world

Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline

130 Comments
By Lawrence Hurley and Roberta Rampton

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.

130 Comments
Login to comment

It's wrong to make allegations against another person and then refuse to make the same allegations under oath when given the opportunity to do so.

-5 ( +12 / -17 )

Given that Congressional Republicans have concealed the majority of Kavanaugh's records, I think it's fair for Ford to demand someone other than them be the primary source of investigation into her assault.

People kept asking why it took so long for her to come out with this allegation. The first response on this website was a pro-rape comment, and now she's getting death threats. I think it's pretty clear why she took so long to come forward.

In any case, it's no surprise Orange Jumpsuit supports him. Both have a reputation to sexually assaulting underage girls.

5 ( +15 / -10 )

Before we get barely literate conservatives on here pointing to the FBI's declining to investigate as evidence that these accusations are baseless:

*In a statement, a Justice Department spokeswoman said the FBI — which has added a letter from Christine Blasey Ford to Kavanaugh's already completed background report file — had already done all it was going to do, because *"the allegation does not involve any potential federal crime."

*"The FBI does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation,"** the statement reads. "The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI's role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers."*

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649085712/democrats-want-fbi-to-investigate-kavanaugh-allegations-it-likely-wont

Since I know that was a long passage to read for comservatibes, I bolded the operative parts. Please keep your ignorant assertion that the FBI not investigating means there is no merit to the accusations to yourself.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Just what Kavanaugh needs. An endorsement from a serial sexual assaulter who brags about it.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Republicans doing their damndest best to create the next gropus. The party of class.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

It's wrong to make allegations against another person and then refuse to make the same allegations under oath when given the opportunity to do so

Exactly. Wouldn't it be great if Trump followed your advice?

5 ( +10 / -5 )

@burnb It's wrong to make allegations against another person

It's wrong and ILLEGAL to assault another person. Even if 90% of males in your high school did the same thing.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

This should be a local police matter. If she formally reports it to the state police then they can bring him in for questioning and decide whether to press charges.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

This should be a local police matter. If she formally reports it to the state police then they can bring him in for questioning and decide whether to press charges.

Sure, that's right. And with a normal person, that's where it would go.

This is a different case though, the discussion is whether this person should be given a life-time appointment to determine the law of the entire country.

You would hope people wouldn't want gropers in that appointment. But hey, this is the age where the president is himself an admitted groper, who sleeps with porn stars, so I guess a groper in the supreme court fits with the times.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Innocent until proven guilty.

Sorry, but criminal accusations must be testified to if they are to be given credence.

She’s entitled to formally accuse him but he’s also entitled to due process.

Imagine if someone made the same allegation against you.

You’re morally wrong to condemn him without due process and I think deep down you know that but don’t want to admit it because he’s a conservative, so apparently he must be a rapist.

Your embittered partisanship has blinded you to basic human fairness and decency.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

Sorry, but criminal accusations must be testified to if they are to be given credence.

This is incorrect. Criminal accusations must be investigated if they are to be given credence.

She’s entitled to formally accuse him but he’s also entitled to due process

Due process requires an investigation.

You’re morally wrong to condemn him without due process and I think deep down you know that but don’t want to admit it because he’s a conservative, so apparently he must be a rapist.

Your embittered partisanship has blinded you to basic human fairness and decency.

This is applicable to all of your statements regarding Mueller's investigation. It is hilarious that you are banging on about due process given your stance on the Mueller investigation,

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Why is Dr. Christine Blasey Ford asking for an FBI investigation but Brett Kavanaugh isn't?

Kavanaugh claims that Ford's allegations of sexual assault are utterly false, so if anybody should be asking for an FBI investigation to clear their good name it should be Kavanaugh, not Ms. Ford.

If one of them is lying, what do either of them have to gain by an FBI investigation? Ms. Ford has everything to lose by lying while Kavanaugh has everything to gain by it.

Thus, an FBI investigation into the matter of sexual assault concerning the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice is both necessary and important.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Kavanaugh claims that Ford's allegations of sexual assault are utterly false, so if anybody should be asking for an FBI investigation to clear their good name it should be Kavanaugh, not Ms. Ford.

The man went through 6 grueling FBI vetting and background investigations, let me say it again, 6 if they haven’t found anything then, then it’s highly unlikely they’ll find anything now.

Also, if this woman were really serious, why won’t she testify? Kavanaugh wants to ASAP.

Shes incognito.

If one of them is lying, what do either of them have to gain by an FBI investigation? Ms. Ford has everything to lose by lying while Kavanaugh has everything to gain by it.

The FBI said more than 3 Times, they will not investigate, why and how? It’s totally absurd. There is no way to prove or disprove what happened 36 years ago.

Thus, an FBI investigation into the matter of sexual assault concerning the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice is both necessary and important.

Yes, so why did Feinstein sit on this for 45 days and she had 30 hours with Kavanaugh to ask or grill him on it, but as in typical sneaky Democrat fashion she waits until the eleventh hour to bring forth these allegations.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Kavanaugh went to Georgetown Prep, an all-boys school. Yet in an instant, he had a statement signed by 65 females attesting to his moral fiber. Did he really have 65 female contemporaries who knew him that well? 

The man is clearly a slimy liar.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

The man went through 6 grueling FBI vetting and background investigations, let me say it again, 6 if they haven’t found anything then, then it’s highly unlikely they’ll find anything now.

Really? So you apply this same logic to Hillary do you? She's been investigated well more than six times. So it's highly unlikely they'll find anything now, isn't it.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

@bass

But why isn't Kavanaugh asking for an FBI to clear his good name after having it besmirched by Dr. Ford? I would if the charges were against me and they were false, but Kavanaugh isn't asking for such an FBI investigation to clear his good name, is he? Why not?

If Ford is lying, then why is she pleading for an FBI investigation into the matter and he isn't?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Let's see:

She doesn’t remember where this supposed party was;

She doesn’t remember what year, month nor date the alleged attack happened;

She never told any of her closest friends;

She never told her parents;

No police report was ever filed;

The psych notes taken by the therapist in 2012 states there were 4 males in the room at the time of ref alleged attack. Now, the number is two;

Brett Kavanaugh's name is never mentioned in any of the therapist's notes;

Just a few days before she went public, she scrubbed all her social media accounts.

This is a high tech lynching on steroids.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

And yet Dr. Ford passed a polygraph test regarding the alleged sexual assault.

It would be interesting to see what the results of a polygraph test show if it was done on Kavanaugh.

If I was Kavanaugh and I was innocent and falsely accused of sexually assaulting Ford, I'd jump at the opportunity to take a polygraph test. Furthermore, I'd take it not just for professional reasons but for personal reasons as well. Then I could tell my wife and children, "See! The allegations of sexually assaulting this woman are utterly false!"

But Kavanaugh isn't running to take a polygraph test, is he? Just as he isn't pleading for the FBI to investigate. Dr. Ford has done both.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

But why isn't Kavanaugh asking for an FBI to clear his good name after having it besmirched by Dr. Ford? 

What good would an FBI investigation do for either one of them? He can’t even be charged with a crime because the statute of limitations has long passed. If this mattered to the Dems and Feinstein they would not have sat on this information for over two months. There is no possibility for proving Fords’ charges short of a confession. Kavanagh has already stated that he has never done anything like what she is accussing him of.

So the story is that Ford has been stewing about an assault on her for 36 years. She told no one who committed the crime until July of this year. The only thing even remotely close to contemporary testimony is a therapist’s notes from six years ago which doesn’t name him and is factually incorrect regarding the number of boys present at the party. Kavanagh however has two contemporary witnesses. One claims it never happened and the other says he wasn’t there as Ford is said to have indicated. Meanwhile Ford cannot say where the alleged incident took place or even what year it was. There is a reason for a statute of limitations on such things. I think it’s pretty clear why she doesn’t want to appear in front of the Senate - she doesn’t have anything to say.

Ford had 36 years to prepare for the Monday Judiciary Committee hearing. She took the time to write her Congressman with the allegation. She took the time to give her side to the Washington Post. Now she doesn’t want to testify when called and wants to dictate the terms of how the Committee proceeds in addressing her 36 year time bomb accusation? Even the families of murder victims cannot dictate how authorities proceed with a case.

This is clearly a complete political charade. The Dems want to delay any conservative judge from being confirmed in hopes that they will take over the Senate this Fall. They would then block any nominee until after the 2020 election. Luckily it doesn’t appear that the Republicans are falling for it. Even Senator Collins appears to be frustrated at Ford for not wanting to testify.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

So you righties are ok with the new GROPUS?

That seems to be the case.

Trump’s followers and other extreme rightists in the US and ‘abroad’ have bought into Trump’s immoral and unethical idiot-ology. One part of Trump’s base is made up of frustrated males who blame their various inadequacies (shortcomings?) on those who’ve had fewer opportunities and alternatives than them. They seem to think a level playing field should be one where women and non-WASP males are lower than them, just like the playing fields their ancestors had in the wayback.

Remember, these are people who think ‘progress’ is a dirty word.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Of course Trump supports and defends him; fellow sexual predators always do in the face of the law. Funny how Trump has no qualms about using illegal laborers and outsourcing to save money while calling immigrants rapists, but the asks the nation to welcome an ACTUAL sexual predator to the highest court office in the land.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

You have no problem with a groper on the supreme court?

He's as much a groper as you are, since he hasn't been convicted of anything in a court of law, and I presume that neither have you.

The FBI request is a red herring, her attorney told her to ask for it knowing it would be turned down and hence she has her out, making an accusation but failing to testify it under oath in open court.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Bush, didn't you say that you think 90% of men have done what Kavanaugh is accused of doing?

Does it not follow that, by your standards, there's a 90% chance Kavanaugh is guilty?

Could you tell us what evidence you have that Kavanaugh is in the 10% of men (by your estimation, not mine) who haven't assaulted women?

As an FYI, I have never sexually assaulted a woman and wouldn't be friends with someone who has.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

He's as much a groper as you are

Well no, there is a major difference between he and I. That being that while he is a groper, I myself, am not.

he hasn't been convicted of anything in a court of law

And to that I respond with the Hillary precedent, by which a guilty conviction is not required for one to convict with chants of LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The FBI said more than 3 Times, they will not investigate, why and how

Read my 7:21 post for the answer.

Yes, so why did Feinstein sit on this for 45 days and she had 30 hours with Kavanaugh to ask or grill him on it, but as in typical sneaky Democrat fashion she waits until the eleventh hour to bring forth these allegations

The Dems learned being sneaky like a snake from repugnant republicans. ROFL.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

What good would an FBI investigation do for either one of them?

The FBI could get more information that would indicate which one of the parties is being honest.

He can’t even be charged with a crime because the statute of limitations has long passed. If this mattered to the Dems and Feinstein they would not have sat on this information for over two months. 

The statute of limitations ran out a lot longer than two months ago, so trying to pin that on the Dems is ridiculous.

It's not about convicting anyone of a crime, it's about determining whether Kavanaugh is fit to be a justice on the top court. Stop conflating the two issues in the hopes of obfuscating. I know you conservatives love to do that because it makes you feel better about being uninformed, but it does nothing beyond that.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

why did Feinstein sit on this for 45 days

Why did the Republicans refuse to debate Garland?

It's all partisanship now. You guys went nuclear in refusing to debate Garland, so now nothing is off the table.

Sorry, what's that, there's an uncomfortable spot on your bed? It feels like a pea under your mattress you say?

Maybe you should have made it up a little better, before laying in it.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

He's as much a groper as you are, since he hasn't been convicted of anything in a court of law, and I presume that neither have you.

Another conservative with zero understanding of how the justice system works. Courts determine criminal culpability. There are numerous examples of not-guilty verdicts being handed down for reasons other than the underlying action didn't occur.

Your logic dictates that you believe OJ did t kill anyone.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I give up.

The level of entrenched hatred and irreconcilable partisanship is beyond reproach.

Reason and decency seem to have no meaning nor effect and the vast majority of posters simply fall into the predictable left-right paradigm, regardless of the morality of their statements.

The Innocent until Proven Guilty principle is something I will resolutely defend and support for all, including my political opponents, until my death.

Go ahead and publicly defame a man based solely on hearsay, but at the end of the day, the stain is on your character, not his, and from that truth, you can not escape.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Go ahead and publicly defame a man based solely on hearsay,

Like you do with Mueller?

The Innocent until Proven Guilty principle is something I will resolutely defend and support for all, including my political opponents, until my death.

Except when it comes to Mueller.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Ford had 36 years to prepare for the Monday Judiciary Committee hearing. 

She's known for 36 years there would be a Judiciary Comittee meeting on Monday? Your assertion doesn't stand up to logic.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Chip Star - Another conservative with zero understanding of how the justice system works.

What federal crime are the Democrats demanding that the FBI investigate? Emphasis on the word "federal" crime. If the Democrats actually wanted a criminal investigation into this delusion of Christine Blasey Ford, they would be demanding an investigation by the States Attorney. The States Attorney's office would actually have jurisdiction to investigate Ford's poorly remembered fantasy.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

BurningBush: "The FBI request is a red herring, her attorney told her to ask for it knowing it would be turned down..."

Knowing TRUMP would turn it down while pretending to "want to see the issue through". She requested the FBI investigation hoping the law would take her seriously. All you're saying by suggesting "knowing it would be turned down" means you know the current WH is completely corrupt and will not investigate anything valid when it might involve implicating their own. Well done, BurningBush!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

What federal crime are the Democrats demanding that the FBI investigate? Emphasis on the word "federal" crime. If the Democrats actually wanted a criminal investigation into this delusion of Christine Blasey Ford, they would be demanding an investigation by the States Attorney

The democrats want an investigation, not a criminal investigation. You do understand that the FBI does non-criminal investigations, correct?

The States Attorney's office would actually have jurisdiction to investigate Ford's poorly remembered fantasy.

Yes, but this doesn't mean the FBI cannot conduct an investigation in that jurisdiction.

Keep trying, Sport. You'll get it one day, Tiger.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Kavanaugh went to Georgetown Prep, an all-boys school. 

Is that a crime or is it a crime because he’s.... 1) a male? 2) because he’s a Republican? 3) because he just happened to be appointed by Trump?

Yet in an instant, he had a statement signed by 65 females attesting to his moral fiber. Did he really have 65 female contemporaries who knew him that well? 

And in an instant after 36 years and a man that has been sitting on the second highest court in the land where Diane Feinstein sat on the information for 45 days and had over 30 hours more than enough time to bring the allegations forward to her colleagues, she didn’t do that, she waited until the last few days before the vote was Scheduled. The Democrats say they are concerned, but yet one of their own Keith Ellison is or was supposed to have an ethics probe and charges of physical abuse towards his wife where he verbally and physically abused her, why aren’t the Democrats taking it seriously.

The man is clearly a slimy liar.

Then the Democrats are the poster children of lies. Where is this woman? Why won’t she come to testify? Grassley offered her to come to either Washington or they can send staff to to go to California or wherever undisclosed location she might be and still....no answer...and the other day she declined to testify. Kavanaugh wants to testify, this woman doesn’t....hmmmm....

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

If Ford opts not to testify, Kavanaugh's chances for confirmation in the Republican-led Senate could be boosted, with senators in Trump's party so far remaining largely supportive.

If Christine Blasey Ford opts not to testify, Kavanaugh's confirmation is assured. Elected Democrats simply do not have (and never had) the votes to do anything other than plead with elected Republicans to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation. It doesn't matter what is said, what is offered, what is suggested, or what is proven, the elected Democrats have already promised their far, far, far left base that they will never vote in favor of Kavanaugh's confirmation, regardless of the facts, or his qualification.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

She doesn’t remember where this supposed party was; She doesn’t remember what year, month nor date the alleged attack happened;

At the very least, she remembers the year. The article says 1982. What other information are you getting wrong, and where are you getting them from?

She never told any of her closest friends; She never told her parents; No police report was ever filed;

This doesn’t help her case, but it doesn’t hurt it either. Feelings of shame and fear of not being believed are common among abuse victims.

The psych notes taken by the therapist in 2012 states there were 4 males in the room at the time of ref alleged attack. Now, the number is two;

The psych confused 4 people at the party as 4 males in the room. It’s completely conceivable. The fact that Ford places any witnesses at the party at all actually makes her story more believable. Why would she include people who might deny everything in a made-up false accusation? It would've been easier for her if it was simply he said she said.

Brett Kavanaugh's name is never mentioned in any of the therapist's notes;

This makes sense if she didn’t want to come out with the story. She kept it to herself until she realized that her abuser might be appointed to a lifetime position in the highest court of the land.

Just a few days before she went public, she scrubbed all her social media accounts.

Wouldn’t you if knew how toxic social media and the public can get when you come out with accusations of this nature?

I agree that it’s a difficult case to prove either way in a court of law, but this is a Supreme Court position. When you have a witness as credible as Ford, even a shadow of the behavior she describes should be enough to disqualify. It would in other lower positions.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Repugnant republicans didn't even bother to debate Garaland's qualifications

They didn’t have to.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Was his friend really a teenage alcoholic who can’t remember anything? I mean two boys, one a raging alcoholic, locked in a room with a high school girl?

Of course nothing happened. An investigation is a waste of time.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@burningbush I give up.

Have the factory heads re-assigned you, maybe promoted you to flaming on infowars, maybe one of Putin's global outlets?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Chip Star - Repugnant republicans didn't even bother to debate Garaland's qualifications.

According to you, "Garaland's qualifications" is part of the debate.

Chip Star - That wasn't the issue being debated. Try keeping up.

You brought it up.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

At the very least, she remembers the year. The article says 1982. What other information are you getting wrong, and where are you getting them from.

Ok and then?

This doesn’t help her case, but it doesn’t hurt it either. Feelings of shame and fear of not being believed are common among abuse victims.

That goes for the accused as well.

The psych confused 4 people at the party as 4 males in the room. It’s completely conceivable. The fact that Ford places any witnesses at the party at all actually makes her story more believable.

There is no way you can prove or disprove that, but the only person that was there that remembers something was Kavanaugh’s friend.

Why would she include people who might deny everything in a made-up false accusation? It would've been easier for her if it was simply he said she said.

So then, why not come forward and testify? She made the accusation, Grassley is trying his best to accommodate her and still No answer and doesn’t want to testify.

This makes sense if she didn’t want to come out with the story. She kept it to herself until she realized that her abuser might be appointed to a lifetime position in the highest court of the land.

Funny, the woman has been proven to be an activist and a Hillary supporter, she recently sent a letter to the WH criticizing Trump and wanted an end to the children separation. I don’t know, it’s starting to smell a bit....

Wouldn’t you if knew how toxic social media and the public can get when you come out with accusations of this nature?

No, if I think I was wronged or hurt by someone, I personally would stand up and take immediate action and do whatever I can to prove I’m not a liar.

I agree that it’s a difficult case to prove either way in a court of law, but this is a Supreme Court position. When you have a witness as credible as Ford,

We don’t know if she is credible, it’s a clear case of she said, he said. Kavanaugh seems not only credible, but he past every single background and FBI background check. She has been offered to testify in public or private and now they can’t even reach this woman. Oops!

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Chip Star - The democrats want an investigation, not a criminal investigation. You do understand that the FBI does non-criminal investigations, correct?

Yes, but this doesn't mean the FBI cannot conduct an investigation in that jurisdiction.

What federal charge/crime are you asking the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate? The Federal Bureau of Investigation agents can not simply pick names out of a phone book and investigate them. There has to be CREDIBLE evidence of some sort of FEDERAL crime.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation does do background checks on federal employees and nominees.

The Democrats sat on Ford's fantasy for six weeks. Elected Democrats could have questioned Kavanaugh about Ford's fantasy at any time during the recent nomination hearings. It was only after it became painfully apparent that a magical blue wave wasn't going to appear and convince elected Republicans not to confirm Kavanaugh that Democrats reached into their bag of "resist" tricks to play one more lame stunt in the hopes of not confirming Kavanaugh.

If Ford doesn't appear in order to testify as to what she thinks happened 36 years ago, Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and Democrats will appear disorientated and weak. If Ford does appear, one can only hope that her story/stories will be more consistent than what's been claimed so far. And Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I thinks it's disgusting the way the democrats are trying to air Kavanaugh out, especially since they've turned their backs on and won't even listen to Keith Ellison's former girlfriend who says he beat her. I thought the democrats really cared about women and victims of violent crimes. I guess it's all a big show just to get political leverage. Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Well of course Trump is defending him, he's a good guy, as virtually all of the women who know him will attest to except for the far left professor.

Oh my...

The Kavanaugh Smear Job Is Falling Apart and the Senate Owes Him an Apology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s57uPpgFNWA

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

A better investigation would be into how his chronic credit card debts suddenly vanished. Someone payed them off, and it certainly wasn't him. He has displayed a pattern of dishonesty. Those who support Trump might be willing to overlook this - such is his hallmark, after all. But this is no politician: once confirmed, he'll be ensconced for life. Considering the multiple questions raised, what is the rush?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Laguna... Give it up, man, Kavanaugh is a good guy and will be an excellent SCOTUS judge.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Oh my..

Tucker: Democrats don't care about Christine Ford

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

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I thinks it's disgusting the way the democrats are trying to air Kavanaugh out, especially since they've turned their backs on and won't even listen to Keith Ellison's former girlfriend who says he beat her. I thought the democrats really cared about women and victims of violent crimes.

Don't pretend hypocrisy doesn't exist on both sides. Many Republicans supported Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Roy Moore, Rob Porter, etc. to the very end, and still support Donald Trump despite accusations from multiple women.

I guess it's all a big show just to get political leverage. Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy!

Again, it's political on both sides. There's absolutely no reason to rush through the appointment of a potential attempted-rapist if the Republicans weren't worried about the November elections.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Democrats don't even want a serious investigation into allegations against Kavanaugh; they just want Kavanaugh blocked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2JUDhxPJTA

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

So, why would Prof. Ford lie?

She has everything to lose and nothing to gain by lying. Her life and that of her husband and children is a living hell. On top of that, she and her family are in hiding now due to death threats from Kavanaugh supporters.

Again, why would she lie?

Maybe it's because she's telling the truth, and she's buried it all of these years out of a sense of shame. Then, one day, many years later, she wakes up to the morning news to see her attacker on TV being considered for the Supreme Court and the thought of this made her want to throw up.

Why would Kavanaugh lie?

He has everything to gain and everything to lose in terms of his reputation. Still, he has more to gain and profit from by lying than Ms. Ford does, for she gains nothing even if she is believed and he isn't confirmed.

Kavanaugh really should demand Trump to bring in the FBI if he truly has nothing to hide and wants to protect his own reputation.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Democrats don't even want a serious investigation into allegations against Kavanaugh; they just want Kavanaugh blocked.

Can you blame them? Republicans blocked Merrick Garland with no allegations or valid reasoning at all. Hypocrisy?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The Kavanaugh Smear Job Is Falling Apart and the Senate Owes Him an Apology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s57uPpgFNWA

Kavanaugh has already committed perjury. He had large sums of debt mysteriously paid off. He has been accused of attempted assault.

The committee that wants his accuser to testify refused to allow all of Kavanaugh's coworkers who wanted to testify against him. The same friend in the room with Kavanaugh at the time of the incident refuses to testify. There were only three people in the room. That same friend wrote a book about alcohol, drug abuse and chasing girls when he was in high school with his friends. Kavanaugh is one of his friends.

Yes, 65 women sent a letter supporting Kavanaugh in high school, but after Ford went public with her allegations, hundreds of women who went to her high school ― including actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus ― signed a letter supporting her.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unconfirmed accusations should not be allowed to damn one of the most qualified candidates nominated to the High Court in years. Nor should they give the media license to destroy his reputation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Andk0ww7MCw

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unconfirmed accusations should not be allowed to damn one of the most qualified candidates nominated to the High Court in years. Nor should they give the media license to destroy his reputation.

Since you like videos instead of reading.

SIX MORE Witnesses Willing to Speak Out About Brett Kavanaugh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnkn-nVg3Y

Karma Hits Hard – Merrick Garland Tasked With Investigating Brett Kavanaugh’s Possible Perjury

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IYzbHW6ux8

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Serrano

Law professor: Kavanaugh would threaten the 'ability to make fundamental personal decisions'

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

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I give up.

The level of entrenched hatred and irreconcilable partisanship is beyond reproach.

I asked you to justify your position based on your stated opinions: that's not hatred or irreconcilable partisanship.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I asked you to justify your position based on your stated opinions: that's not hatred or irreconcilable partisanship.

Yeah, they don't like logic. It is like their kryptonite.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Serrano - Preponderance of evidence. The man is dishonest.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Keith Ellison. Recently. Libs don’t care at ALL.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Yeah people who graduated 30 years later and never met her say she is truthful. And a. Actress!!! Oh my god changes my whole perspective on this case now. Someone who makes a living by saying words on a screen that other people write tells me to believe it. I’m sold!

hundreds of women who went to her high school ― including actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus ― signed a letter supporting her.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

bass4funk: "There is no way you can prove or disprove that, but the only person that was there that remembers something was Kavanaugh’s friend."

Actually, the GOP know full well Kavanaugh's guilty, which is why Grassely and others are now switching to damage control mode, pulling out the old GOP-rape-defender standards: "It was just horseplay," and, "It doesn't matter. It was a long time ago," , "the woman is confused", and others. It's quite telling you guys will take sex-offender's word a million times over over a woman who reported it, sought therapy (and can prove it), has a witness, and then DID try to report it earlier but the GOP was going to throw it out because it was anonymous. And now you guys are saying, "Hey! We don't need the FBI investigating the sexual assault of a Supreme Court Nominee (they should be busy looking for anonymous op-ed writers!), at least not before the trial -- the investigation should come AFTER the hearing!"

You guys really are pieces of work. You defend pedophiles like Moore, sexual assaulters like Trump, and now this guy, another assaulter, by dismissing it casually and even blaming the victim.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Blacklabel: "Yeah people who graduated 30 years later and never met her say she is truthful. And a. Actress!!! Oh my god changes my whole perspective on this case now."

As opposed to the made-up sixty-some women who Grassely claimed speak on Kavanaugh's behalf but could not be found anywhere for comment or flat-out refused to speak to the media after Grassely's claims? Hahaha. And yes, belittling an actress' career... quite classy, Blacklabel. She simply can't be reliable unless she's a guy like Trump and officially, and on record, lies up to 5000 in just over a year.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I give up.

The level of entrenched hatred and irreconcilable partisanship is beyond reproach.

Reason and decency seem to have no meaning nor effect and the vast majority of posters simply fall into the predictable left-right paradigm, regardless of the morality of their statements.

Burning Bush - what a change of outlook from you - the pot really is calling the kettle black today.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Well of course Trump is defending him, he's a good guy, as virtually all of the women who know him will attest to except for the far left professor.

I guess it is all the women that he didn't attack, Serrano.

65 women to defend him is a remarkably high number. How many really knew him? Most of those have got to be acquaintes with only partial memories of the man after 36 years.

If a key bit if your defence of character is based on people who slightly knew him in the 1980s, it is not very strong.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Ah_soToday 03:45 pm JST

65 women to defend him is a remarkably high number.

And they all rallied to his defence in a remarkably short amount of time. One might almost think someone had been well prepared for such a contingency.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Keith Ellison. Recently. Libs don’t care at ALL.

His and his ex-wife's story is still unfolding, as is Kavanaugh's. You got to admit a lifetime post to the highest court tops a state attorney general candidate in coverage priority though, especially when you consider that voters will get to judge Ellison directly.

Also Donald Trump. Recently. Conservatives REALLY don't care at ALL.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

These days you just don't know who may have engaged in questionable activity 20-30-40 years ago.  These are the two in my option that are the most egregious.  One may have assaulted 60, the other 18 (and who knows how many more as he bragged about on the Access Hollywood tape).  

One is soon to be sentenced, the other deserves to be...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/04/27/bill-cosby-full-list-accusers/555144002/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-trumps-accusers-allegations-sexual-misconduct/story?id=51956410

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Brett Kavanaugh Liked Female Clerks Who Looked A ‘Certain Way,' Yale Student Was Told

https://www.yahoo.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-liked-female-clerks-022423739.html

Even the infamous "Tiger Mom" Mrs. Chua knows the deal about Kavanaugh.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So why is the actress who played a role on a TV show relevant to this and automatically trustworthy? Does she even know the accuser personally? Or was just educated in the same building at some point in her life?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

How little you know or care about Keith Ellison is that you don’t even know that his ex-wife wants his congressional seat. so she issued 2 statements of support for him. Support for him beating up his ex girlfriend.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

I have had a look at the letter. It does not seemed to be signed by any of those whose names are beneath it. I appreciate that this might be difficult to arrange logistically in such a short time frame.

Also, it is not clear whether the women are writing in their maiden names or married names so it would make identifying most of them quite tricky. I presume most are using married names, so who knows who they are.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@Chip Star

Obama did visit Louisiana in 2016.

Yeah, the Texas Aggie moderator persona is incorrect again.

President Trump is such American great leader. Folks in Louisiana are still waiting for The Left's "Man of the People" to stop by and offer aid and comfort after floods ravaged their state in 2016.

Here’s why President Obama isn’t stopping his vacation to visit the Louisiana flooding

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=fllod+victims+and+president+obama&d=5021127770047317&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=tpEPpfnvlgXrWCYB92AD2ecDJjeFwA9-

No fake photo opportunities like the Dump family and rolls of paper towels!

quote:

Obama just doesn't like to fake it. If he doesn't want to do something or thinks it's stupid to do it — regardless of whether it actually is stupid — he won't do it. 

Here are what others have said at about Pres. Obama keeping it real. Unlike the cheese doodle in office now, Pres. Obama is a decent human being.

Ex-Obama Secret Service Agent Reveals What Barack Was Like When The Cameras Weren’t On Him

https://braincharm.com/2018/06/19/ex-obama-secret-service-agent-reveals-what-barack-was-like-when-the-cameras-werent-on-him/

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Kavanaugh Smear Job Is Falling Apart and the Senate Owes Him an Apology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s57uPpgFNWA

HAHA! Instead of videos of geeky Death Metal fans talking about politics, I am going to start posting my favorite cat videos as evidence. It has the same level of credibility. The guy in the video has no credibility.

Seriously:

Kavanaugh has already committed perjury. He had large sums of debt mysteriously paid off. He has been accused of attempted assault. 

The committee that wants his accuser to testify refused to allow all of Kavanaugh's coworkers who wanted to testify against him. The same friend in the room with Kavanaugh at the time of the incident refuses to testify. There were only three people in the room. That same friend wrote a book about alcohol, drug abuse and chasing girls when he was in high school with his friends. Kavanaugh is one of his friends.

Yes, 65 women sent a letter supporting Kavanaugh in high school, but after Ford went public with her allegations, hundreds of women who went to her high school ― including actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus ― signed a letter supporting her.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

"If a key bit if your defence of character is based on people who slightly knew him in the 1980s, it is not very strong."

If you can't come up with key bits of information like what year or what place the attack that you're alleging occurred, it's not very strong.

The Kavanaugh Smear Job Is Falling Apart and the Senate Owes Him an Apology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s57uPpgFNWA

"HAHA! Instead of videos of geeky Death Metal fans talking about politics, I am going to start posting my favorite cat videos as evidence. It has the same level of credibility. The guy in the video has no credibility."

5,463 people disagree as opposed to 58. And the dude has 284,000 subscribers. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to politics.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

How little you know or care about Keith Ellison is that you don’t even know that his ex-wife wants his congressional seat. so she issued 2 statements of support for him. Support for him beating up his ex girlfriend.

My mistake. I admit I didn't know about it until you told me, but I'll keep up with it from now. If it's true, he's lost my support, but then again, I don't vote in Minnesota.

You still haven't explained your support of Kavanaugh and Trump. Their accusers (a dozen in Trump's case) are just liars but we should worry about Ellison?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

5,463 people disagree as opposed to 58. And the dude has 284,000 subscribers. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to politics.

LOL! HAHAHAHA!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

PTownsendToday  10:39 am JST

So you righties are ok with the new GROPUS?

That seems to be the case.

Trump’s followers and other extreme rightists in the US and ‘abroad’ have bought into Trump’s immoral and unethical idiot-ology. One part of Trump’s base is made up of frustrated males who blame their various inadequacies (shortcomings?) on those who’ve had fewer opportunities and alternatives than them. They seem to think a level playing field should be one where women and non-WASP males are lower than them, just like the playing fields their ancestors had in the wayback.

Vote up +1

Remember, these are people who think ‘progress’ is a dirty word.

No, sorry PT, the word 'progress' has far too many letters in it for these people to understand, let alone categorise as a dirty word; because everyone knows they only have four letters.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Until then this is a non issue. Let's move on.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Actually, the GOP know full well Kavanaugh's guilty,

Now how would they know that? Let me guess, they all hung out with him back in the early 80’s and have been sitting on the information since then, of course with the help of the Illuminati, now it makes perfect sense.

which is why Grassely and others are now switching to damage control mode,

Or maybe they didn’t want another Clarence Thomas vs Anita Hill stand-off smear campaign like last time. By the way, where is this woman? Kavanaugh wants to testify and No one seems to know where this woman is....

pulling out the old GOP-rape-defender standards: "It was just horseplay," and, "It doesn't matter. It was a long time ago," ,

So then you DO agree with me then that Keith Ellison should be equally looked at and we should re-open the case for Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick as well, that’s what you are saying. You want the truth, so do I, so let’s go back and not jus selectively choose a sexual or harassment complaint, let’s get it all out.

"the woman is confused", and others. It's quite telling you guys will take sex-offender's word a million times over over a woman who reported it,

Ellison‘s girlfriend reported verbal and sexual abuse, so why aren’t the Democrats checking on her complaints or doing an ethics prob.

sought therapy (and can prove it), has a witness, and then DID try to report it earlier but the GOP was going to throw it out because it was anonymous.

i'm sorry but anybody can go to therapy and claim anything for any reason whatsoever, that does not mean anything, and once again how are you going to prove or disapprove it? The answer is you can't, there is no way you can do that, the only thing you can do is it will be eight he said or she said and that's it .

And now you guys are saying, "Hey! We don't need the FBI investigating the sexual assault of a Supreme Court Nominee (they should be busy looking for anonymous op-ed writers!), at least not before the trial -- the investigation should come AFTER the hearing!"

The FBI will do the background checks that's all they can do they will submit according to what recommendation should be done, but they will not do a criminal investigation that's not their job to do that. look, I know you're on the side of this woman, well, I'm on the side of Kavanaugh, I Think the man has a long track record of honesty and integrity even among Democrats compared to this woman, now I am not calling this woman a liar, but as it stands right now and given the circumstances, her credibility has come into serious question! she makes an accusation and then doesn't back it up? Who does that? That is so cowardly, I understand she is a Democrat and a staunch Hillary supporter, I can see what's going on, but if this allegation happened indeed, then she should stand up and back it up, she can't do that, then she owes Kavanaugh and hos family an apology.

You guys really are pieces of work. You defend pedophiles like Moore, sexual assaulters like Trump, and now this guy, another assaulter, by dismissing it casually and even blaming the victim.

No one defended Moore, at least not in the way that liberals stink, the man should have been able to prove his accusations and what kind of country do we live in if we can just point to someone and say they are guilty of something without any shred of evidence that is just insane! Somebody could say I did something without any proof whatsoever and just because I'm a man and a big guy people think it's true just on that reason alone! So how can I prove that I'm not guilty? Liberals are beyond gone now.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Until then this is a non issue. Let's move on.

It's nearly impossible to prove in a court of law. There's still a good 50/50 chance he's guilty. This is the Supreme Court for Christ's sake. Are you telling me the Republicans have nobody better?

Let's move on.

Some concerned citizen you are.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

My mistake. I admit I didn't know about it until you told me, but I'll keep up with it from now. If it's true, he's lost my support, but then again, I don't vote in Minnesota.

I can respect that.

You still haven't explained your support of Kavanaugh and Trump.

Do a lot of things that I don’t like about this, I don’t like the timing that Feinstein set on this information for over 45 days and did nothing, I don’t like it that this woman has a history of activism and is a far left supporter of Hillary Clinton, that since bells in my head. I don’t like it that the Republicans are trying everything they can to make sure this woman can testify and give her the respect that she is due And she decides to decline...gee, wonder why.....

Their accusers (a dozen in Trump's case) are just liars but we should worry about Ellison?

Yes, we should because it’s the Democrats that say, we should always not make light of any woman That comes forward and makes an accusation of physical, verbal or sexual salt, and now here is one case with a Democrat politician that is about to take the office of governor, so if the Democrats are serious like they say they are, they should immediately Start looking into and investigate Mr. Ellison. Again, are the Democrats going to be serious and want to investigate all alleged accusations or do they want to be selective and only go after the ones that could give them the most trouble politically down the road?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It's nearly impossible to prove in a court of law. There's still a good 50/50 chance he's guilty.

And there’s a 70/30 chance she’s not being honest here.

This is the Supreme Court for Christ's sake. Are you telling me the Republicans have nobody better? 

Out of the 136...none that the Democrats would like and let’s face it, if Kavanaugh doesn’t make the cut, with the next nominee the Democrats will find something with that individual. Look, the democrats have already made it clear they don’t want any constitutionalist conservative on the court, that’s it and that’s all and we don’t need to debate this any further and they said they will never vote on any nominee the president puts forward, so we don’t need to play this stupid game as Chuck Grassley said if she doesn’t report in by tomorrow the vote goes forward.

Some concerned citizen you are.

We are, that’s why it’s enough dancing around with these Democrats. Starting to get boring and tedious.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Mr. Bum:

I am concerned enough to speak up for Judge Kavanaugh's right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty. And would do the same for you or anyone else. 

I'm concerned enough to want to avoid seeing a Supreme Court position possibly be decided and a person's reputation shredded based on an accusation without due process. 

Also, if an otherwise qualified SCOTUS nominee can be derailed purely on an unproven accusation then neither side may ever be able to get a nomination passed because both sides can do it. 

I would say this to any political side. Prove the accusation in court. Until then it's a waste of time. 

Our persronal politics and opinions aside that seems the only lawful conclusion. Don't you agree Mr. Bum?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Do a lot of things that I don’t like about this, I don’t like the timing that Feinstein set on this information for over 45 days and did nothing,

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some delaying strategy involved. So what? Merrick Garland.

I don’t like it that this woman has a history of activism and is a far left supporter of Hillary Clinton, that since bells in my head.

She's a Democratic voter. So what? BTW as a far leftie, Hillary Clinton is not far left.

I don’t like it that the Republicans are trying everything they can to make sure this woman can testify and give her the respect that she is due And she decides to decline...gee, wonder why.....

Everything except push for an FBI investigation. I wonder why? She wants FBI involvement because it'll make it harder for Republicans to sweep under the rug like they're trying now. Regardless, the FBI is declining (what happened to the deep state?), and I get the feeling she'll testify without them.

if the Democrats are serious like they say they are, they should immediately Start looking into and investigate Mr. Ellison.

I agree, and there's really no indication that they aren't. You understand why a Supreme Court appointment gets more attention though, right?

And there’s a 70/30 chance she’s not being honest here.

That's your opinion, and my opinion is it makes much less sense for her to be lying. Hence, the 50/50.

Out of the 136...none that the Democrats would like and let’s face it, if Kavanaugh doesn’t make the cut, with the next nominee the Democrats will find something with that individual.

I'm sure they will. So what? Merrick Garland. And Gorsuch got through, so there's that.

so we don’t need to play this stupid game as Chuck Grassley said if she doesn’t report in by tomorrow the vote goes forward.

Republicans have a political motive to rush the confirmation, Democrats have a political motive to delay it. But let's remember it's the Republicans that are rushing to confirm a potential attempted-rapist onto the Supreme Court.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

You know, I think I need to change my opinion on this. Roy Moore has called on us to take a stand and support Kavanaugh. And if there's one person I trust to take a long, serious look at rich white men sexually assaulting underage girls, it's Roy Moore.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I'm concerned enough to want to avoid seeing a Supreme Court position possibly be decided and a person's reputation shredded based on an accusation without due process.

So a victim who lets the statute of limitations run out doesn't at least get to call out his/her abuser? You think a potentially guilty person should become a Supreme Court judge because his crime can't be proven anymore?

Our persronal politics and opinions aside that seems the only lawful conclusion. Don't you agree Mr. Bum?

No, I don't agree. If there's even a chance he's guilty, how is choosing him to be on the highest court of law in the country lawful??? It's well within Trump's power to make another pick. Don't give me some crap about Democrats constructing some accusation about the next nominee. If it was so easy to find credible accusers it would be happening more often. It would've happened with Gorsuch, for instance.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some delaying strategy involved. So what? Merrick Garland.

Garland again? Sigh, the GOP didn’t want to take a chance on putting another Roberts on the SC, look how that turned out, they won’t make that mistake again, that’s why they wanted a solid conservative with a conservative track record and choose not to go with Garland and I don’t blame them.

She's a Democratic voter. So what?

And a Hillary supporter, so what? Wait, she sends a letter back in June that she wants the Trump administration to reunite all the kids and their families, this also means this woman is very anti-trump and was very pro Hillary, so if you put the pieces of the puzzle together it’s not too hard to think....jus sayin’

Everything except push for an FBI investigation. I wonder why? She wants FBI involvement because it'll make it harder for Republicans to sweep under the rug like they're trying now. Regardless, the FBI is declining (what happened to the deep state?), and I get the feeling she'll testify without them.

Ok, so what are they going to be looking for? And where should they look? What witnesses will they ask? The time the place and location? She can’t even recall the time and place, so we’re supposed to take her word for it just because she says so? And again it’s not how the FBI works if the White House wants it they can do a background check on the candidate but that’s it, they can’t do a formal come not investigation, that’s not how it works. Twice the FBI declined to pursue this case, it’s a political case and NOT a criminal case.

I agree, and there's really no indication that they aren't. You understand why a Supreme Court appointment gets more attention though, right?

They haven’t started yet the allegations came out about two months ago, so I don’t see any urgency on their part to pursue this, which is a separate issue and they could do it but they are not, it’s not about the supreme court or the governorship, it’s about right and wrong and selective outrage. The left are going crazy because of what this woman has said about the supreme court nominee all the Democrats don’t want on the bench, but at the same time we have a woman that is claiming to have been verbally, physically and sexually abused by her ex-boyfriend who is a top ranking Democrat in Washington and in Minnesota and her allegations get no airplay whatsoever. The Dems said, they want to launch an ethics probe and so far that hasn’t happened? The Dems can’t spin it and they know it, we all they they are full of crap, if they were really serious, they would go after Ellison and if they did that, I would admit they are at least consistent, but as of now, they are playing petty sneaky politics in the worst possible way. They already tipped their hand when they said they would never vote for ANY conservative the President appoints to the bench, well, there you go.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That's your opinion, and my opinion is it makes much less sense for her to be lying. Hence, the 50/50.

As I have my opinion which it think makes it 70/30 she’s making it up

I'm sure they will. So what? Merrick Garland. And Gorsuch got through, so there's that.

Garland will not sit on the bench, we don’t need to rehash it.

Republicans have a political motive to rush the confirmation,

Democrats have a political motive to delay it as we are witnessing right now.

But let's remember it's the Republicans that are rushing to confirm a potential attempted-rapist onto the Supreme Court.

Hardly, if he were anything close to that he wouldn’t even be sitting on the second highest court in the country, that’s impossible, especially now how the left think the FBI are sooooo thorough, so which is it, the FBI can be trusted and are deeply thorough or are they just a bunch of keystone cops that after 6 extensive deep background checks and vetting they might have overlooked an alleged crime that could have happened?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline - Headline

Dianne Feinstein on Kavanaugh accuser: " I can't say that everything is truthful". Ergo, no chance the accuser will appear before the senate committee.

There is zero chance that Kavanaugh's guilty - he passed six Federal background checks to get to where he is at the highest levels of his profession. 

Clearly this is a last ditch character assassination ploy by the desperate, hapless far-left politicians, far beneath the demeanor of respectable statesmen without regard for the candidate's reputation and his family.  

Unwittingly, the Democrats just paved the way for the next Supreme Court Associate Justice after Brett Kavanaugh: Amy Coney Barrett

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Garland again?

Yep. You don't get to do that, and not get called out for it until the end of all time.

Sigh, the GOP didn’t want to take a chance on putting another Roberts on the SC

Who cares what the reason was. The point was, you guys went nuclear, and now are whining when the left plays your game against you.

Poor little GOP, not liking playing by your own rules. Poor poor GOP.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yep. You don't get to do that, and not get called out for it until the end of all time.

But they did it and crying about it won’t change it. But go ahead beat that drum, no one is listening.

Who cares what the reason was. The point was, you guys went nuclear,

Which was the Harry Reid invention, I would like to thank him personally.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If Ford is lying, then why is she pleading for an FBI investigation into the matter and he isn't?

Because they both know full well the FBI isn't going to investigate this. Any call for an FBI investigation by either one is just grandstanding, which is maybe why he hasn't done it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mr Bum:

 If there's even a chance he's guilty, how is choosing him to be on the highest court of law in the country lawful???

It seems that by your reasoning in this case you yourself would accept being rejected for a highly sought of position merely upon an accusation without trial. Your prospective employer rejecting you 'even on a chance you are guilty' as you put it.

Is that OK with you Mr. Bum?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Your prospective employer rejecting you 'even on a chance you are guilty' as you put it. Is that OK with you Mr. Bum?

This isn't just any job, it's the Supreme Court, so it's one man or the country. It's subjecting one innocent man to the injustice of not getting a job vs. subjecting the country to a lifetime of SCOTUS decisions made by a man who refused to admit to attempted rape...

Of course I'm OK with dumping Kavanaugh. His image would be damaged, but he probably wouldn't loose his entire career, because he wouldn't be proven guilty in a court of law. And the rest of us would get a justice we don't have to wonder about.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mr Bum:

The position in question does in no way negate Judge Kavanaugh's human rights.

I'm sorry to hear of your position and hope you suffer negative consequences due to an unproven allegation.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Correction to last post:

Mr Bum:

The position in question does in no way negate Judge Kavanaugh's human rights.

I'm sorry to hear of your position and hope you NEVER suffer negative consequences due to an unproven allegation.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The position in question does in no way negate Judge Kavanaugh's human rights.

What human rights? His right is to have his guilt or innocence proven in a court of law? That's not possible.

The duty of the Senate is to confirm a justice with impeccable character for the American people. Questions about a justice's attempted rape are not good for the American people. If Kavanaugh is innocent and had any decency, he'd decline the nomination while continuing to claim his innocence. His getting a job is not more important than the country.

I'm sorry to hear of your position and hope you suffer negative consequences due to an unproven allegation.

Gee, same to you buddy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Concerned Citizen:

Thanks for the correction.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Mr Bum:

I'm glad I noticed my mistake. You must have felt terrible for a few moments there.

Anyway. It's been an interesting exchange of opinions.

All the best to you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It’s just too risky confirming an alleged rapist to the Supreme Court without a full investigation. There are women on the Supreme Court and we need to make sure we aren’t putting them in danger with this man.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

*It’s just too risky confirming an alleged rapist to the Supreme Court without a full investigation. There are women on the Supreme Court and we need to make sure we aren’t putting them in danger with this man*

SuperLib - I really think that you are clutching at straws with this argument. The idea that the women on the Supreme Court would be in danger is laughable. A lot of women both young and old would have been exposed to Kavaunagh over the course of his career, most of them with far less power than him. By now he would have a Weinstein-like reputation as a serial abuser - others would be appearing to announce the abuse. Even if he does have such a reputation, i think that the elderly women on the court are probably protected by their age and status.

Also, he is not an alleged rapist - the crime claimed is for a lesser sexual offence.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

There is nothing that can be investigated thanks to the accuser waiting 36 years then refusing to testify.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

So all that's left is for you guys to appoint the new GROPUS.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There's plenty of time to investigate and then confirm. I'm not sure why the GOP doesn't do that.

Unless they want to keep something hidden.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"So, why would Prof. Ford lie?"

Because the Democrats want her to, in their disgusting, pathetic attempts to deny Trump his excellent SCOTUS choice.

"Why would Kavanaugh lie?"

Most likely he's just defending himself against an outrageous accusation.

"So all that's left is for you guys to appoint the new GROPUS."

Can you prove that he groped her? No?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

And let's not forget that the FBI is run by corrupt Republicans. Can we really trust the background checks?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Can you blame them? Republicans blocked Merrick Garland with no allegations or valid reasoning at all. Hypocrisy?

Thanks for admitting the democrats are full of crap and are just out for revenge, not the best interests of the people.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The only reason not to run this through the FBI for a few days is if you don't want to hear the answers.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Well first we would have to vet the investigators. I don't want anyone who donated to the GOP because then we can conclude that their political bias would create a corrupt process.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

subjecting the country to a lifetime of SCOTUS decisions made by a man who refused to admit to attempted rape...

Again, you cannot unequivocally say for certain that a rape occurred or was attempted or do all liberal have some sort of Mutant powers that can undeniably determine a persons guilt or innocence? Come on! Lol

Of course I'm OK with dumping Kavanaugh. His image would be damaged, but he probably wouldn't loose his entire career,

Yeah, he probably would and at the very least his reputation because of one disgruntled Democrat activist.

because he wouldn't be proven guilty in a court of law. And the rest of us would get a justice we don't have to wonder about.

Sigh....sometimes.....amazing....

Well first we would have to vet the investigators. I don't want anyone who donated to the GOP because then we can conclude that their political bias would create a corrupt process.

If they donated to the Democrats it’s ok? They’re not corrupt right? ROFL!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The only reason not to run this through the FBI for a few days is if you don't want to hear the answers.

I agree, Democrats would get their wittle hearts broken yet again.

And let's not forget that the FBI is run by corrupt Republicans. Can we really trust the background checks

But you want the same corrupt FBI to investigate Kavanaugh and this so called alleged crime, if it happened at all. So how can we trust the FBI to be fair and impartial? So since you agree with me and since they really can’t investigate, we will try to coheres them to do it. So which is it? Since they don’t want to touch this with a 10 ft pole that means they’re corrupt as well, right?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

SuperLib: Well first we would have to vet the investigators. I don't want anyone who donated to the GOP because then we can conclude that their political bias would create a corrupt process.

And not a peep from you about the prosecutors on Muellers team who donated to Trumps opponent and in some cases worked for her. I see how this works - do what I say not what I do.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

What she was doing with two drunk 17 years old boy in the room? However, she told her therapist four boys were involved in 2012 and she didn't name Brett Kavanaugh as her attacker.

Why she did not report to the Police or School authority that incident?

Why did she come forward at last minutes just before Brett Kavanaugh was about to approve his nomination of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States?

I do not believe Christine Blasey Ford's story. Christine Blasey Ford will lie even under the oath because she is a liar and attention seeker. Her intention was to drop Brett Kavanaugh nomination for the Supreme Court.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

So, what do we have here?

On one hand, we have a fuzzy "repressed memory" accusation from 36 years ago, where the accuser can't recall pertinent facts (like the time and place of the supposed assault) of the incident, refuses to appear before the Senate (as of this morning) in any way without their jumping through the hoops she specifies, and who initially planned to remain anonymous, which would deny Judge Kavanaugh his Constitutional right to face his accuser.

On the other hand, we have a 30+ year record of exemplary service to the United States, with Judge Kavanaugh mentoring his juniors, male and female; over 300 rulings, 12 of which later were upheld by the Supreme Court; and a track record of being an upstanding husband, father, and member of his community. He also has multiple character witnesses that he has interacted with on a daily basis over those 30+ years that attest to his upright character. Even the person whom the accuser cites as a possible witness (judging from the initials she used in her statement) attests to Judge Kavanaugh's good character, stating flatly that nothing of the sort happened to the best of his knowledge and that he doesn't even know and has has never met the accuser. I know which I would choose.

As for the accusation: This would be a local matter, not a Federal or state matter. The FBI would not investigate it as a criminal matter--it is out of their jurisdiction. The state in which it allegedly occurred would probably not investigate it, deferring to the local prosecutors. As for them--they can't touch it as the statute of limitations has run out for that type of offense. Therefore, to borrow a phrase from a famous former President, "there's no there there."

Maybe over there in Japan you don't know how the political game is played here in the US. This is an old scheme from the Democrat playbook--a last minute ploy to besmirch the character of a target they couldn't stop by any other means. This is designed to delay the confirmation proceedings and hopefully drive Judge Kavanaugh out of the Supreme Court seat. They have even threatened that, if Kavanaugh isn't confirmed or removes his name from consideration, to keep the seat open until the next Presidential election--two years from now! What more do you need to know to realize that this is all political street theater?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Simon Foston- And they all rallied to his defence in a remarkably short amount of time. One might almost think someone had been well prepared for such a contingency.

Of course they were prepared. Both sides have been prepared. The Democrats have made it clear that they intend to "resist" everything the Republicans do. At this point in time, all Republicans/conservatives/independents/Democrats know that Democrats will grasp at any straw to delay any nomination made by any Republican President who beat Hillary.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SuperLib - Well first we would have to vet the investigators.

Go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. FYI, it's not clear to whom you are referring to when you use the term "we". Would that be you, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page? Who else?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

On the other hand, we have a 30+ year record of exemplary service to the United States

Sounds like Rosenstein's, Mueller's, and Comey's resume. But as those people have shown, sometimes good people just flip and do horrible things because they don't like someone.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The only real way to be sure is to have the FBI investigate, then have an investigation into the investigation with Democratic oversight including access to classified files and the ability to release selected parts of it to keep Americans informed.

The good news is that if any Democrat says nothing happened with Ford and Kavanaugh then we will know he has been compromised by Republican agents.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The only real way to be sure is to have the FBI investigate, then have an investigation into the investigation with Democratic oversight including access to classified files and the ability to release selected parts of it to keep Americans informed.

I wouldn’t trust the Democrats with a $1 bill, but I do admit you say some funny things at times.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You still haven't explained your support of Kavanaugh and Trump. Their accusers (a dozen in Trump's case) are just liars but we should worry about Ellison?

Typical tactic of leftists: conflate separate issues in order to deflect. "Trump and Kavanaugh"... "Thier accusers..." Trump is not under scrutiny for sexual misconduct at the moment; he's already won the presidency. Kavanaugh is under scrutiny. And yes, attorney general is just as important--if you're not a big-government believing socialist--if you believe in states' autonomy. But a great try to dodge the blatant hypocrisy of the democrats by dismissing the whole Keith Ellison issue.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Thanks for admitting the democrats are full of crap and are just out for revenge, not the best interests of the people.

Just following the GOP strategy book on this one.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

But you want the same corrupt FBI to investigate Kavanaugh and this so called alleged crime, if it happened at all. So how can we trust the FBI to be fair and impartial? So since you agree with me and since they really can’t investigate, we will try to coheres them to do it. So which is it? Since they don’t want to touch this with a 10 ft pole that means they’re corrupt as well, right?

Exactly. You guys destroyed the confidence in the investigative branch of the US. Now nothing can be properly investigated. So we just have to assume that Kavanaugh is a groper, and not put him up accordingly.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Just following the GOP strategy book on this one.

Another admission that the democrats are full of bs and are just out for revenge instead of what's best for the country.

Considering the left call the gop nazis, racists, and fascists, it seems logical. The left are just living up to their aspirations.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Another admission that the democrats are full of bs and are just out for revenge instead of what's best for the country.

Well, both teams. Have no not noticed your country has become hyper-partisan? Are you really expecting that only one team will play dirty and the other won't go there? I think maybe your coach needs to explain the rules of the game to you.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Thanks for admitting the democrats are full of crap and are just out for revenge, not the best interests of the people.

I didn't admit democrats are full of crap, I admitted they have a reason to fight back for a spot on the bench that the GOP robbed from them. Whatever their reasons, putting a left-leaning justice on the bench is in the best interests of the people, at the very least for their constituents.

Who is the GOP serving by rushing a potential attempted-rapist onto the bench? Republican voters? Or is it something to do with the fact that Kavanaugh believes a sitting president should be immune to investigations and indictment?

Typical tactic of leftists: conflate separate issues in order to deflect. "Trump and Kavanaugh"... "Thier accusers..."

My comment was in response to a typical right-wing attempt to deflect. I didn't bring up Ellison in an article about Kavanaugh, YOU did. Hypocrisy?

Trump is not under scrutiny for sexual misconduct at the moment

He should be along with Ellison, because none of the president's misconduct was settled. These cases become harder to pursue once the accused enters office, more so when the office is higher. Which is exactly why it's important to settle this before Kavanaugh is confirmed.

And yes, attorney general is just as important--if you're not a big-government believing socialist--if you believe in states' autonomy.

We should be looking at misconduct cases at every level. But you're being dishonest if you say that SCOTUS and POTUS aren't at the top of the list for places you don't want a sexual abuser/harasser.

But a great try to dodge the blatant hypocrisy of the democrats by dismissing the whole Keith Ellison issue.

I don't live in Minnesota, so I've only followed this story recently. It seems to have only come out fairly recently too. There's time for it to be thoroughly investigated, and I hope it is. I certainly wouldn't vote for him if the allegations seemed true.

But your talk of hypocrisy? You don't even know the meaning of the word.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

From a prof at U. Alabama writing in the NYT "...an impeachment investigation could also encompass allegations that Mr. Kavanaugh has committed perjury before the Senate, twice, related to his work on the nomination of District Judge Charles Pickering to be a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Under oath, both in 2006 and in 2018, he said he had no involvement with the White House strategy sessions associated with Judge Pickering’s nominations. Subsequently released emails, involving these sessions, suggest that these answers were at best misleading and at worst totally false. Attending a strategy session as a White House staffer is not a crime. Lying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on the other hand, is. Perjury would be a perfectly justifiable, and constitutional, basis for impeachment."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland - Exactly. You guys destroyed the confidence in the investigative branch of the US. Now nothing can be properly investigated. So we just have to assume that Kavanaugh is a groper, and not put him up accordingly.

I think it's great that you can admit that you are one of those who automatically "assume" Kavanaugh is a grouper. That means that you know there is no actual evidence against Kavanaugh, that there is no forensic evidence against Kavanaugh. 

The Democrats in the U.S.A. have made it clear that they intend to reject/stall/delay everything the Republicans attempt to do. Unfortunately for them, Democrats in the U.S., did not have the votes to stop Kavanaugh's nomination, or to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation.

It's equally interesting that the usual foreign nationals are so concerned with party politics in a country other than their own.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

SuperLib - The only real way to be sure is to have the FBI investigate, then have an investigation into the investigation with Democratic oversight including access to classified files and the ability to release selected parts of it to keep Americans informed.

The good news is that if any Democrat says nothing happened with Ford and Kavanaugh then we will know he has been compromised by Republican agents.

The FBI doesn't have the authority to investigate underage drinking, or fantasy assaults. It the Democrats actually wanted an investigation, they would have filed the proper charges with the States Attorney's office.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If she was genuine she would just testify, but she hasn't because she knows lying under oath means a jail term and her job. Its just a typical left wing tactic attempting to delay the vote until after the midterms. The Democrats are hoping to win some seats, they extremely fearful that Donald Trump will get Conservative Supreme Court, a Conservative Congress and a Conservative White House.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

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