in what they did and that they bragged about sexually assaulting Ms. Ford to others, and that's where the FBI comes in.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

My word... the obvious Trump hatred here is staggering! Why do you Democrats insist on ignoring facts and keep harping on about anything other than relevance?!

(it's rhetorical, no need to answer)

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

@bass4funk

Sorry, but that's not how it works, Kavanaugh needs to respond to the allegations that this woman is claiming to have happened, the notion that her lawyers demanded (which is a joke in itself as if they can call the shots) that Kavanaugh goes first which makes no sense in any court of law in any civilized country.

You seem to have confused the Senate Judiciary Committee with a court of law.

The burden is for her to prove that something happened

Again, you've confused this with courts of law and criminal trials. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecutors.

This isn't a criminal trial, and if there is some suspicion that Kavanaugh is lying or has lied about this or other acts, he can be deemed unsuitable.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

"Ford's lawyers said that in a Sunday morning call with committee staff members they agreed to the hearing even though the committee refused to subpoena Mark Judge, a Kavanaugh friend who Ford said witnessed the attack"

"Interesting how Mark Judge refuses to testify, and this is allowed. Perjury is a crime."

Maybe he doesn't want to get dragged into Ford's twisted world.

Oh my...

"I have no memory of this alleged incident," Judge states in the letter sent by his lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder.

"Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."

Judge goes on to say that he has no additional information to provide the committee and therefore, does "not want to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford's letter."

The letter appears to echo his comments from last week when Judge spoke to The Weekly Standard, when he denied the incident.

"It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge told The Weekly Standard on Friday."

Hirono said Ford had nothing to gain by coming forward. "I believe her," Hirono told CNN's "State of the Union" program."There's credibility to her story."

The guy who was allegedly at the party and allegedly witnessed Kavanaugh attacking Ford disagrees with you, Sen. Hirono.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It would be nice to see Kavanaugh match Ms. Ford by voluntarily taking a polygraph about the sexual assault, which she passed, and begging for an FBI investigation.

People have such touching faith in polygraphs. They're pseudoscience. Applying polygraph tests to Kavanaugh, Ford, Stormy Daniels, or anyone else isn't going to settle any question, or even yield any useful data.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ford, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California, has said Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982 when both were high school students in Maryland. She accused him of attacking her and trying to remove her clothing while he was drunk at a party when he was 17 years old and she was 15.

Which massively affects his ability to be a judge.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Tokyo-EngrToday  09:47 am JST

It is amazing that some lawmakers I actually HAD respect for are out to lynch Kavanaugh with no evidence.

Pay attention to anyone who uses "lynch" to describe people not supporting Kavanaugh's confirmation. It shows a person willing to conflate vigilantes murdering someone on the basis of their skin color with government officials wanting to make sure a guy is qualified for one of the most powerful positions in government instead of just giving it to him because he's white and says he wants it.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

True, polygraphs are not foolproof, accurate, but not foolproof. Still, it cannot be denied that Ford voluntarily took a polygraph test and Kavanaugh has not. Just as she has requested an FBI investigation and he hasn't. Why not? Most people would if they were innocent, wouldn't they?

Meanwhile . . .

Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale University classmate of Kavanaugh's, also claims to have received the unwanted sexual attention of Kavanaugh when he thrust his exposed genitals into her face, forcing her to touch it in the process.

Are there others?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

So for all the resident TrumpBots, it's "innocent until proven guilty" unless it's Brett Cavanagh or anyone else they approve of, it's just "innocent."

3 ( +5 / -2 )

so the Dems will try to stall this for two years then get elected on a "less jobs more illegal aliens" policy? I don't think so...

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

We are getting close to an election. Best to table it until after.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

People have such touching faith in polygraphs. They're pseudoscience.

No, they are actual science, and they are fairly accurate - just not accurate enough to be used in a court of law.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

so the Dems will try to stall this for two years

Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. That's the game that the Republicans chose during the last administration. The game continues...

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Same with Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller. What impact does that have?

Besides the fact that they have been trying to take down a duly elected President, you tell me.

There has been no vetting.

Then sitting on the highest court or second highest court or being a secret service agent or becoming a government official, anyone can get any job at any given time with the greatest of ease, nice try.

It's not the "spiel of the Democrat", it's the Constitution.

Given what's going on, I'm surprised that liberals know what it is. Well, I learned something new today.

This is not a jury trial, it is a confirmation hearing.

You would actually think for once liberals knew that, but alas....

By the way, are you ever going to have the courage to answer my question?

Because I have answered it before and I will say it again, This is so overblown, you believe Ford and I believe Kavanaugh I think she should get her say and then the GOP move on to confirm him and the left can take after that any action they want, but these games are just comical, absolutely comical.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

You seem to have confused the Senate Judiciary Committee with a court of law.

No, that would be the left.

This isn't a criminal trial, and if there is some suspicion that Kavanaugh is lying or has lied

As well as Ford who has even less credibility.

about this or other acts, he can be deemed unsuitable.

Which have absolutely nothing to do with him or his ability to serve on the highest court. Now where have I seen this play out before in vivid detail 30 years ago with Clarence Thomas and still the left didn't learn from their wicked ways.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

They don't want witnesses called, because that would force them to let loose Mark Judge--a wing nut's wing nut--and Kavanaugh's 'best buddy' in high school, and who was there (piling on top of his best bud). They don't want an FBI investigation because that might reveal still more evidence they can't disguise/ignore/misrepresent. They desperately don't want a delay this time (as opposed to the 11 months they dawdled with the Garland nomination) because more time could reveal still more evidence they don't want to acknowledge.

Why does this look like a cover-up?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Super: 'A second woman has made an accusation, possibly a third.'

Stormy Daniels' Creepy Porn Lawyer has got his claws in this now:

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh faced a storm of new sexual misconduct allegations Sunday after attorney Michael Avenatti said he had knowledge that Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge targeted women with drugs and alcohol in order to "allow a 'train' of men to subsequently gang rape them."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/college-classmate-says-kavanaugh-exposed-himself-to-her-at-yale-party.html

They just keep on making it sicker! What a mockery they are making of this process and the government as a whole. Now we know why they kept delaying the testimony - so they could find more people to pay to lie.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Serrano.

Yah,

Like I said. Smear campaign and character assassination is all that is at play here from the Democratic think tank. Spin spin spin.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@serrano They just keep on making it sicker! 

So right! Kavanaugh and his spoiled class, preppy boy crowd were sick. Do leopards change spots? With Trump, the world's seen they don't. And some actually want him on the Supreme Court?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Crazy: "They don't want witnesses called, because that would force them to let loose Mark Judge--a wing nut's wing nut--and Kavanaugh's 'best buddy' in high school, and who was there (piling on top of his best bud)."

Yeah, and you know Mark was piling on top of his best bud because...? Oh, you don't know? You just simply believe it because of what one person claims. The guy has already said - well, I'll just repost this, which you apparently missed:

"I have no memory of this alleged incident," Judge states in the letter sent by his lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder.

"Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."

Judge goes on to say that he has no additional information to provide the committee and therefore, does "not want to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford's letter."

The letter appears to echo his comments from last week when Judge spoke to The Weekly Standard, when he denied the incident.

"It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge told The Weekly Standard on Friday."

Yeah, letting him loose would support Kavanaugh, but he doesn't want to get any further involved in this.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

True, polygraphs are not foolproof, accurate, but not foolproof.

No, not even accurate. It's not as if I'm the first person to dismiss polygraphs as pseudosience - there's a huge weight of opinion from people well qualified to evaluate polygraphs and who use exactly that term.

And the thing about all pseudoscience is that it's never good enough to be called "accurate but not foolproof", because it's not using a valid method in the first place. At best, it accurately measures certain inputs and (watch closely, here's the switch) spuriously processes them in order to produce a result.

There really is no such thing as accurate pseudoscience.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"So right! Kavanaugh and his spoiled class, preppy boy crowd were sick."

No, but the Democrats and their paid liars are sick.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Oh my...

On a special edition of 'Life, Liberty & Levin' Mark Levin takes a deep dive into the Democratic Party's impact on the judicial confirmation process:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy5WeV1MeuM

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

They don't want witnesses called, because that would force them to let loose Mark Judge--a wing nut's wing nut--and Kavanaugh's 'best buddy' in high school, and who was there (piling on top of his best bud).

Gee, what does Ford have? Nothing but an allegation, No timeline, doesn't know where or the exact location, contradicts herself, says she's terrified of flying, but studied in Hawaii, accuses Kavanaugh of an alleged crime, but as a supposedly accused person wants her accuser to speak out first, this is just pure runaway madness. Her story has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.

They don't want an FBI investigation because that might reveal still more evidence they can't disguise/ignore/misrepresent. 

And the FBI should investigate what? That's not their job, so they should do a 7th background check. You guys kept saying for two years the FBI know what they doing, if so then 6 times doing backgrounds and vetting should be more than enough even Judge Napolitano said when he went through the same process, they found out stuff on him that he didn't even know about himself or so small and insignificant.

They desperately don't want a delay this time

Of course not and the left wouldn't like that at all if they were in the same position.

(as opposed to the 11 months they dawdled with the Garland nomination) because more time could reveal still more evidence they don't want to acknowledge.

Garland was someone that the GOP didn't want or even interview, a man who wasn't conservative enough and for them justifiably so.

Why does this look like a cover-up?

Why does this look like the scam of all scams, they make Trump University look amazingly legit.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

I'm sure by tomorrow Whoopee Goldberg and Joy Behar will also say that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them...

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

BelrickToday  10:46 am JST

My word... the obvious Trump hatred here is staggering!

And, all of it self-inflicted.

Why do you Democrats insist on ignoring facts and keep harping on about anything other than relevance?!

Why do Trump and his acolytes insist on ignoring facts and keep harping.....?!

(it's rhetorical, no need to answer)

5 ( +5 / -0 )

'm sure by tomorrow Whoopee Goldberg and Joy Behar will also say that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them...

Does living in constant fear and having despots tell their followers to continue to fear make rightists imagine things?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

SlickdrifterToday  10:01 am JST

@Stormcrow,

Surely there are better people to choose from among conservatives, so why are the Republicans so attracted to nominating sexual predators and deviants?

Have you seen a conviction handed down on a sexual assault? Judge K. has not been convicted of crime. This all a political ruse of distraction. Noise from the Democrats. It is a smear campaign and character assassination.

Pure and simple.

Pure - Judge K.?

I don't think so.

Simple - Judge K.?

Yeah, I can agree with that

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Does living in constant fear and having despots tell their followers to continue to fear make rightists imagine things?

Seeing what the Dems have been shamefully doing, yeah it does.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Still better than that hitjob you guys pulled on Garland.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

When he was first nominated, I told a friend, "Just watch -- there will be an 11th-hour sex-related allegation made against him." Not to toot my own horn, but I was of course right.

Then a few days ago, I told my wife, "Just watch -- another accuser, maybe more than one, will 'come forward' with yet another story." Alas, I was right again.

That's because these Democrat smear-and-stall tactics are easy to call. They've done it before.

Folks, this is nothing but a smear campaign against a man who is feared by "progressives" whose Anti-Trump Derangement Syndrome is now reaching new heights. Or shall I say, new lows.

How come none of the six FBI background checks that Kavanaugh has undergone during his career ever turned up any of this?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@Hakman: Don't you know? Facts don't matter to SJWs. If you are a Republican/Conservative you are guilty until proven innocent. The FBI was involved in Clarence Thomas' case since the "alleged" incident occurred on federal property -- I guess frat houses are now federal property, too. If you think this confirmation process is a circus, just wait until Justice Ginsberg resigns or drops dead; the libs will go crazy even if President Trump nominates a black transgender person...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Personally, I always thought Kavanaugh was a bit centrist on many issues. I'd rather see a real conservative like Judge Barrett on the court, but I guess the plan was to save her until Justice Ginsberg is gone. But putting her up now as a substitute would be fine by me.

As for the accusations, until there is something more than hazy recollections, it is hard to take them seriously. I am not surprised that many assault victims fail to tell the police. However, it strains credibility to think that they don't actually remember every possible detail of what happened to them. It is a life changing event. I can't really believe that Dr. Ford was assaulted "sometime" by "somebody" when she was in high school until there is some more actual evidence.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Heh, he’s toast.

The insane Republican party is in a proper muddle. And they. Did. It. To. Themselves!!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

When he was first nominated, I told a friend, "Just watch -- there will be an 11th-hour sex-related allegation made against him." Not to toot my own horn, but I was of course right.

Then a few days ago, I told my wife, "Just watch -- another accuser, maybe more than one, will 'come forward' with yet another story." Alas, I was right again.

Congratulations, you have a deep understanding of the moral failings of your fellow conservatives...

Folks, this is nothing but a smear campaign against a man who is feared by "progressives" whose Anti-Trump Derangement Syndrome is now reaching new heights. Or shall I say, new lows.

Female readers - another example of how conservatives view you as a sexual assault victim....

How come none of the six FBI background checks that Kavanaugh has undergone during his career ever turned up any of this?

It's likely when asked by the FBI background investigators if he had committed any possible episodes of sexual assault or harassment, Kavanaugh lied.....

As a Trump supporter, I'm sure you're familiar with the crime of lying to the FBI...

6 ( +7 / -1 )

My word... the obvious Trump hatred here is staggering!

Really? I see a lot of hatred for victims of sexual assault here.

The message is quite simple if you're female and have had to go through all this - don't speak out, just put up with it.

Toxic.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@hakman When he was first nominated, I told a friend, "Just watch -- there will be an 11th-hour sex-related allegation made against him." 

Good example of pattern recognition. Trump and so many others set the model: rich, spoiled class, therefore masher.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Heretic;

I don't see any hatred for sexual assault victims here. I see only a reasonable request for any evidence or proof that the assault actually took place. Dates, times, witnesses, collaboration, that kind of thing. Just like any other crime. Haven't seen any so far. Like I said, it is possible that the women are telling the truth. It's also possible that they are lying. It's also possible that they are not remembering accurately. It's also possible that they are subconsciously making up false memories.

Feelings are not facts. We just don't have any evidence. To believe them is just as bad as to dismiss them.

The only hatred I have seen is towards Judge Kavanaugh and others who support him.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

He's toast now. The Repubs will likely abandon him and try to jam through another nominee during their lame-duck session. Oh, the irony.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I'm sure by tomorrow Whoopee Goldberg and Joy Behar will also say that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them...

When it comes to sexual harassment and a toxic work environment for women, I'm pretty sure you have the wrong network....

The discrimination suits came in the wake of the sexual-harassment scandal at Fox News that led to the ousters of Roger Ailes, the late former Fox News chief executive, and prime-time star Bill O’Reilly. Some of the women who accused the men of sexual harassment were paid settlements. Messrs. Ailes and O’Reilly each denied wrongdoing.

After an initial harassment suit was filed against Mr. Ailes by former on-air talent Gretchen Carlson, the network worked with a law firm to conduct a probe into the workplace environment at the network and to investigate additional claims. 21st Century Fox has paid tens of millions in settlements related to harassment suits and other workplace complaints in the past two years.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fox-news-21st-century-fox-settle-discrimination-suits-with-18-ex-employees-1526425324

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Do we have accuser #3?

Kavanaugh Friend Mark Judge Reportedly Admitted to ‘Taking Turns’ Having Sex With Drunk Girl

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/kavanaugh-friend-mark-judge-reportedly-022054154.html

4 ( +4 / -0 )

How the Repubs handle the this will be interesting to see.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

So now two accusers. It should matter that they were both drunk and at college freshman parties.

Just get rid of the Supreme Court and let the New York Times take over.

Idiocracy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Kavanaugh Friend Mark Judge Reportedly Admitted to ‘Taking Turns’ Having Sex With Drunk Girl

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/kavanaugh-friend-mark-judge-reportedly-022054154.html

There seems to be a pattern here folks! Don't forget Judge and Kavanaugh were thick as thieves.

This reminds me of a certain president who claims to hire only the best and likes to call them "good people", yet they are all being indicted, pleading guilty, and being convicted of crimes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@Laguna

How the Repubs handle the this will be interesting to see.

Deplorables like Grassley and Graham have already made their decision before even hearing the women's testimony. It is no wonder Republicons don't want the authorities involved.

Lindsey Graham: Christine Blasey Ford’s Testimony Won’t Change My Support for Brett Kavanaugh

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/m/6d33149f-a620-3f19-840b-bfda03b2be09/lindsey-graham%3A-christine.html

"Party before country" is the Republicons motto!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

OK, now we have two unproven allegations of something that happened sometime against Kavanaugh, and one against a friend of his from school that somehow reflects on him. Is this seriously how politics is going to work in the future? If so, I can't see anyone wanting to get involved at all.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

AttilathehungryToday  02:24 pm JST

As for the accusations, until there is something more than hazy recollections, it is hard to take them seriously.

Hard to take seriously if you're a conservative-in-name-only, I suppose. Real conservatives value moral leadership, and won't stand for the slightest possibility of appointing a degenerate who spent their youth in Hollywood-style booze and sex parties.

For a real conservative, the mere accusation warrants putting the confirmation process on hold until we can get to the bottom of this. It's too important to rush through just to meet an arbitrary deadline. But then the true conservatives of the Republican party are getting pushed out for the sake of foreign-funded opportunists who support and encourage targeting innocent women for gang-rape. It may well be that the modern Republican party is so debauched that, as Steve King of Iowa says, "is there any man in this room that wouldn’t be subjected to such an allegation?"

4 ( +4 / -0 )

OK, now we have two unproven allegations of something that happened sometime against Kavanaugh, and one against a friend of his from school that somehow reflects on him. Is this seriously how politics is going to work in the future? If so, I can't see anyone wanting to get involved at all.

Both Judge and Kavanaugh have denied Ford’s allegations; Judge also claimed that “no horseplay” occurred at the Georgetown Prep parties they attended. But, in a Sunday night report by the New Yorker, Judge’s ex-girlfriend of three years Elizabeth Rasor says he told her a “very different story” about those parties.

Rasor says that Judge “told her ashamedly” about an incident in which he and other boys took turns having sex with a drunk woman, per the New Yorker.

Despite being named by Ford as a witness, Judge, who once praised “uncontrollable male passion” in his writing, has thus far refused to testify on Ford’s sexual assault allegations.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Strange Mark Judge can't defend his friend under oath.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Kavanaugh has already lied twice under oath. He claimed he had no knowledge of the activities of his disgraced mentor, former judge Alex Kozinsky. He also lied that he hadn't been aware that emails and other documents outlining their strategy to defeat a Bush judicial nominee he received from a Republican staffer had been stolen from Democrats on the Judicial committee.

Those alone should have gotten him disbarred. No need to rush a vote through for a position that is for life when we don't know who is the real Kavanaugh.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Heh, he’s toast.

The insane Republican party is in a proper muddle. And they. Did. It. To. Themselves!!

Well, I’m waiting to see in the future how the Dems will react when their nominee gets skewered. Lol

Really? I see a lot of hatred for victims of sexual assault here.

You mean, alleged victim. I feel sorry for the alleged accuser.

The message is quite simple if you're female and have had to go through all this - don't speak out, just put up with it.

Like Keith Ellison’s girlfriend, what a shame. Smh.

Toxic.

Without a doubt.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

How the Repubs handle the this will be interesting to see

As they should now in this situation, blow it off. Funny, this woman is supposed to speak next week and now two more came out? Are the Democrats that desperate that they really want to do everything humanly possible to stop this guy. Remember, Trump has 136 more where that came from. I’m just waiting to hear that someone making a complaint that Kavanaugh murdered someone and kept that hidden for years, but couldn’t live with the guilt so now they feel compelled to speak out because the stress was so overwhelming to hold for so many years because of the trauma and PTSD.

Give me a break!

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Katsu; this isn't a matter of reacting like a real conservative or not. I wouldn't class myself that way in any case. It has become a political matter due to the timing and handling. By this point, neither side probably cares about the truth of the accusation. The important issue to them is the larger political one. Will this drag on long enough to delay the confirmation vote for Judge K past the mid-term election? That is the heart of the issue. Partisans on both sides will gladly use people like Kleenex and toss them aside when their usefulness is over in pursuit of what they think is the greater good.

Politics aside, I can fully understand people who don't want to report or discuss a traumatic event in their life. But it really defies logic if they can't even remember the details of it. How about we, I don't know, WAIT until some new evidence comes to light before rushing to judgment?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@wipeout

How would you know? Are you a polygraph expert?

I googled it and polygraph tests are 90% favorable among opponents and around 70% favorable among critics. Not too shabby.

But even if Kavanaugh is too afraid to take one, why doesn't he request the FBI to investigate and carefully examine Prof. Ford? And the new allegation from Kavanaugh's old Yale classmate, Ms. Deborah Ramirez, too!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

correction: 90% favorable among supporters

1 ( +1 / -0 )

tokyo-engnr:

It's great to see you setting aside your own political leanings to stand up for principle. A great example to us all.

I am no fan of Trump and I am not in support in Kavanaugh being appointed but if Kavanaugh is removed from consideration based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of one woman (and if she cannot remember the date or place this occurred) I say with no reservations (as a Liberal who is against Kavanaugh) that this would be a travesty and it would set a very dangerous precedence for the future.

It is a dangerous world where a single accuser with no physical evidence that cannot remember the date or the location of a crime/action can ruin a person in this way. It is amazing that some lawmakers I actually HAD respect for are out to lynch Kavanaugh with no evidence. Scary stuff....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

When you're the victim of rape/assault etc, logic can go out the window. You can be in a state of denial, refuse to talk about it, try and bury the horrors of what happened.

Then, years later - the man who assaulted you is on tv, smiling and promoting just how worthy he is.

Maybe, just maybe - the time is right to come forward.

The stench of this administration is foul. It's basically a cabal of rapists, criminals and paedophiles intent on securing a rosy future for themselves and laughing at the electorate and those innocent victims who get hurt on the way to the top.

The American people deserve better than this shower. Much better.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

AttilathehungryToday  05:22 pm JST

Katsu; this isn't a matter of reacting like a real conservative or not. I wouldn't class myself that way in any case.

Of course you wouldn't. No one who pushes for Kavanaugh to be rammed down the American people's throats could. The Republican party has abandoned conservativism. It's now the party of rapists and opportunists, child predators and grifters.

 It has become a political matter due to the timing and handling.

Maybe for Republicans it has become a political matter - we could all see he was a partisan without the slightest moral principles the moment his name was put forward. Democrats are ironically taking the conservative position here- if he committed the crime, he is unfit for the position, so this must be properly investigated according to whatever time it takes. There is no "both sides", here. Republicans are the only ones politicizing this.

By this point, neither side probably cares about the truth of the accusation.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the huge numbers of sexual assault victims who are afraid that Republicans abandoning all pretense of moral leadership here will cause more women to be victimized as they have been. That may not matter to you, but don't project your disregard for the suffering of innocent victims on everyone else.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Silva: "Do we have accuser #3?"

Kavanaugh Friend Mark Judge Reportedly Admitted to ‘Taking Turns’ Having Sex With Drunk Girl

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/kavanaugh-friend-mark-judge-reportedly-022054154.h

According to your yahoo link... oh my...

 "But, in a Sunday night report by the New Yorker, Judge’s ex-girlfriend of three years Elizabeth Rasor says he told her a “very different story” about those parties.

Rasor says that Judge “told her ashamedly” about an incident in which he and other boys took turns having sex with a drunk woman, per the New Yorker. He seemed to think it was consensual, she added, and he didn’t name anyone else who had been involved. There is no indication that Kavanaugh was one of the boys, the New Yorker notes."

So even if Rasor is telling the truth and he was at the party, there's no evidence that Kavanaugh was.

The first accuser is failing, so we've got to drag out another liar. Delaying tactics again. If Democrats think that this is going to "endear" them to the voting public, they have a BIG surprise coming in November.

Democrats are going to make it so nobody ever believes sexual assault victims again. They weaponized it for their agenda. Truly evil.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Katsu;

It is absolutely about politics now. The timing of document releases, the delays in procedure, all reek of political opportunism. The Republicans want to get the nomination through, the Democrats want to delay it until the mid-term election results are final. This isn't about other victims, or any of the other nonsense you wrote. It is a nakedly partisan knife fight.

It is a gamble by the Democrats. If Kavanaugh withdraws, they can delay the next nominee to 2020 IF they win the Senate. If they don't win the Senate, different story. Kavanaugh is either confirmed or withdraws. If he withdraws, another name is selected from the GOP list. End result the same.

As I said repeatedly, let's wait for EVIDENCE before stampeding to judgment.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I’m not reading all this. I assume another accuser or two have popped up so that the first one won’t have to testify?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Yep! CNN told me all about it.

“ She was unsure of his role in the incident at first, but after six days of carefully assessing memories and consulting with her attorney, Stan Garnett, Ramirez told The New Yorker she felt confident enough in her recollections to say she remembers it was Kavanaugh who had exposed himself.”

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

AttilathehungryToday  06:44 pm JST

The Republicans want to get the nomination through, 

Yes, because they have abandoned conservativism.

the Democrats want to delay it until the mid-term election results are final. 

Your projection here is quite heavy. You can't possibly know that Democrats are delaying for the sake of delaying, and given how compromised Kavanaugh was even before these accusations started surfacing, it's absurd to propose people who want a proper investigation are delaying for the sake of delaying. If Republicans wanted a candidate that would sail through without scrutiny, they should have nominated someone who wasn't putting up so many red flags from the get-go.

As I said repeatedly, let's wait for EVIDENCE before stampeding to judgment.

Yes, let's wait for evidence. All confirmation procedures must go on hold until we can properly investigate this allegation and determine if there is any evidence to be found.

SerranoToday  06:01 pm JST

Democrats are going to make it so nobody ever believes sexual assault victims again.

The people who disbelieved a sexual assault victim the moment she made her accusation pretend to be worried about whether people will believe sexual assault victims even less in the future.

You guys do realize women vote, right? And they'll remember this whole scenario in November, right?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Oh and Michael Avenatti now has evidence from anonymous people about parties that were supposedly held. Why does that name sound sooooo familiar?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

So now at least we can see what all the delaying over the weekend was about. Had to get a second accuser out there before Monday morning.

Now the first one can decline to testify until the accusations of the second one are investigated. Assault was too hard to prove so now they went with exposure. Don’t worry probably be a third one too just in case by Thursday.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

When you're the victim of rape/assault etc, logic can go out the window. You can be in a state of denial, refuse to talk about it, try and bury the horrors of what happened.

Flip-mode, you can be a man and totally innocent and be accused of a crime you never committed because of the color of your skin or your religion, or political affiliation or to be perceived as guilty before you even had the chance to clear your name, recover your reputation.

Then, years later - the man who assaulted you is on tv, smiling and promoting just how worthy he is.

Or your life is totally ruined because of a contrived and outright lie or accusation.

Maybe, just maybe - the time is right to come forward.

She should be heard and taken seriously just as Kavanaugh and his total denial of these accusations, we will never know the truth as to what happened 36 years ago, but when it comes to public opinion as to who the people will believe remains unknown.

The stench of this administration is foul.

And the stench of Democrats is overbearing.

It's basically a cabal of rapists, criminals and paedophiles intent on securing a rosy future for themselves and laughing at the electorate and those innocent victims who get hurt on the way to the top.

Well, then that means a lot of Democrats need to go off to greener pastures as well.

The American people deserve better than this shower. Much better.

Oh, I agree with you, enough of this.circus. Let the woman have her say and proceed to the vote.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

In the American courts there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence. Still, in this case it is the alleged victims who are demanding an FBI investigation, while Trump, Senate Republicans, and Kavanaugh are all refusing to ask the FBI to investigate. Could it be because they know full well that if they get caught lying to the FBI, that is itself a crime? In Judge Kavanaugh's case, if he is caught in a lie, he would not only prove that he is not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge, he might also be removed from the bench.

Why is it that men who think it is OK to assault women also think that it is OK for men to tell women whether or not they have the right to an abortion?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The FBI doesn’t investigate 36 year old claims of indecent exposure. I also didn’t know that Democratic lawmakers are the go to place to report alleged sex crimes now.

plus Stormy daniel’s sleazy attorney AND Andrew mccabe’s attorney both trying to involve themselves in this. But it’s not political? Give me a break.

grassley was stupid to delay the vote. Now everytime they try to have a vote a new accuser will be trotted out.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I’m just waiting to hear that someone making a complaint that Kavanaugh murdered someone and kept that hidden for years, but couldn’t live with the guilt so now they feel compelled to speak out because the stress was so overwhelming to hold for so many years because of the trauma and PTSD.

So in short you're saying that the body of research on sexual assault and PTSD is in error.

Got it.

Bart O'Kavanaugh all the way, bro!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In the American courts there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence. Still, in this case it is the alleged victims who are demanding an FBI investigation, while Trump, Senate Republicans, and Kavanaugh are all refusing to ask the FBI to investigate.

Like what?

https://youtu.be/t2StVWmzzQw

It's just not going to happen the way the liberals want it to

Why is it that men who think it is OK to assault women also think that it is OK for men to tell women whether or not they have the right to an abortion?

Is it ok for women to judge the innocence of men without evidence or due process?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

So in short you're saying that the body of research on sexual assault and PTSD is in error.

Often times these symptoms get misdiagnosed

Got it.

Bart O'Kavanaugh all the way, bro!

One can only hope.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Since the alleged incident did not happen on federal property (like the Clarence Thomas situation) the FBI cannot investigate -- unless of course they now have jurisdiction over frat houses. Senators like that dimwit Hirono of Hawaii are just grandstanding...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

A full week of screeching that “she must be heard at a hearing” while delaying the testimony.

Now that they have their second accuser all set up and her story published, its “cancel the hearing”

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I mean why would the existence of a second accuser cause the hearing for the first to be cancelled? Just means now two of them can both testify on Thursday,

unless of course the second accuser is “busy” this week or her car needs to be repaired or she had a dental appointment and can’t testify until after Christmas.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It just takes one brave person to come out, and then a domino effect takes place and all other victims find the courage to do the same.

When Obama last nominated someone for the SC, the Republicans stalled and stalled and stalled. So, what's the big rush this time????

"What happens at Georgetown Prep, eventually comes out of Georgetown Prep"

3 ( +3 / -0 )

He needs to withdraw, and then they need to delay the next nominee until after the midterms.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@stormcrow

How would you know? Are you a polygraph expert? I googled it and polygraph tests are 90% favorable among opponents and around 70% favorable among critics. Not too shabby

No, I'm not an expert, but few scientific bodies that have considered the validity of polygraphs have reached conclusions that could be considered anything less than dismissive. Outside the United States, they're barely used at all.

As for your statistical justification above, I'm afraid it's incoherent as you've expressed it. It simply makes no sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why would he withdraw? The second accuser allegations are more ludicrous than the first. None of her friends agree that it happened and she told them she isn’t even sure anymore that it was him.

So no hearing on Thursday needed now? Just withdraw? Nope! See ya on Thursday both accusers.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Trump makes unsupported accusations all the time. I’ve yet to hear one that you didn’t defend vigorously.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Feinstein had been politically brilliant in her delaying tactics. Major props to her. A truly wise old political operative. Is ol’Grassley up to the challenge? So far he hasn’t been. Still three months until the next session of Congress. Still plenty of time for more political maneuvering.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It just takes one brave person to come out, and then a domino effect takes place and all other victims find the courage to do the same.

Funny, none of these women were to be seen for years and now they all one out. Interesting how when a conservative is running accusations of misconduct and sexual assaults always pop up just a few days before an election or a hearing as in Kavanaugh’s case. It’s all so ironic, don’t you think?

When Obama last nominated someone for the SC, the Republicans stalled and stalled and stalled. So, what's the big rush this time????

Never every like this or some conservative woman jumped out and made baseless (as far as we know) allegations.

"What happens at Georgetown Prep, eventually comes out of Georgetown Prep"

Who is Ford again?

He needs to withdraw, and then they need to delay the next nominee until after the midterms

ROFL!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

He needs to withdraw, and then they need to delay the next nominee until after the midterms

I hope Kavanaugh does withdraw so a conservative hardliners like Amy Coney-Barrett will be nominated instead. The Dems are playing hardball so play hardball. Barrett is a sure vote against the baby killers. Still plenty of time to jam a new nominee down the throats of the Dems.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

If the Democrats push the confirmation back then win the Senate, would any Republicans be opposed to sitting on the nomination until 2020?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@wipeout

And yet FBI agents are required to take polygraph exams before they are hired.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Still plenty of time to jam a new nominee down the throats of the Dems.

That’s the whole point of a Supreme Court. To piss off large sections of the population.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If the Democrats push the confirmation back then win the Senate, would any Republicans be opposed to sitting on the nomination until 2020?

Likley won’t happen. I think Collins and Murkowski love their jobs too much.

And yet FBI agents are required to take polygraph exams before they are hired.

There is a reason why they don’t usually use them in court, they’re not that reliable.

That’s the whole point of a Supreme Court. To piss off large sections of the population.

I get it, but the Dems have to grow up and accept the process, that’s not hard to do, but liberals act like children if they can't get their way, it was cute at first, but now it’s getting boring and very fast.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Dems are totally messing this up allowing Avenatti to get involved.

just gonna lead to pissed of Republicans voting in the midterms and a pissed off for life Justice Kavanaugh ruling from the bench on the Supreme Court.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

just gonna lead to pissed of Republicans voting in the midterms and a pissed off for life Justice Kavanaugh ruling from the bench on the Supreme Court.

I have not wanted Kavanaugh from the start but if we get stuck with him and he somehow gets confirmed I hope that this experience leads him to become more like Ginsburg and Sotomayor and become hardliners. Would be just deserts for the feminazi’s on the Judiciary Committee.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Once I heard Avenatti was involved in all of this I thought, “busted!” The Dems cover is blown.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@plastic: That’s the whole point of a Supreme Court. To piss off large sections of the population.

Roe vs Wade and codifying affirmative action racism against the plain meaning of the Constitution as amended (among many other assanine rulings) has po’d a whole lot of people. So I guess you are right - upsetting the people has become the point of the Court in modern America. Who needs a democracy when there are 9 unelected judges to make the laws for everyone. Is there any wonder why Supreme Court nominations have devolved into scorched Earth fights to the death since Robert Bork.

It feels as though all Americans are sitting in the stands at the Roman Colliseum watching the political slaughter and cheering on their favorites with no remorse for the defeated. America is in pretty sad shape.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Would Republicans be so rushed if they weren't trying to beat an election deadline? Could that be playing any part in their desire to stonewall this woman from speaking?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Would Republicans be so rushed if they weren't trying to beat an election deadline?

Not sure, you think if the roles were reversed the Dems would be in a rush?

Could that be playing any part in their desire to stonewall this woman from speaking?

She can speak but the bigger question is, where and how long do the Democrats want to draw this out? A week, two months, a year? Never? Dems are trying to stall and the GOP are trying to confirm Kavanaugh, may the best man/woman party win.

Newsflash! Oh, Rosenstein has been summoned to the WH.....uh, oh....

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Reports are coming in of a 4th accuser.

Rosenstein's firing won't save you. Mueller will continue.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Reports are coming in of a 4th accuser.

Uh-huh, what a coincidence, it’s amazing, a stroke of divine intervention. Lol

Rosenstein's firing won't save you.

I’m not being investigated. Don’t need saving. As far as Trump is concerned, it would be one of the smartest thing he’s done in awhile. Now he just needs to get rid of Sessions and clean house.

Mueller will continue.

Minus, Rosenstein. Lol....God willing!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

"Reports are coming in of a 4th accuser."

No doubt. The first three aren't working out.

"Mueller will continue."

To be a joke.

Avenetti - Ocasio-Cortez 2020!

Oh my...

Kavanaugh vote will happen before midterms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzboXVwjLDE

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Reports are coming in of a 4th accuser.

Let me guess, it was 30 years ago, she was drunk, can’t remember where or when it happened, has no collaborating witnesses, is a partisan Democrat, Feinstein knew about it for months, and her lawyer is a member of the #resistance or has a client list chock full of porn stars.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Jusr release a statement saying you will ignore any accusations made by a Democrat, then vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

Easy as pie.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Jusr release a statement saying you will ignore any accusations made by a Democrat,

Ford, Democrat, Hillary supporter, sent a letter to Trump about reuniting illegal parents and their kids, wants to testify, but really doesn’t wants Kavanaugh to go first, can’t recall anything in detail, supported by a lawyer who represented Bill Clinton against Paula Jones and now a second woman comes out days before the confirmation hearing and she’s represented by the creepy porn lawyer and now a possible 3rd person might be coming soon and all of this within a week of confirmation?

But No, nothing to be suspicious about.

I almost agree with you.

then vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

Easy as pie.

Should be.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So grow a pair and do it. Say that women who are Democrats are an untrustworthy source and refuse to let them speak.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Super: Jusr release a statement saying you will ignore any accusations made by a Democrat, then vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

Or just release a statement saying that men are guilty until proven innocent and that an accusation without any supporting evidence or witnesses is proof of guilt because due process is suspended for people that think differently from you.

See - that’s easy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites