world

Trump says high court nominee 'on track,' as accuser offers to testify

77 Comments
By Lawrence Hurley and Steve Holland

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.

77 Comments
Login to comment

The witness who Ford claims entered the room and "saved" her just came forward with a sworn statement that the incident never happened as she said it did.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

The witness who Ford claims entered the room and "saved" her just came forward with a sworn statement that the incident never happened as she said it did.

Link please?

I won't hold my breath.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Okay, I'm old, but I do remember a time when a nominee with as many negatives as Kavanaugh would be thanked for his time and politely dismissed. It's not like the Federalist Society doesn't have a list of equally conservative judges to draw from. Having come so close to the SCOTUS and failing would suck for Kavanaugh, of course, but I'm sure Merrick Garland can help him cope with his disappointment.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

High Tech Lynching 2.0.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

"to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago,

Why does Kavanaugh have to add how long ago this "didn't" happen? Is he implying that even if it did happen, it's a long time ago and doesn't matter because he was just a rich prep school brat feeling his oats?

>

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Ok she has her opportunity to testify under oath next Monday. Oh, now there was another girl at the party who wasn’t previously mentioned.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Brett Kavanaugh should take the high road and say something like, "For the good of the country, I'm withdrawing my name for further consideration for U.S. Supreme Court Justice."

Kavanaugh doesn't appear to be interested in taking the high road and a delay might take place, but he'll eventually be confirmed just as Clarence Thomas was. Then the U.S. will have another Supreme Court justice on the highest court in the land who is believed to be a pervert by half or more of the country.

Not good for public confidence, and the reason why Kavanaugh should step down regardless of whether he's guilty or innocent.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

"on track" for a lengthy stay in gaol, if there's any justice.

High Tech Lynching 2.0.

Low-grade dog whistle.

It's hardly a surprise that victims don't come forward sooner, with the level of disbelief and male-based indignation they have to face.

A disgrace to US politics, endorsed by an even bigger disgrace.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Here we go again, I feel like I'm back in a 90s time warp. So many similarities between Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. I think this woman should be heard, but as I have said before I do question the ulterior motives, for one thing the Democrats said, they would do everything to make sure Kavanaugh is not confirmed, Feinstein waits and sits on this info since June, days before the hearing confirmation this news comes out...gee, how ironic.

Ok she has her opportunity to testify under oath next Monday. Oh, now there was another girl at the party who wasn’t previously mentioned.

Multiple women came out in support of Kavanaugh and women that knew him since high school, now the left and the media want to take the accuser seriously and dismiss the accused. What does that say about our society when we listen to one accusation, but not the other that has been accused of an alleged assault that took place 36 years ago. I do think we should hear from this woman. What I think is hilarious is that the lawyer representing this woman is Debbie Katz.....now where did I hear that name before....oh, she represented Bill Clinton in his sexual assaulted charges filed against him by Paula Jones and back then she said that Clinton exposing himself and gratifying himself is not a big thing essentially. Interesting how all these people that were players in the 90s for these Democrats, very interesting.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Yeah, testimonies from 65 of his female high school "friends" were available the day after the accusation was made public. It's almost like he expected this and had prepared, isn't it?

I oppose Kavanaugh for multiple reasons, none of which are disqualifying. Lying, however, is. He deserves his chance to clear his character, and maybe he can. But if he can't, he's toast. And he does have a lengthy record of lying under oath. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Yeah the accusers lawyer has all kind of public comments about how groping and such was kinda ok. Well when it was a Dem doing it anyway.

Kavanaugh just hired a lawyer who specializes in defamation. Uh oh.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

BlacklabelToday  09:46 am JST

Kavanaugh just hired a lawyer who specializes in defamation. Uh oh.

What, defaming anyone who accuses him? That would be the Republican way to go, wouldn't it.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

No, the accuser is defaming HIM with false accusations.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

The guy is anti women's rights, so it is highly likely he sees them as disposable sex objects.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Link please?

I won't hold my breath.

Go ahead and breathe.

His name is Mark Judge, his statement is widely available on global media.

Ford said that he entered the room and separated them, he testified that he was there and nothing inappropriate was happening.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Bush, Ford never claimed that Judge "saved" her or "entered the room and separated them": she claimed that he was there and was ALSO involved in the assault. When he jumped on Ford and Kavanaugh during the assault (in which she says he was encouraging Kavanaugh to assault her, laughing as he did so) he knocked all three of them down, which allowed her to escape.

This is the same Mark Judge who wrote "If that man is any kind of man, he’ll allow himself to feel the awesome power, the wonderful beauty, of uncontrollable male passion", "Oh for the days when President George W. Bush gave his wife Laura a loving but firm pat on the backside in public. The man knew who was boss" and “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.” Charming.

Since you declined to provide any links (possibly because the articles don't claim what you say they do), I will give some so that the discerning reader can rely on evidence, not hearsay (I know this is a foreign concept in some circles):

http://uk.businessinsider.com/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school-friend-christine-ford-2018-9

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/17/17870642/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-friend-christine-ford

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/09/17/what-the-man-accused-of-helping-kavanaugh-assault-a-woman-wrote-about-female-sexuality/?utm_term=.8071bf24749e

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I give Dems a lot of credit. This is the second time they are trying a last minute smear on a conservative high court nominee. It almost worked the first time - why not try again? They got nothing to lose and it motivates their radical base voters.

Republicans need to up their game and start doing these kind of last minute assertions of decades old crimes against Leftist nominees as well. They cannot be proven and the smear sticks with their media allies.

I think holding accusations until the last minute like Feinstein did in order to prevent a nominee from adequately defending themselves will become more and more prevalent in the future. It’s time that Republicans get in on the game. Politics isn’t bean bag - got to fight fire with fire the next time there is a Dem president. #Resist!

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

@sneezy

This is from RT so maybe the rightists here will believe it:

Ford claims that Kavanaugh forced himself on her at a high school party in the 1980s, pinning her to a bed and attempting to undress her. She said that Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth when she screamed, and only stopped when another teenager broke up the encounter.

https://www.rt.com/usa/438660-kavanaugh-sex-assault-accuser/

But then some posters justify behavior like Kavanaugh's because of the sick culture they're from.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, testimonies from 65 of his female high school "friends" were available the day after the accusation was made public. It's almost like he expected this and had prepared, isn't it?

Kavanaugh serves on the second highest court, the man not throug 6 FBI thorough background checks and they are THE most detailed checks on the planet, if there was anything of that kind of serious accusation in his background it would have been revealed long ago. And yes, the testimonies of 65 women outweigh the single one charge, now that doesn’t mean the accuser is liar, but the left cannot dismiss the testimonies of either one person or even 65 testimonies, that is, if they want to be fair. This whole thing smells fishy, even to people like Turley, Napolitano and Dershowitz this doesn’t smell the fish test.

I oppose Kavanaugh for multiple reasons, none of which are disqualifying. Lying, however, is.

How would she know that he lies? How would anyone know what happened between these two people 36 years ago there’s no way to prove through any of these alleged accusations.

He deserves his chance to clear his character, and maybe he can. But if he can't, he's toast. And he does have a lengthy record of lying under oath.

No, he doesn’t. What is wrong with the left. With the extensive background checks that he had and with everything the FBI has uncovered, this guy is cleaner than Mr. clean. It is virtually impossible to clear all the background checks that he has cleared then all of a sudden just out of the blue a few days before his confirmation hearing this just so happen air?

Come on, the left are completely out of control and extremely naive and incompetent if they think the people are stupid and can’t see what is going on.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

I give Dems a lot of credit. This is the second time they are trying a last minute smear on a conservative high court nominee. It almost worked the first time - why not try again? They got nothing to lose and it motivates their radical base voters.

For sure. They are fighting hard on this, and doing as well as they can for a party that literally has no power.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Republicans need to up their game and start doing these kind of last minute assertions of decades old crimes against Leftist nominees as well.

Well, the right went a step up by not even bothering to vet Obama's choice. That meant they didn't have to look at any potential crimes that could have happened.

The Democrats need to make sure to follow that tactic next time they are in a position to do so. No party shall ever be given a supreme court nomination ever again, if the other house holds the senate. The Republicans made that decision for us all.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

The Democrats need to make sure to follow that tactic next time they are in a position to do so. No party shall ever be given a supreme court nomination ever again, if the other house holds the senate. The Republicans made that decision for us all.

How stupid! The Republicans had every right to not proceed with the hearing of any nominee that Obama present it to them, a person that is not a true conservative that is something that the Republicans didn’t want constitutionally didn’t have to hold a hearing on. The dog Harry Reid was the architect of implementing the nuclear option, there you go, the Democrats made their bed and now they can’t stomach their own creation.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

This is the second time they are trying a last minute smear on a conservative high court nominee. 

Wolf, have you been paying attention to recent events? The only reason the Republicans did not do the same to Garland is they simply ignored the nomination completely. It is the (somewhat unlikely) possibility that Dems take over the senate in November and return the treatment that Repubs are panicking and trying to jam through the confirmation.

But at any rate, don't worry. If there's nothing to stick, than nothing will stick - but if there is something to stick, he shouldn't be there.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Wolf, have you been paying attention to recent events? The only reason the Republicans did not do the same to Garland is they simply ignored the nomination completely.

If it were illegal, then you would have a good argument to make and no one could say anything, but constitutionally they had every right to not hear the nominee, it’s a simple as that and if the roles were reversed and had a Republican president in office there is no way you can tell me dead if a Republican president would bring up a Justice nominee that the Democrats would say thank you and we’re going to hold hearings on that, I don’t believe that at all for one second, especially the way these Democrats think, No way. As if they would go with a center-right judge, yeah, right!

It is the (somewhat unlikely) possibility that Dems take over the senate in November and return the treatment that Repubs are panicking and trying to jam through the confirmation.

Probably not.

But at any rate, don't worry. If there's nothing to stick, than nothing will stick - but if there is something to stick, he shouldn't be there.

So how can you prove or disprove? Oh, wait....you can’t!

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

If it were illegal, then you would have a good argument to make

Um, no one has claimed it's illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if the roles were reversed and had a Republican president in office there is no way you can tell me dead if a Republican president would bring up a Justice nominee that the Democrats would say thank you and we’re going to hold hearings on that

This is great. You guys are the only ones who have done that, and now you're manufacturing outrage about the Democrats having done it in your mind.

How dare the pretend Democrats that you made up in your mind do that thing you made up in your mind that they did. How dare they!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Well when the lawyer for the accuser says she doesn’t have to prove her allegations and it’s the “investigation’s” responsibility to prove it.....

makes you think that the investigation itself (and the associated delay) is the actual goal. Put her under oath next Monday, let her tell her story publicly.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

It is typically investigations which go about proving things. If you found your spouse murdered, the police don't say, "wow, how awful. OK, good luck finding out who did it."

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Jeff Flake Suggests Delaying Kavanaugh Vote Amid Sexual Assault Allegations

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-grassley-scrambles-hold-calls-224931974.html

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This is great. You guys are the only ones who have done that,

No, The Democrats happen upstaging the process ever since Bork, Clarence Thomas and now with Kavanaugh, because these men are the staunchest conservatives (and liberals think Kavanaugh might overturn Roe v Wade as they said, they will do anything to stop or hinder the process and that’s what they’re doing, but let’s say for arguments sake they would succeed they are about another 132 solid conservative judges so either way if Kavanaugh by some strange reason doesn’t make it, some other conservative will.

It is typically investigations which go about proving things.

How? This allegedly happened 36 years ago, so how are you going to prove it or how are you going to disprove it? And giving the Democrats way, way too much credit.

Jeff Flake Suggests Delaying Kavanaugh Vote Amid Sexual Assault Allegations

That idiot would say that, he’s retiring from the Senate because he knows he can’t win anyway, so if you can bash to present at every chance he can he will, I’m not surprised at all that he would say that or Corker. Good riddance to both these losers.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Pretty telling that Republicans and even posters on here -- who were quite happy about Comey's statement on more emails being released derailed Clinton's run for president -- are angry about the timing of this information, but not at all upset that the man may well have sexually assaulted someone. It's back to the "boys will be boys" and "it's lie" or even, "it happened long ago! why now?" crap that they bleat about while defending a criminal rather than take a woman who was sexually abused seriously.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

How? This allegedly happened 36 years ago, so how are you going to prove it or how are you going to disprove it?

An investigation will prove or disprove it.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

An investigation will prove or disprove it.

Or come up inconclusive. But either way, it requires an investigation, rather than the outright dismissal that the Trumper's are pushing for.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

An investigation will prove or disprove it.

No, it won’t, I can’t. Or do you think that they might find some old underwear somewhere from 36 years ago, she kept it? It’s going to be he said, she said end it will come down to the court of opinion and who do you think he’s telling the truth.

Pretty telling that Republicans and even posters on here -- who were quite happy about Comey's statement on more emails being released derailed Clinton's run for president --

Come on, we don’t need to talk about Clinton, she has nothing to do with this. She’s not president, she will never be president, and thankfully we never have to worry about it, let’s MoveOn.

are angry about the timing of this information, but not at all upset that the man may well have sexually assaulted someone.

Not one Democrat less upset when they try to derail Clarence Thomas not one Democrat try to listen to Paula Jones or Juanita Broderick if Feinstein was really that concerned she would’ve brought this way before entering the hearings would’ve brought to the attention of the feds back win but she didn’t she had the information since June and we did exclusively until this weekend to drop the accusations on Kavanaugh. Democrats are such hypocrites, whatever happened to the ethics probe that was supposed to happen to Keith Ellison of charges he abused his wife? Why aren’t the Democrats concerned about that? They called them sells the champions for the downtrodden for the women, so why are they not investigating his ex-wife’s claims? Why the double standard she’s not as important as this woman that is accusing Kavanaugh? Liberals are the biggest hypocrites. Everyone can see what this is. The trying to block him, at least have the guts and say so, but don’t hind behind some woman and try to exploit her for what she thinks could’ve possibly happened allegedly.

It's back to the "boys will be boys" and "it's lie" or even, "it happened long ago! why now?"

Yes, why now 4 days before the.....ohhhhh....where’s that monkey wrench....found it!

crap that they bleat about while defending a criminal rather than take a woman who was sexually abused seriously.

You have no way of proving if he is a criminal and you have no way of knowing if she’s telling the truth, you cannot prove or disprove it either way, but to me that’s telling when a man like that wants to get out immediately to try to clear his name saying he will testify under oath immediately usually people that are guilty don’t or wouldn’t do that or are silent or wait, so I don’t know about this one.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

bass4funk: "You don’t need to, check the other liberals but thank you. Lol"

Ah, the nervous "lol". You do realise that by saying "check the OTHER liberals" you declare yourself a liberal, right? I mean, in a comment refuting literacy, that's a pretty funny error, or was it an error?

"Yes, why now 4 days before the.....ohhhhh....where’s that monkey wrench....found it!"

See? like I said. Who cares about the woman and her assault, it's just "bad timing" that you guys claim we should be upset about, once again forgetting about how gleeful you were with Comey releasing the info on Clinton just before the election.

"You have no way of proving if he is a criminal and you have no way of knowing if she’s telling the truth,"

But what we CAN prove is that if he is guilty you would not care one iota and would just say, "So what?" as you have when proven that Trump lied and made heinous comments, committed adultery, and far more... after you vigorously denied it, of course. It became, "So what?" and that's EXACTLY what you guys would say, along with, "Well it was so long ago!" (also forgetting you STILL talk about Clinton's infidelity). One thing's for sure you would NOT care that a crime had been committed and that Kavanaugh is unfit for the office Trump nominated him for.

"...but to me that’s telling when a man like that wants to get out immediately to try to clear his name saying he will testify under oath immediately usually people that are guilty don’t or wouldn’t do that or are silent or wait, so I don’t know about this one."

Yeah, now that it can't be buried anymore like the 11,000 or more documents the GOP doesn't want getting out on this man.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

No, it won’t, I can’t.

With all due respect, just because you can't conduct an investigation, it does not mean that others (especially professional investigators) cannot.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Ah, the nervous "lol".

No, I'm not the nervous type, I just thought it was really funny.

You do realise that by saying "check the OTHER liberals" you declare yourself a liberal, right? I mean, in a comment refuting literacy, that's a pretty funny error, or was it an error? 

No, because that would be a losing argument, there is nothing in my social upbringing or way of thinking that puts me anywhere in the liberal category.

See? like I said. Who cares about the woman and her assault,

Feinstein sure doesn't! in the 90s she didn't want to hear a word from Juanita Broderick, not the least bit concerned and now a change of heart? Let's sit on this information until Kavanaugh's confirmation vote which is scheduled for Thursday this week and put it out a few days before, yeah...you guys can believe this garbage of urgency. I don't. If Feinstein would have brought this before the committee right when she got this, I understand, but even the FBI didn't want to touch it, that tells you a lot.

it's just "bad timing" that you guys claim we should be upset about, once again forgetting about how gleeful you were with Comey releasing the info on Clinton just before the election.

As the left was gleeful when Comey started to investigate the President, then somehow he redeemed himself in the eyes of the left...and?

But what we CAN prove is that if he is guilty you would not care one iota and would just say, "So what?"

Actually, I wouldn't, but since it can't be proven, it's his word against her word.

as you have when proven that Trump lied and made heinous comments, committed adultery, and far more... after you vigorously denied it, of course. It became, "So what?" and that's EXACTLY what you guys would say, along with, "Well it was so long ago!" (also forgetting you STILL talk about Clinton's infidelity). One thing's for sure you would NOT care that a crime had been committed and that Kavanaugh is unfit for the office Trump nominated him for. 

Again, if the President did this while in office I would have a different opinion, but he didn't, I don't care what a person does in his or her private life, but as a tax payer and while in office, I expect you to keep your pants on and not make out with the staff, let alone have sex with them while on the job.

Yeah, now that it can't be buried anymore like the 11,000 or more documents the GOP doesn't want getting out on this man.

Not unlike the 1000 of documents the Democrats have been trying to stonewall and hide from congress.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

With all due respect, just because you can't conduct an investigation, it does not mean that others (especially professional investigators) cannot.

No, they can, but as I said, it's pointless, that's why the FBI didn't want to touch it, they even know this is a joke.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

And yes, the testimonies of 65 women outweigh the single one charge, now that doesn’t mean the accuser is liar, but the left cannot dismiss the testimonies of either one person or even 65 testimonies, that is, if they want to be fair. 

If you claim of innocence is based on people you haven't attacked, it sounds quite weak.

"You claim that I am the murderer, but I would like to refer the court to over 7bn people that are still alive. This is evidence of 7bn alive people vs 1 dead person"

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The dam gates appear to have been breached. Several others have come forward with what might be charitably called Kavanaugh's estrangement from the truth. The result is that wavering Dems no longer have a reason to waver, but a plethora of Repubs do.

My guess is he's toast.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Kavanaugh should take a polygraph. His accuser has.

The Insane Party is already in free fall with women voters. Watching geriatric old Republican white men grilling her should be good for votes /s....

1 ( +4 / -3 )

If Trump says it, it's a lie. Even if it's not a lie, his saying it makes it a lie. It's his unique gift, to turn gold into dross.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

She won't show up next Monday. The dems will keep her out of the hearing room because they do not want to be filleted in a public hearing. No chance she testifies. She lied. The Dems used her and President Trump, via Grassley, called their bluff.

Get used to calling Brett Kavanaugh "Supreme Court Justice".

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

So how exactly does one go about proving they were not somewhere they weren’t on a random day 36 years ago? How exactly do you “investigate” that?

A day and month and year that the accuser doesn’t even know.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Get used to calling Brett Kavanaugh "Supreme Court Justice".

Perhaps so if they run the clock right. But you might also get used to calling many senators who vote for him (assuming it comes up for a vote) "former Senator."

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

How did the last paedo judge you defended end up , Black? Weren’t we supposed to “talk to you if the Democrats win Alabama “?

Independent Republicans and those that pretend to be from Russia sure have a strange attitude to women.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Oh Roy Moore. Yeah his defamation lawsuit against his false accusers is in December.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The Left's Flavor of the Moment's story has so many holes you could drive a Mac truck through it: She can't remember the exact year (let alone the month nor the date) it took place, the exact house address where the alleged assault took place, nor the exact number of guys who were in the room when the alleged attack took place. She told her shrink in 2012 there were four; now, she claims that there were only two.

I almost feel sorry for the Left. . . .nah, not really.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

This accuser won’t give a date or a month or even part of a month. Too afraid Kavanaugh or his family have pics that show him somewhere else. Or someone else can say where he was. A family event, sports game, vacation etc.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I almost feel sorry for the Left. . . .nah, not really.

The right's wave has already crested (to be certain mostly due to gerrymandering and the Electoral College. A SCOTUS member is a lifetime position. Do you want a serial liar? (Probably, given the last presidential election.)

But even GOP senators are getting serious about this. They know where their interests lie.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Black,

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/09/08/us/ap-us-roy-moore-lawsuit.html

The suit was unexplainedly dropped by your peado judge.

I have no idea if Kavanaugh really did what is claimed. All Insee is a pattern of insane Republicans that either think it’s their right to treat women as subhumans, or they’re homophobes with a wide stance in the bathroom.

Enjoy watching your next man crash and burn....and that a mere sideshow up until the November reckoning.... ;)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The dam gates appear to have been breached. Several others have come forward with what might be charitably called Kavanaugh's estrangement from the truth. The result is that wavering Dems no longer have a reason to waver, but a plethora of Repubs do.

My guess is he's toast.

Liberals and Dems are amazing whether it's Kavanaugh or another nominee, a conservative will sit on the bench, the left are not doing themselves any favors by trying to fight the inevitable.

The right's wave has already crested (to be certain mostly due to gerrymandering and the Electoral College.

Which both sides do.

A SCOTUS member is a lifetime position. Do you want a serial liar? (Probably, given the last presidential election.)

So far the people that have lied during this process is not the nominee, None of us on JT could EVER pass a detailed grueling FBI background check that is just insane that Kavanaugh has past it with flying colors, the highest level and now some dumb gutless opportunist Democrats as they have admitted will do anything to stop this nominee, well....Chuck wasn't lying, that's for darn sure.

But even GOP senators are getting serious about this. They know where their interests lie.

Gee, now if only the left would have given Juanita Broderick the same urgency and that Diane Feinstein just brushed her off, talk about hypocrite.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I have no idea if Kavanaugh really did what is claimed. All Insee is a pattern of insane Republicans that either think it’s their right to treat women as subhumans,

What about the liberals that do it, especially the privileged politicians and Hollywood elites. I could name a dozen liberal names.

or they’re homophobes with a wide stance in the bathroom.

Or a Democrat governor that had to resign for having a gay affair behind his wife's back and had to give a speech and come out with his wife next to him.

Look, the Dems can't say anything about the GOP they have their own embarrassing blunders to look at. Remember about throwing boulders at glass houses.

Enjoy watching your next man crash and burn....and that a mere sideshow up until the November reckoning.... ;)

And then what? Run to the hard left for 2 years and get drummed out again.....by the way, besides illogical and radical Marxist socialist policies what do the Dems want to do and stand for.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The right's wave has already crested (to be certain mostly due to . . . the Electoral College . . .)

Don't know what nation you're from ( I can only presume you are Japanese), but here in the U.S. the EC is the law of our land. Been that way for a few hundred years now.

Do you want a serial liar? (Probably, given the last presidential election.) -- Comment*

Actually, the globalists hoped-for candidate and documented "serial liar" was not elected president. You should stop getting your news about this country from Face Book.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

All women must be heard and believed! Except the 60+ who support Kavanaugh including 2 ex girlfriends. Except the one who Keith Ellison abused. And the one Schneidermann abused. And all the Clinton ones. All those women are liars. Everyone else must be believed.

Now the accuser’s neighbor says she was told last year about this. Cause everyone talks about 35 years ago sexual abuse with their neighbors, right?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Wolf, have you been paying attention to recent events? The only reason the Republicans did not do the same to Garland is they simply ignored the nomination completely

Laguna: Wait a minute - you are talking about the Biden Rule. Which at this point I hope Republicans ignore if they have an opportunity to get a sixth conservative on the high court.

The Dems have been playing by Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals for nearly 50 years. Several Republican nominees turned out to be Liberals. The opposite never happens. That crap has the come to an end immediately. The next Dem nominee should have everything exposed going back to middle school. Delay and defeat. Any and every untoward action needs to be explored no matter how long ago it was. Childhood is no longer off limits according to the Lefts new rules. If that’s the game, and it is a cynical game, Republicans would be negligent not to play by the same rules. The Left has had success - got to hand it to them. Let’s get it on.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Madverts: I have no idea if Kavanaugh really did what is claimed. All Insee is a pattern of insane Republicans that either think it’s their right to treat women as subhumans, or they’re homophobes with a wide stance in the bathroom.

We’ve had a solid year of Hollywood Democrats getting outed as serial rapists (like Clinton buddy Weinstein) and homosexual pedophiles (like Kevin Spacey) and someone has the audacity to come on here saying that human failings are only limited to those on the political right! Wow - cognitive dissonance at its best.

Kavanaugh, like Clarence Thomas before him, is already convicted. The accusation is enough for half the country from the opposing political tribe to believe it is true. The same thing happened with the Duke Lacrosse case and with the University of Virginia accusations in Rolling Stone magazine. Accusation = Guilt. Welcome to modern America.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Blacklabel:. This accuser won’t give a date or a month or even part of a month. Too afraid Kavanaugh or his family have pics that show him somewhere else.

Seculation from a biased source isn't a path to a resolution here.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

...you are talking about the Biden Rule.

Right. The "Biden Rule" which was suggested as a theoretical possibility but never implemented.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

No, the accuser is defaming HIM with false accusations.

but its not defamation if its true, so they go about their business to discredit and disgrace this woman as much as possible and anybody linked to her, so they can get an innocent verdict. OJ Simpson style

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Biden rule is a disengenuous talking point generated by Conservatives. It's used for two reasons:. The person knows it's disengenuous and he's trying to dupe other conservatives, or he's genuinely ignorant about the situation.

The answer is decided on a case by case basis depending on who says it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I have no idea at all whether he is innocent or guilty. Actually only 2 people do - the 2 that were in the room. Not me. Not you. Nor do the 65 women.

What does amuse me is that there is a significant group of posters on this site who are determined that Kavanaugh is completely innocent of the accusations and is telling the truth. And why? For one reason - he is associated with Donald Trump.

I would hold any who assume his guilt for the same reason up to similar ridicule. Yes, a lot of Trump associates are ending up behind bars, but it doesn't mean that they are all crooked.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

His name is Mark Judge, his statement is widely available on global media.

Ford said that he entered the room and separated them, he testified that he was there and nothing inappropriate was happening.

Mark Judge said, not testified, that he had no recollection of the events Ford describes. Mark Judge also wrote a book in which he admits to his alcoholism startingwhen he was 14 and that he'd get so drunk he would pass out and wake up with no memory of what happened.

Can you say zero credibility, which describes Mark Judge.

For you barely literate conservatives, testifying and saying are two very different things. You guys simply can't help mangling the truth to fit your narrative.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

No, it won’t, I can’t. Or do you think that they might find some old underwear somewhere from 36 years ago, she kept it? It’s going to be he said, she said end it will come down to the court of opinion and who do you think he’s telling the truth.

By this logic, all cold cases should be closed. Bass being soft on crime again.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No, he doesn’t.

Prove it. Where's your proof?

What is wrong with the left. With the extensive background checks that he had and with everything the FBI has uncovered, this guy is cleaner than Mr. clean. It is virtually impossible to clear all the background checks that he has cleared then all of a sudden just out of the blue a few days before his confirmation hearing this just so happen air?

The FBI is corrupt. Remember?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Mark Judge said, not testified, that he had no recollection of the events Ford describes. Mark Judge also wrote a book in which he admits to his alcoholism startingwhen he was 14 and that he'd get so drunk he would pass out and wake up with no memory of what happened.

As well as the accuser who also admitted a lot of what happened she can't recall.

Can you say zero credibility, which describes Mark Judge.

No one can say.

For you barely literate conservatives, testifying and saying are two very different things. You guys simply can't help mangling the truth to fit your narrative.

What you liberals don't understand for both these people who were kids at that time to recall exact events during that time is virtually impossible, the FBI again said, they won't touch this, everyone knows what the Dems are trying to do, but now that we are here, Kavanaugh wants to testify now, his accuser....they still didn't hear anything, but if she comes, we will go down that road again like Clarence Thomas and see what happens, it will all come down on what the public thinks.

Prove it. Where's your proof?

No one has proof, especially the accuser.

The FBI is corrupt. Remember?

Right now at the very top, it is, but even so, they don't want to go near this.

By this logic, all cold cases should be closed. Bass being soft on crime again.

Not by my logic, but by the events that happened and coming from the people that dismissed Juanita Broderick and Paula Jones, but in those days the Supreme Court wasn't in jeopardy, the Presidency was. They were selectively soft on crime.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

This was given to the FBI this summer,and they chose not to re are several reasons-

It’s over 30 years ago

she doesn’t remember the date it happened

she doesn’t remember whose house it was

she can’t remember who invited her or who she went with

when she told her therapist in memory recovery therapy under hypnosis, she didn’t name anyone, and only said it was Kavanaugh this year, so her statement and her therapists’ notes don’t agree...she said she remembered in therapy

The FBI has done SIX background checks on Kavanaugh leading up to the confirmation process, an FBI not happy with this administration, so you won’t convince me they went easy on him, and there were NO indications of any aggressive incidents in his past.

Good luck when this becomes the new standard of proof for prosecution. That is what y’all want, isn’t it? “30 years ago at a party I was groped, and I just remembered he did it! Get him!”

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Youj just can't trust the FBI.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Youj just can't trust the FBI.

The current top echelon, yes.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

As well as the accuser who also admitted a lot of what happened she can't recall

She can recall an incident that self-described alcoholic and binge drinker in high school Mark Judge cannot. He wrote a book about it. False equivalency.

What you liberals don't understand for both these people who were kids at that time to recall exact events during that time is virtually impossible, the FBI again said, they won't touch this,

The FBI are corrupt. How can you expect the work of the honest field agents to get Post the corrupt top echelon. That conspiracy theory falls apart straight away under critical analysis.

everyone knows what the Dems are trying to do, but now that we are here, Kavanaugh wants to testify now, his accuser....they still didn't hear anything, but if she comes, we will go down that road again like Clarence Thomas and see what happens, it will all come down on what the public thinks.

How do we determine what the public thinks?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Mark Judge, the man who Christine Blasey Ford has said was in the room while Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her when they were in high school, has declined to speak before the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-judge-key-witness-alleged-205019717.html

Another fizzle from the right. Benghazi emails, voter fraud, Pizzagate, the IG report, Rudy . . .

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Making sure I get this.....the FBI is to be trusted when they leak like a sieve and it hurts Trump, but they are NOT to be believed when they clear someone Trump-related? The opinions about the FBI are swinging like a weather vane in a hurricane....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

" What does amuse me is that there is a significant group of posters on this site who are determined that Kavanaugh is completely innocent of the accusations and is telling the truth. And why? For one reason - he is associated with Donald Trump."

And you're sure he's guilty for precisely the same reason. Nobody gets to point the bias finger here, without a whole lot more introspection going on.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

BlacklabelSep. 18  09:52 am JST

No, the accuser is defaming HIM with false accusations.

So basically you've convinced yourself he's innocent.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Attorney Debra Katz made the rounds Monday on morning television to argue her client’s sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should be taken seriously....

But while her client's claims have raised bipartisan concerns about Kavanaugh, Katz, a longtime Democratic donor known for representing sexual harassment accusers, also has a history of downplaying or dismissing accusations made by women against Democratic politicians -- including former President Bill Clinton and former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken.

“Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak,” Katz said on CNN’s “Talkback Live” in March 1998 in a discussion about Jones’ claims against Clinton, according to a show transcript. “She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.”

Jones, who worked as a government employee in Arkansas, accused Clinton, while governor of Arkansas in 1991, of propositioning her for sex. Clinton settled a lawsuit with Jones in 1998.

“Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim,” Katz said in April 1998, according to a transcript of CBS Evening News.

''If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment,'' Katz told The New York Times in 1998, ''I would probably tell her that I'm sorry, it's unfair, but you don't have a case.''

I guess it depends on who's accused...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Collins. Murkowski. Flake. Defeat.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

SuperLib - Youj just can't trust the FBI.

According to your reasoning, there would be no reason for Ford's lawyer to ask for an FBI investigation.

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