world

Accuser of Trump's court nominee sets conditions for testifying

95 Comments
By Lawrence Hurley and Richard Cowan

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.

95 Comments
Login to comment

Just investigate, and if they find nothing then they can confirm.

Its not rocket science.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

They've already had to crowdfund security for Ford because the misogynists on team Republicans Actively Prohibit Evidence have already made death threats against her.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

You can go on Twitter and get her home and work addresses. Trump fans made sure of that.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Just investigate, and if they find nothing then they can confirm.

They're worried that they'll find out he actually was a groper. They'd rather just put him up leaving people wondering if he is a groper.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

They've already had to crowdfund security for Ford because the misogynists on team Republicans Actively Prohibit Evidence have already made death threats against her.

> You can go on Twitter and get her home and work addresses. Trump fans made sure of that

Conservatives keeping it classy.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Time is running out and If she doesn't show up by Monday as Susan Collins, Marco Rubio and even Jeff Flake said, the confirmation vote should go forward. Enough already!

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Time is running out and If she doesn't show up by Monday as Susan Collins, Marco Rubio and even Jeff Flake said, the confirmation vote should go forward. Enough already!

That's not how justice works. Trump fans revel in corrupting our system of justice. They want oodles of investigations into their political enemies, but none for anyone on their team.

It is hilarious to witness certain posters attack certain senators at every turn and then cite those same senators when the senators say something that poster wants to hear.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Chrissy is not someone who chooses to be in the spotlight," 

This is a disingenuous statement. If she did not choose to seek the spotlight she would have informed her local law enforcement authorities of her allegations. Obviously her goal is to stop Kavenaugh from becoming a Supreme Court justice. Such an effort would obviously garner a great deal of publicity.

First she demanded through her lawyer the right to tell her story. Then when given the opportunity she is playing coy. Kavanaugh wants to testify right away. Ford is simply attempting to string out the process claiming she is unprepared. Well she has had since July to prepare. She is being pressured and used by Senate Dems to play their political games.

The establishment Republicans in the Senate such as Collins, Flake, and Corker are urging her to seize her opportunity to “tell her story”. She wants certain delays and terms for her testimony but refuses to tell anyone what they are.

Hold the hearing on Monday and vote. If he loses then choose another candidate and get her confirmed before the end of the year.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

If she did not choose to seek the spotlight she would have informed her local law enforcement authorities of her allegations.

I wonder if you purposefully posted this flawed logic, or disingenuously posted this flawed logic.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This is a disingenuous statement. If she did not choose to seek the spotlight she would have informed her local law enforcement authorities of her allegations. Obviously her goal is to stop Kavenaugh from becoming a Supreme Court justice. Such an effort would obviously garner a great deal of publicity.

No matter what authorities she had contacted, she would have ended up in the spotlight because of who the sexual predator that attacked her is. I know logic is difficult for conservatives, but that one wasn't that arduous.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Republicans Actively Prohibit Evidence have already made death threats against her.

Ford has the opportunity to present her evidence on Monday. By the way, Kavanaugh and his wife and children have received numerous death threats from the arch Leftist fringe. Don’t forget it was just a little over a year ago that a crazy Democrat attempted to kill a baseball field full of Republicans congressman.

Both sides should not play games to incite their political bases. As we have seen that can be dangerous. Ford should stop hiding behind her Democrat lawyers and present her evidence. Otherwise we can only conclude that she is being manipulated and used by far Left Democrats in the Senate.

By the way, when will Democrats insist that Senator Booker insist on an FBI investigation of his own self reported sexual assault of a woman when he was a young man?

4 ( +9 / -5 )

when will Democrats insist that Senator Booker insist on an FBI investigation of his own self reported sexual assault of a woman when he was a young man?

When will Republicans realize that trying to discredit an investigation through the attempt at distraction through bringing up something they think should be investigated is flawed logic, as there will ALWAYS be something else that hasn't been investigated, and therefore their logic would dictate NOTHING would ever be able to be investigated since there is always something else that hasn't been investigated?

Let's stick with the current investigation mmmkay? We can discuss your other lacks of investigations in a story that is relevant to those.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

That's not how justice works. Trump fans revel in corrupting our system of justice.

And Democrats will try to usurp the political process any way they they can.

They want oodles of investigations into their political enemies, but none for anyone on their team.

Kinda hard to do when the accuser doesn't show, also you guys make a weak argument as usual. Sen. Grassley offered this woman to come to Washington to testify either publicly or privately or even fly to her to any location of her choosing, so what more can they do? This woman has had every single offer and opportunity to come forward and what.....a No show.

It is hilarious to witness certain posters attack certain senators at every turn and then cite those same senators when the senators say something that poster wants to hear.

Seems like the left are doing exactly just the same thing they are now accusing the left of. Come on, this is just comical now. You guys are too funny.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

No matter what authorities she had contacted, she would have ended up in the spotlight

Yeah, and? She was the one that supposedly wanted this out and as if you can believe everything the authorities say especially with such a high profile case.

because of who the sexual predator that attacked her is.

Allegedly, she is a No show......so her credibility is looking right now has more holes than Swiss cheese.

I know logic is difficult for conservatives, but that one wasn't that arduous.

Logic???? In the US you are always innocent until proven guilty, If she wants to be credible and relevant come out of the closest and testify, back up your accusations or be quiet and let the process continue/

0 ( +4 / -4 )

And Democrats will try to usurp the political process any way they they can.

Insisting justice run its course isn't usurping the political process. What is usurping the political process is refusing to hold hearings on a president's SCOTUS nominee. What party was it that did that in 2016?

Kinda hard to do when the accuser doesn't show, also you guys make a weak argument as usual.

An argument based in reality - that conservatives want numerous investigations into their political enemies and none of themselves - is a strong argument. A week argument is one in which someone claims that a victim of a sexual assault needs to be present for an investigation of the assault to occur.

Seems like the left are doing exactly just the same thing they are now accusing the left of

The left is doing something it is accusing itself of doing? Uhhh . . . ROFL?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Dr. Ford wants the FBI to investigate so that the Senate will have a more complete factual basis to evaluate her claims. It appears Brett Kavanaugh does not. The GOP clearly does not. Who looks like they have more to hide in this picture?

There are no longer questions of right or wrong in the Republican Party. It is simply "can we get away with it?"

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yeah, and?

Keep up. I was responding to a rightist that was claiming Ford wanted the spotlight.

She was the one that supposedly wanted this out and as if you can believe everything the authorities say especially with such a high profile case.

You go from the upper echelons of the FBI are corrupt to claiming you can't trust the authorities with a high profile case. Nice consistency. By your logic, we can't trust senate republicans (the authorities) when they make assertions about Kavanaugh (high profile case).

Allegedly, she is a No show......so her credibility is looking right now has more holes than Swiss cheese.

This isn't how credibility is determined in the real world. By your "logic," Trump's credibility regarding collision and obstruction has more holes than Swiss cheese because Trump won't meet with Mueller.

Logic????

Yes, you know, the thing that eludes conservatives like an albino unicorn. ROFL.

In the US you are always innocent until proven guilty, If she wants to be credible and relevant come out of the closest and testify, back up your accusations or be quiet and let the process continue/

Yes, innocent until proven guilty. (Unless it's a liberal being accused by a conservative, then its guilty until proven innocent by numerous investigations, and then still guilty. Like Hillary and everyone investigated by the IG.) The way that works is that a victim (Ford) contacts the authorities (senators, LEO) and then an investigation is conducted to gather facts. There is no requirement for a victim to testify to congress before an investigation is conducted.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Insisting justice run its course isn't usurping the political process. What is usurping the political process is refusing to hold hearings on a president's SCOTUS nominee. What party was it that did that in 2016?

She's a No Show, of course it is delaying the process. Feinstein sat on this information for 45 days, they had more than enough time to ask Kavanaugh about these alleged charges during the hearings, they didn't do it, the Republicans gave this woman more than enough time, I have been accused of things in the past and every single time like a bullet I immediately addressed the accusations and even when I accused someone, I wasted No time in confronting the individual, if you are serious like Kavanaugh and want to testify asap to clear your name and address your accuser and your accuser in turn is a No Show or starts making a bunch of excuses, I'm sorry, the woman is losing whatever little credibility she had.

An argument based in reality - that conservatives want numerous investigations into their political enemies and none of themselves - is a strong argument.

Different conundrum, you have in the Presidents situation tangible evidence that the left seem to be as we speak wanting to suppress it and not to mention all of this is time wise still relevant, now going back to Kavanaugh's situation if it were 36 years ago at a stupid party, who can remember in great detail anything?

A week argument is one in which someone claims that a victim of a sexual assault needs to be present for an investigation of the assault to occur.

Investigate what? Where? What are we looking for? What location?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Feinstein sat on this information for 45 days

Good on her! Well done.

they had more than enough time to ask Kavanaugh about these alleged charges during the hearings, they didn't do it, the Republicans gave this woman more than enough time

The Republicans had more than enough time to ask Garland about anything they wanted to. They didn't do it, the Democrats gave the 'pubs more than enough time.

You guys dug this hole yourselves.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Yes, you know, the thing that eludes conservatives like an albino unicorn. ROFL.

If so, then the liberals should know the Feds can't and won't do anything about this, this is a political and not a criminal matter. Yeah, liberal logic...lol

This isn't how credibility is determined in the real world. By your "logic," Trump's credibility regarding collision and obstruction has more holes than Swiss cheese because Trump won't meet with Mueller.

And still nothing nothing, not surprising.

You go from the upper echelons of the FBI are corrupt to claiming you can't trust the authorities with a high profile case. Nice consistency.

Really, so where are Comey, McCabe, Strzok....where are these people now?

By your logic, we can't trust senate republicans (the authorities) when they make assertions about Kavanaugh (high profile case).

We definitely can't trust Democrats because they don't even know what they want, respect this woman, allow her to testify, don't ask her to testify, they don't even know what they want.

Yes, innocent until proven guilty. (Unless it's a liberal being accused by a conservative, then its guilty until proven innocent by numerous investigations, and then still guilty.

No, it's always innocent until proven guilty.

Like Hillary and everyone investigated by the IG.)

I don't want to talk about Hillary, totally irrelevant.

The way that works is that a victim (Ford) contacts the authorities (senators, LEO) and then an investigation is conducted to gather facts. There is no requirement for a victim to testify to congress before an investigation is conducted.

The FBI will not investigate this and even if the FBI were to do that, they can only investigate Kavanaugh's background....again for the 7th time and then what? The FBI won't find anything that the FBI don't already know. Sigh....liberals.....

0 ( +5 / -5 )

If so, then the liberals should know the Feds can't and won't do anything about this, this is a political and not a criminal matter. Yeah, liberal logic...lol

The Feds can do an investigation. They aren't limited to criminal matters. Conservative intelligence . . . ROFL.

And still nothing nothing, not surprising.

(1) This is an irrelevant response to me pointing out your conflicting stances. (2) Ypu have no idea what Mueller has.

Really, so where are Comey, McCabe, Strzok....where are these people now

Not in prison, unlike Trump's campaign team. ROFL!

We definitely can't trust Democrats because they don't even know what they want, respect this woman, allow her to testify, don't ask her to testify, they don't even know what they want

Is that why democrats are calling for an investigation and for Ford to testify?

No, it's always innocent until proven guilty.

Mueller and the FBI have been cleared of corruption and bias, yet you continually bang on about them being corrupt and biased. Hilary was cleared of all charges, yet youncomstantly bang on about her being a criminal. Still sticking by your "innocent until proven guilty" mantra?

I don't want to talk about Hillary, totally irrelevant.

Now you care about relevancy?

The FBI will not investigate this 

Just like the IG report would show bias and Rudy would shut Mueller down straight away?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If Dr. Ford wants an investigation, the place to start is the Bethesda Maryland police. This is a local criminal matter, nothing to do with federal law. Also the time to request it was when it happened. Except that she can't remember when it happened. Or we could start with the scene of the alleged incident. Except she can't remember where it happened. Oh well, we can at least interview any witnesses. Except she can't remember exactly who was present.

I am not saying she is a liar by any means. It is quite possible that something happened. The problem is that there seems no way to accurately determine what, where, or who. I'm about the same age as Kavanaugh- trying to remember everything I did in my rambunctious high school days is an exercise in futility. I certainly wouldn't want to bet another person's freedom or career on the accuracy of my recollections.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

"Dr. Ford wants the FBI to investigate so that the Senate will have a more complete factual basis to evaluate her claims. It appears Brett Kavanaugh does not. The GOP clearly does not."

And the FBI doesn't either, Crazy, It's not a federal crime, plus the accusation comes after 36 years.

Accusers do not have the power to set the terms of being interview or questioned. It is not the FBI's jurisdiction to investigate this incident. It is a state mandated law that the state where the incident took place is obligated to investigate this. It is not in any way anywhere near the FBI's place to be involved in this.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

And the FBI doesn't either, Crazy, It's not a federal crime, plus the accusation comes after 36 years.

The FBI is capable of non-criminal investigations. Law enforcement is capable of researching incidents that occurred years ago, they are called cold cases.

Accusers do not have the power to set the terms of being interview or questioned.

Uh, yes they do because they can simply refuse to be interviewed or questioned. That assertion didn't stand up to critical analysis.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So ... congress demands that Facebook and google show up on day X, but they won't demand that someone claiming attempted rape against a SCOTUS nominee show up?

She didn't want anyone to know her name, but the dems couldn't/wouldn't keep that quiet. Typical politicians. If I were the accuser, I'd refuse to participate.

Senator Feinstein;

...

As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.

All of this is just misdirection and won't change anything. Kavanaugh will be confirmed before the mid-term elections.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Katsu:

Republicans Actively Prohibit Evidence 

Nice one!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

ChipStar: Yes the FBI can do that, but this IS a criminal investigation. It is a sexual assault case- a crime. The proper investigators are local. The proper standards are criminal.

And yes, accusers/victims do not have to testify. However, that refusal does impact the case and also the veracity of their claims.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Yes the FBI can do that

I know.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Senator Feinstein continues to withhold Fords original letter stating that Kavanaugh assaulted her 36 years ago. What are they hiding??? Might it contain exculpatory information based on newly public facts that she did not know at the time she wrote the letter?

Also the accuser is now demanding that any testimony she provides to the Judiciary Committee must be made after Kavanaugh’s testimony. This is an unheard of request outside of a kangaroo court in some banana republic. How can anyone defend themselves against charges of which the details are not fully known? She is definitely being politically manipulated or else she is a willing accomplice to an attempted character assassination.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The Feds can do an investigation. They aren't limited to criminal matters. Conservative intelligence . . . ROFL.

Ok, so you want them to do another "7th" background check.....again, gotcha!

Ypu have no idea what Mueller has.

I don't know, but like this woman, if he had something Trump would have been in trouble a long time ago.

Is that why democrats are calling for an investigation and for Ford to testify?

Which she isn't doing. Gosh, I wish they would be as tough on Keith Ellison as they are on Kavanaugh who actually according to police records DID verbally and physically abuse his ex.

Now you care about relevancy?

I always did, but Hillary is a grandma now and she needs to worry about her grandkids, the election is over, when she talks, it's just all noise.

Uh, yes they do because they can simply refuse to be interviewed or questioned. That assertion didn't stand up to critical analysis.

Actually they do not that is why these people don't know what to do because the Feds will not launch an investigation, they don't need to.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Ok, so you want them to do another "7th" background check.....again, gotcha!

That's not what I said. Focus.

I don't know, but like this woman, if he had something Trump would have been in trouble a long time ago.

Yet more evidence that you have zero understanding of how investigations work. We'll. Add that the the huge pile.

Which she isn't doing. Gosh, I wish they would be as tough on

Let me fix this: Which she hasn't done yet. Gosh, I think I'll try to deflect now.

I always did,

ROFL. That's a good one. Let me stop laughing.

but Hillary is a grandma now and she needs to worry about her grandkids, the election is over, when she talks, it's just all noise

So we'll never hear you refer to her again in an attempt to deflect from Trump's people being investigated, pleading guilty, and being found guilty by a jury, correct?

Actually they do not that is why these people don't know what to do because the Feds will not launch an investigation, they don't need to.

Only someone soft on crime or that has no respect for the rule of law would claim an investigation doesn't need to occur. Conservative values on full display.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, could ask President Trump to instruct the FBI to become involved. The bureau reports to him in the organizational structure of the government, and for these purposes acts as a kind of "contractor" for the White House, as former FBI assistant director Ron Hosko told NPR.

"If the White House were to ask the FBI to reopen its file and go conduct the investigation, the FBI could do that," he said. "I think they could do it swiftly, effectively and report back within days."

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649853869/fact-check-can-the-senate-enlist-the-fbi-to-reopen-a-kavanaugh-investigation

Obviously, there won't be the request to Trump from Grassely because conservatives don't respect the rule of law and don't care about the truth or justice; they only care about their team winning.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Senator Feinstein continues to withhold Fords original letter stating that Kavanaugh assaulted her 36 years ago. What are they hiding??? 

Republicans are unwilling to allow an investigation. What are they hiding???

How can anyone defend themselves against charges of which the details are not fully known?

The only way to determine the details is . . . wait for it . . . to conduct an investigation, which is why one is being requested.

Conserbstibes constantly demonstrate their utter lack of knowledge regarding how the justice system works.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

She is definitely being politically manipulated or else she is a willing accomplice to an attempted character assassination.

...or else Kavanaugh groped her.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ok, so you want them to do another "7th" background check.....again, gotcha!

So you would agree they don't need to investigate Hillary anymore, right?

I don't know, but like this woman, if he had something Trump would have been in trouble a long time ago.

Faulty logic, already provable as such. Mueller has already shown he has something, with all the guilty convictions, but Trump isn't in trouble... yet.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

She is definitely being politically manipulated or else she is a willing accomplice to an attempted character assassination.

This, children, is what's called a false duality, which is a failure of logic.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Faulty logic, already provable as such. Mueller has already shown he has something, with all the guilty convictions, but Trump isn't in trouble... yet.

Trump isn't in trouble yet, he's just guilty of surrounding himself with criminals and liars.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So she’s manipulating the situation while simultaneously being manipulated by the Democrats. Sounds like Republicans are covered either way.

We need an investigation with oversight by the Democrats with selected information being released to show Americans what is happening for transparency, so everyone is protected.

If no wrongdoing is found then we will all know and support the confirmation. If they find something then Republicans have plenty of time to find a replacement.

The GOP holds all the cards. They can confirm him tomorrow if they want. It’s illogical for them to even appear to be making purely political decisions, so why do it? They are just losing midterm votes.

And good luck with Ford. She’s playing her cards brilliantly. She’s forcing you to argue against investigating a woman’s claim of attempted rape. The GOP is stumbling in their response, and even Trump has shown a willingness to let her speak so he’s open to ditching Kavanaugh.

Democrats should hope this stretches out as long as possible, and from a purely political standpoint, support Ford.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ok, so you want them to do another "7th" background check.....again, gotcha!

Yes, you did, that's all they can do EVEN if the President orders it.

That's not what I said. Focus.

Like a laser!

Yet more evidence that you have zero understanding of how investigations work. We'll. Add that the the huge pile.

I guess the left doesn't either that's why they get angry that everything so far doesn't stick.

Which she isn't doing. Gosh,

Gosh is right, very strange. Why is she Incognito?

So we'll never hear you refer to her again in an attempt to deflect from Trump's people being investigated, pleading guilty, and being found guilty by a jury, correct?

Again, we don't need to focus on Hillary.

https://www.apnews.com/f88f394af6734f4ea5d5c91eaa787775

The FBI conducts background checks for federal nominees but the agency does not make judgments on the credibility or significance of allegations, according to a Justice Department statement Monday. Instead, the department compiles information about the nominee’s past and provides its findings to the agency that requested the background check. In this case, that would be the White House.

There has been no suggestion that Kavanaugh may have committed a federal crime, so the FBI would not conduct a criminal investigation.

But Senate Democrats are pushing for the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh’s background investigation.

Whatever the FBI does, the prospect of criminal charges being filed against Kavanaugh appears very unlikely, legal experts say.

If a crime had taken place, it would almost certainly fall under local jurisdiction, not federal. That means it would fall under the laws of Montgomery County, Maryland, where the statute of limitations would seem to preclude charges.

Ford’s allegations appear to be misdemeanors beyond the statute of limitations under Maryland law, said Randolph Rice, a Baltimore-based attorney who specializes in sex crimes.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Democrats should hope this stretches out as long as possible, and from a purely political standpoint, support Ford."

Super - try to understand... the Democrats don't care about Christine Ford. They only care about keeping a Republican off the Supreme Court, and bringing down Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AySsCBE1NAI

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Whatever the FBI does, the prospect of criminal charges being filed against Kavanaugh appears very unlikely, legal experts say.

If a crime had taken place, it would almost certainly fall under local jurisdiction, not federal. That means it would fall under the laws of Montgomery County, Maryland, where the statute of limitations would seem to preclude charges.

Ford’s allegations appear to be misdemeanors beyond the statute of limitations under Maryland law, said Randolph Rice, a Baltimore-based attorney who specializes in sex crimes.

I don't think anyone is aiming for criminal convictions here. Ford has simply shown that putting Kavanaugh on the supreme court would be putting a groper on the supreme court. The only real question is whether you guys are ok with GROPUS or not.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes, you did, that's all they can do EVEN if the President orders it.

Nope.

I guess the left doesn't either that's why they get angry that everything so far doesn't stick.

You guess incorrectly.

Gosh is right, very strange. Why is she Incognito?

Because repugnant conservatives have been making death threats against her. So yes, gosh is correct.

Again, we don't need to focus on Hillary.

Because what you guys did to her by demanding countless investigations makes your screeching for no investigation here look like exactly what it is: inconsistency and applying different rules based solely on one's political affiliation.

Keep flailing around, grasping at straws and you might come up with a correct statement.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Super - try to understand... the Democrats don't care about Christine Ford. They only care about keeping a Republican off the Supreme Court, and bringing down Trump.

The Dems learned this by watching repugnant republicans.

Where's the link to the bigot on YouTube?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Serrano: Super - try to understand... the Democrats don't care about Christine Ford.

Do you?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

90% of the posts on these threads is correcting conservatives and attempting to prevent them from spreading falsehoods.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Kavanaugh's name stinks too much now. For the sake of public trust and confidence in the United States Supreme Court, he should voluntarily withdraw his name from further consideration.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Kavanaugh's name stinks too much now. For the sake of public trust and confidence in the United States Supreme Court, he should voluntarily withdraw his name from further consideration."

On what grounds? The unsubstantiated and vague accusation by a leftist professor who obviously has an ax to grind with the Kavanaugh family that he misbehaved when he was a minor nearly 4 decades ago? Give me a break.

Oh my...

Democrats have thrown due process out the window to vilify Kavanaugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAo0x6faXHo

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Nope.

Yes, it is. That is why the left are frustrated because the Feds won't re-open this silly case, now if you can make them.....

You guess incorrectly.

Is it sticking? Nope, guessed correctly.

Because repugnant conservatives have been making death threats against her. So yes, gosh is correct.

And out of control liberals have been making death threats against him and his wife.

Again, we don't need to focus on Hillary.

Because what you guys did to her by demanding countless investigations makes your screeching for no investigation here look like exactly what it is: inconsistency and applying different rules based solely on one's political affiliation.

Stay on topic. We don't need to discuss a failed and deeply flawed former candidate.

Keep flailing around, grasping at straws and you might come up with a correct statement.

I'm not grasping anything, by the way where is this woman....the clock is ticking...Monday is right around the corner.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Kavanaugh's name stinks too much now. For the sake of public trust and confidence in the United States Supreme Court, he should voluntarily withdraw his name from further consideration.

That's exactly what the left want and Kavanaugh would be the biggest fool to do so, he should fight it to the max and let the chips fall where they may. The Dems beat the crap out of Clarence Thomas and he survived it and it was equally as brutal.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yes, it is. That is why the left are frustrated because the Feds won't re-open this silly case, now if you can make them.....

Nope.

Is it sticking? Nope, guessed correctly.

Nope.

Stay on topic. We don't need to discuss a failed and deeply flawed former candidate.

It's okay when you bring Hillary up, but not when others do. Got it. There's that conservative comsistency we all love.

I'm not grasping anything, by the way where is this woman....the clock is ticking...Monday is right around the corner.

Yes, you are.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And Clarence Thomas has opined less than a paragraph in the twenty years since the alleged pubic hair comment. What an asset to the court. What a bastion of legal reasoning. What a bench-warmer. Oh, sorry, I forgot he was popular with corporations and fake strick-constructionists. And he has been without an opinion since Scalia passed... Maybe Kavanaugh can take his place and give Thomas "a voice" again.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nope.

As in typical liberal fashion, fingers in the ears and screaming la, la, la, la, I can't hear you.

Yes, you are.

Yes, Right about the clock ticking, Monday is coming. This woman's time to say something is slowly coming to a close.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Serrano: "On what grounds?"

On the grounds that he lacks the trust of half or more of the U.S. public. You think Kavanaugh is innocent and I get that. However, Kavanaugh has, rightly or wrongly, lost public trust among a high number of Americans. He's like the Clarence Thomas of our generation.

Certainly there are other Republicans with impeccable credentials like James Comey or Robert Mueller. Why not choose somebody like those guys?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Midnight: Spot on. Thomas is worthless on the bench. Not a surprise given how utterly worthless most conservatives are.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Certainly there are other Republicans with impeccable credentials like James Comey or Robert Mueller. Why not choose somebody like those guys?

You did not say that with a straight face!

Oh, I heard you. 

Thank you!

Congratulations! You understand how time works.

Great! So now we just have to see if she shows up and if she doesn't, then that tells you this whole thing was a joke.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@bass: "You did not say that with a straight face!"

If I said Trump should nominate somebody who's more like Trump (as Kavanaugh might very well be), then you'd say, "Excellent choice!"

Now that would be funny.

Now this has nothing to do with which political party you belong to. I would still say the same thing if this was a nominee under any political party's president.

Frankly speaking, Kavanaugh simply has too much luggage. Best to scratch his name from the list and start over again.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If I said Trump should nominate somebody who's more like Trump (as Kavanaugh might very well be), then you'd say, "Excellent choice!"

Depends.

Now that would be funny

Yes, because the left would go crazier then they are now.

Frankly speaking, Kavanaugh simply has too much luggage. Best to scratch his name from the list and start over again.

He won’t do it, once he’s on the bench, there will be hissing and maoning (like what else is new.) and the left will go back to Russia or Collusion or Stormy.

This is a false duality. There are an infinite number of reasons why Dr. Ford wouldn't show beyond "this whole thing was a joke."

Like her story is crumbling faster than a cookie dropped in a glass of milk.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@bass

Look, had Obama nominated some guy for the US Supreme Court and woman whose a highly respected professor without any criminal record came out and said, "That man attacked me when I was a teenager!" I would expect Obama to tell the guy, "Look, I personally don't believe the allegations, however, for the sake of public trust in the U.S. Supreme Court, I'm going to have to let you go. I'm sorry."

And that's that. Same thing here. If the woman was living in a mental hospital, had a criminal record and believed she was somebody famous, then I think you might have a case to make. In this case, an intelligent, accomplished woman who is a good mother, wife and university professor highly respected by her colleagues, well, she's pretty darn believable, at least she will be with probably well over half of the country.

So, yeah, Kavanaugh would be doing the right thing by withdrawing his name because I can't understand why in the world this woman would just suddenly go crazy by making such a powerful allegation like this if it wasn't true.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Serrano: Super - try to understand... the Democrats don't care about Christine Ford.

Super: "Do you?"

Do you? Oh, you asked me first, right. But you admit then that the Democrats don't care about her, right?

In a way I feel sorry for her being as how the Democrats were the ones who made her accusation public in order to use her to stop Kavanaugh and Trump. But I believe she is lying.

Evidence that says he did it - her saying he did it.

Kavanaugh has no past of bad sexual behavior towards women.

She doesn't remember exacylywhen it happened.

She doesn't remember exactly where it happened.

She doesn't remember anyone else who was at the party.

She is a known leftist Trump hater.

Her story contradicts the therapist notes.

She didn't come forward until 36 years later right before Kavanaugh is about to confirmed as a member of the Supreme court.

She won't testify until the FBI does investigation, yet they have already said its not a crime within their jurisdiction nor can they figure out what the actual crime would be.

Her family lost a foreclosure case to Kavanaugh's mother. (shows her having a reason to be biased against him)

She doesn't remember how she got there.

She doesn't remember how she got home.

65 women came forth in Kavanaugh's defense.

She deleted her social media accounts because she knows if people saw the things she has said bashing Trump and the right it would be even more obvious she's doing this to smear a good man for political reasons.

In conclusion there is WAY MORE evidence that suggest she is lying than there is that suggests she is telling the truth. If you are someone who believes her i would love to hear your reasons as to why other than " well she said so its gotta be true. "

stormcrow: "Kavanaugh has, rightly or wrongly, lost public trust among a high number of Americans."

Yeah, his poll numbers are not good. The legacy media is still powerful.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Here's the thing I don't get:

The whole point of this exercise is to find someone with the highest qualifications who deserves a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. Even if you like Kavanaugh's, assuming you are not a completely awful person, you don't want someone on the bench who's okay with your daughter being sexually assaulted by drunk teenagers.

So why can't we take the time to find out whether or not Kavanaugh actually did this? Let's do it right, and make sure he's the right man for the job.

Worst case scenario if we investigate him properly:

It turns out that he didn't do it, and so after we go through the investigation process properly, we can feel confident the right man has the job (assuming nothing else disqualifying is discovered) and all it cost us is a few weeks out of a lifetime appointment.

Worst case scenario if we don't investigate him properly:

He actually did it and has a problem with women, which a lot of people suspect but never know for sure. He ends up with several decades to act out his bias against women on the highest court of the land, and the Republican party gets even further associated with rampant, hateful misogyny.

I mean, compare the two outcomes and it's pretty obvious which is the right way to go.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"So why can't we take the time to find out whether or not Kavanaugh actually did this?"

Would have been nice if Prof. Ford had come out publicly about this way, way, way before, instead of just sending this letter to Diane Feinstein in July - if CNN can be believed, lol...

The following is the text of the letter Christine Blasey Ford wrote to Sen. Dianne Feinstein detailing an event in which she accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. CNN was not provided a copy of the letter sent to Feinstein, but a source who had the letter read the contents of a redacted version to CNN.

 Dear Senator Feinstein;

I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.

Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.

Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.

The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."

At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.

I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information . It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.

In confidence, REDACTED.

( end of letter )

Oh my...

There is nothing more essential to American justice than the opportunity to confront your accuser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C_RTX1Tj2M

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

SerranoToday  07:11 pm JST

"So why can't we take the time to find out whether or not Kavanaugh actually did this?"

Would have been nice if Prof. Ford had come out publicly about this way, way, way before,

This doesn't answer the question. Maybe the timing of her letter is inconvenient for rabid right-wingers who put politics over the health of the nation, but it seems to me any genuine patriot should want to know that even the Supreme Court justice they support is properly vetted.

What do we lose by going slowly and carefully and doing this right?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"What do we lose by going slowly and carefully and doing this right?"

We'll see if Prof, Ford is willing to testify under oath, won't we? She needs to do this NOW, as we need our Supreme Court justices now, not 6 months from now, or 36 years later from now.

Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Committee says he hopes both Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford face 'good, fair but firm' questions from Senate Judicial Committee:

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

And... oh my! ( from PBS, not Fox News or other "bigots" lol )

Jennifer Mascott has known Brett Kavanaugh for more than a decade, after serving as his clerk during his first year on the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2006. Mascott, now a professor at George Mason University Law School, talks with Judy Woodruff about the judge’s character and the allegation of sexual assault that’s been raised in the course of his Supreme Court confirmation process:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iorAzmudvU0

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

SerranoToday  07:45 pm JST

"What do we lose by going slowly and carefully and doing this right?"

...She needs to do this NOW, as we need our Supreme Court justices now, 

Why? Republicans were perfectly happy to have a vacancy on the court for months during Obama's presidency. Why is it so urgent to put someone, apparently someone we haven't bothered to vet properly, on the bench right this second?

Trump's volunteer propaganda corps keep demanding we not slow down to investigate this allegation properly, but they can't ever explain why.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Groups of protesters, most of them women, clogged the lobby of Grassley's Senate office on Thursday and targeted other Republican lawmakers. Many wore buttons stating "I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford."

The usual suspects, organized protests by radical leftists with pre-printed buttons, funded and orchestrated as a final delaying tactic and last pitch desperate ploy since July, under the auspices of the otherwise respected Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

The senator should release an unredacted version of Prof. Ford's letter, which must contain exculpatory evidence if there is such hesitation. The professor has our sympathies, a hapless pawn about to have the anger of the country unleashed upon herself.

Three words: Amy Coney Barrett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - female, conservative, devote Catholic and President Trump's next nominee to the Supreme Court after Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed.

Give the obstructionists their just desserts.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Look, had Obama nominated some guy for the US Supreme Court and woman whose a highly respected professor without any criminal record came out and said, "That man attacked me when I was a teenager!" I would expect Obama to tell the guy, "Look, I personally don't believe the allegations, however, for the sake of public trust in the U.S. Supreme Court, I'm going to have to let you go. I'm sorry." 

But knowing Obama as left as he was, he probably wouldn’t ask him/her.

And that's that. Same thing here. If the woman was living in a mental hospital, had a criminal record and believed she was somebody famous, then I think you might have a case to make. In this case, an intelligent, accomplished woman who is a good mother, wife and university professor highly respected by her colleagues,

Upon deeper research, there have been a lot of dissatisfied students that did complain about her classes.

well, she's pretty darn believable, at least she will be with probably well over half of the country.

Ok, and I believe Kavanaugh is believable, even more so given his long and deep credentials.

So, yeah, Kavanaugh would be doing the right thing by withdrawing his name because I can't understand why in the world this woman would just suddenly go crazy by making such a powerful allegation like this if it wasn't true.

He would be doing the worst thing in throwing in the towel, he should stay and shouldn’t allow the Dems to rattle his cage. He should stay and fight on, he’s more than qualified and his a deep devout conservative to the bone.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Miyam_Musashi: The professor has our sympathies, a hapless pawn about to have the anger of the country unleashed upon herself.

So she’s a helpless pawn of the Democrats.

Serrano: a leftist professor who obviously has an ax to grind with the Kavanaugh family

So she’s doing it because she has an axe to grind.

Sounds like you guys need to get your story straight.

They can do a dozen investigations and still have time to confirm him. There’s no reason not to unless you think they will find something.

I know you guys are desperate to get a confirmation, but it doesn’t have to be this guy and it doesn’t have to be right now. You still have options and hold all the cards. Just investigate and be done with it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why? Republicans were perfectly happy to have a vacancy on the court for months during Obama's presidency.

Because they wanted a staunch conservative and now they found one.

Why is it so urgent to put someone, apparently someone we haven't bothered to vet properly, on the bench right this second?

Kavanaugh was vetted 6 times, he serves on the second highest court, if there were flags or alarms, it would have been known.

Trump's volunteer propaganda corps keep demanding we not slow down to investigate this allegation properly, but they can't ever explain why.

And the left want to condemn this man without due process and NOT give him the benefit of a doubt which he deserves under our constitution as to why the left won’t do that is beyond me. They say they are for justice and yet, they refuse to investigate Keith Ellison. I guess, her life and what she went through is not as relevant or important than Ford’s life., typical liberal selective outrage.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Kavanaugh was vetted 6 times

By the FBI? We all know how corrupt they are, and we don’t even know the political leanings of those who did the vetting.

And the left want to condemn this man without due process

An investigation clearing his name would be due process, but you want none of that.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass4funkToday  09:27 pm JST

Why? Republicans were perfectly happy to have a vacancy on the court for months during Obama's presidency.

Because they wanted a staunch conservative and now they found one.

How can anyone know? Running around having drunken parties where people attempt sex out of wedlock - it hardly sounds like conservative values to me. I mean, this whole rushing to approve sounds to me like the sort of thing a conservative-in-name-only would get behind. Real conservatives are careful. Real conservatives make sure they hold the moral high ground. Pretenders to conservativism insist on rushing this confirmation without taking the full time to evaluate the candidate and I have to ask:

Why? Shouldn't we take the time to make sure the candidate is who we're told they are?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

By the FBI? We all know how corrupt they are,

So now the FBI is all of a sudden corrupt again? When they went after Hillary they were corrupt and then when Comedy turned his investigation towards Trump the FBI became the hero of legends. So which is it?

and we don’t even know the political leanings of those who did the vetting.

So you want to make sure the FBI agents that do the vetting are certifiable Left leaning for you guys to feel comfortable in order to trust them? Wow, you guys, just wow!

An investigation clearing his name would be due process, but you want none of that.

Nonsense! He doesn’t need to. He’s been through the process 6 times, it’s up to Ford,she made the allegation, so let her come forward and explain herself, but the woman makes these strange and of course predictable liberal stall tactics. No lawyers Can question her, Kavanaugh can’t be in the room, he has to go first, this is all so over the top nutty. It’s more than enough, Grassley is right, the GOP need to draw the line, give her until Monday and if not, take a vote on Thursday, the GOP have been more than accommodating to this woman and it’s also not fair to the nominee.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Why is it so urgent to put someone, apparently someone we haven't bothered to vet properly, on the bench right this second?"

Kavanaugh has been properly vetted, his confirmation would be a given if it weren't for this disgusting last minute smear attempt.

Serrano: a leftist professor who obviously has an ax to grind with the Kavanaugh family

"So she’s doing it because she has an axe to grind.

Sounds like you guys need to get your story straight."

LOL! The good professor is the one who needs to get her story straight, Super.

"An investigation clearing his name would be due process, but you want none of that."

Apparently the good professor, now realizing that she might face jail time for lying under oath, doesn't want to testify. She's gonna hafta make up her mind real soon on that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

bass4funkToday  10:21 pm JST

Nonsense! He doesn’t need to. 

Oh, so he's somehow above examination now?

Sounds like radical social experimentation to me. Real conservatives make candidates earn their place in major government appointments. They don't get handed out like participation trophies to just anyone at the lower levels.

Why the rush? Why the secrecy? Real conservatives know these appointments are too important to just run through carelessly.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

erranoToday  10:24 pm JST

Kavanaugh has been properly vetted, his confirmation would be a given if it weren't for this disgusting last minute smear attempt.

You can't know he's been vetted if you haven't gone through a proper investigation, now can you. Real conservatives follow the rule of law - no one is above investigation.

Why do people who pretend to be conservatives want to abandon conservative values and rush to approve a potentially unknown quantity like Kavanaugh? Nobody seems to be able to explain it, they just demand we rush to approve without thinking about it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh my...

Former Secret Service agent says Dr. Ford's interview terms are 'not workable' and the demand for an FBI probe is 'outrageous.' :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YBAcC6LbRg

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It's almost as if the Democrats forgot there's these things called police departments.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Bass: So you want to make sure the FBI agents that do the vetting are certifiable Left leaning for you guys to feel comfortable in order to trust them? Wow, you guys, just wow!

Hmmm. I never really thought about that. I was just focusing on Republicans in the investigation since they would be corrupt. I guess I left myself open for hypocrisy by not assuming the same about Democrats.

I stand corrected.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Serrano:. Kavanaugh has been properly vetted

What's your opinion of the FBI?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh, so he's somehow above examination now?

No, what do you want the agency to do, they don’t and won’t investigate a political charge and even if the left hold their breaths and stomp their feet’s, it’s not going to happen. So they’re just going to have to deal with this countdown and this woman can’t make demands as to how she wants this thing to be dissected, that’s not her choice. We know she wants to stall, move the goalpost and have Kavanaugh go first that way she can tailor her story to his, liberals really think everyone is just dumb and can’t see through their charade.

Sounds like radical social experimentation to me. Real conservatives make candidates earn their place in major government appointments. They don't get handed out like participation trophies to just anyone at the lower levels. 

What? Lol

Why the rush? Why the secrecy?

Back at the left. Why the delay, why the unwillingness to be transparency

Real conservatives know these appointments are too important to just run through carelessly.

Liberals know how important these appointments are especially this one, this is the reason why they are usurping the process and are doing everything in their power to stop this nominee.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Bass: So now the FBI is all of a sudden corrupt again?

You got me here again. I must be slipping. I can't say that the FBI is corrupt when I want to and then suddenly say they are trustworthy.

Score one for bass.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You can't know he's been vetted if you haven't gone through a proper investigation,

He has been, it’s in the public records.

now can you. Real conservatives follow the rule of law - no one is above investigation.

Real liberals SHOULD follow the rule of law and not just obstruct every single thing this administration does.

Why do people who pretend to be conservatives want to abandon conservative values and rush to approve a potentially unknown quantity like Kavanaugh?

So why is it that liberals act like spoiled brats when they’re not in the front seat, why do they want to delay and stop this nominee, they did it right from the beginning and from the hearings they have been grandstanding and been trying to rock the boat with demanding 42,000 documents what nonsense, they know it would take months to read them and why is it that liberals think the GOP has something to hide when Feinsten hid and sat on these alleged allegations for 45 days, if they were REALLY sincere they would have jump on this immediately, they didn’t, same goes for Democrat Keith Ellison, if they were serious about the allegations against him they would investigate him and the allegations, but they don’t, they don’t care what relevant and recent charges his ex filed against him, but they want serious answers to impossible questions that happened 36 years ago? These people are really out in the boondocks.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Bass:. this is the reason why they are usurping the process and are doing everything in their power to stop this nominee.

Why would Democrats vote for a conservative judge? Makes no sense.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"You can't know he's been vetted if you haven't gone through a proper investigation"

Good grief, katsu, it's just gonna be she said-he said! The alleged crime was nearly 4 decades ago, she can't say exactly when or where it happened.

Ford now does not want to testify before the Senate judiciary committee. The FBI isn’t going to investigate this accusation because there is nothing to prosecute even if the accusation were true. The statute of limitations is such that a case against Kavanaugh cannot be prosecuted, Kavanaugh would have been a minor at the time of the alleged assault, and the alleged assault isn’t even a federal crime. So saying she won’t testify unless the FBI investigates is like saying she just won’t testify. I think she's regretting ever sending that confidential letter to Feinstein, who ended up sharing it with other Democrats. She is probably afraid her life will be ruined.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Why would Democrats vote for a conservative judge?"

Um.... because he's eminently qualified?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Serrano: The FBI isn’t going to investigate this accusation because there is nothing to prosecute 

Oh my....

GOP Fails To Explain Excluding FBI From Brett Kavanaugh Investigation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J75VEHdtS-Q

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Dang. Busted again.

I guess both parties have the right to do what it takes to stop a nomination.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

bass4funkSep. 21  10:56 pm JST

You can't know he's been vetted if you haven't gone through a proper investigation,

He has been, it’s in the public records.

How can a proper investigation of this alleged assault be in the public records if it was only revealed recently, after all of Kavanaugh's appointments to other posts.

SCOTUS is not some little local appeals court - it's a lifetime appointment to the most powerful court in the US, arguably in the world. No one seems to be able to give me a justification for why Republicans want to rush this so badly. Proper conservative values demand prudent thought and thorough investigation.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

katsu78 - This doesn't answer the question. Maybe the timing of her letter is inconvenient for rabid right-wingers who put politics over the health of the nation, but it seems to me any genuine patriot should want to know that even the Supreme Court justice they support is properly vetted.

What do we lose by going slowly and carefully and doing this right?

If Christine Blasey Ford has any actual, credible, charges to make then SHE should make them under oath. It's obvious that the elected Democrats didn't bother questioning Kavanaugh about these vague recollections of Ford's during the recent confirmation hearing. Ford's vague recollections only became center stage when it became apparent that there was going to be no blue wave to kill Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Everyone should be aware by now that elected Democrats are NOT going to vote to confirm Kavanaugh. Ever. Or to confirm ANY Republican nominee. Period. End of story. There is no longer any point in trying to convince elected Democrats to change their party mindset. This is all simply a Democrat Party delaying tactic.

FYIChristine Blasey Ford is the one making an accusation. It's her responsibility to make her claim, preferably under oath. Kavanaugh will then be given a chance to address Ford's claims. Also under oath. That's the way the system works.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

When there's zero evidence or proof to back up an accusation, the accused's innocence is to be presumed.

And on top of the lack of evidence, when the accuser clearly has an ulterior motive for making the accusation (the accuser here is a very public and vocal "progressive" activist who has taken part in anti-Trump rallies and petitions), the accused's innocence should be elevated to the "nearly undeniable" level.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Lying to the FBI is a criminal offence so of course they don't want an investigation. Also Maryland doesn't have a statue of limitations on rape since she was 15, so he'd be going away

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can the Republicans do anything right or do they just want to lose as much as humanly possible come Nov? Total implosion of stupid. Send the old men home

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k - Can the Republicans do anything right or do they just want to lose as much as humanly possible come Nov? Total implosion of stupid. Send the old men home

Isn't that what the Democrats, media-types, and pollsters were telling each other in 2016? How did that work out for them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She should set the conditions in a freely manner, and not in a position of stress and anxiety. She should be able to face that criminal right in the eye and tell it to his face - he is a sexual assaulting criminal.  She needs the time of her own choosing to gather the strength to face that scum and put him in his place.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The first thing she needs to do is come up with a verifiable version of her story. Pick one and stick to it. Even her own chosen witnesses do not agree with her. Which makes me wonder how you decided which version of her story is correct?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The first thing she needs to do is come up with a verifiable version of her story. Pick one and stick to it. Even her own chosen witnesses do not agree with her.

Right. Everyone should clearly remember the details exactly as they were 37 years ago. This is getting ridiculous.

Which makes me wonder how you decided which version of her story is correct?

Maybe you could look for the parts that are consistent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites