Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
-Actually that is in the scheme of things pretty minor. Firstly, he STILL holds a position at the appellate court. He still has a career. Also the law is bigger then one man. The Supreme Court makes decisions for all Americans.-I'm sorry, but are you now again suggesting that because Ford remembers her assault, this somehow makes it unfair to Kavanaugh to bring her sexual assault up? Again this guy is up for SCOTUS, not a dog catcher.Credible is an variable definition term, and it seems to slide to the more wishful thinking side the more progressive a person is, in this particular case (BK).
You don't have to be delusional to mold a memory or change it over 30+ years, delusional is more appropriate for bending reality on a shorter timescale.
How would you like to be denied a job based on an uncorroborated (at the time) accusation from 35+ years ago, that involves someone who can't even tell you when and where it happened? How would you like that to be part of the public record, that you were denied the job FOR THAT REASON, and probably professionally ruined?
Right now they are showing they care about the rule of law and due process. What Dems are showing is they will do ANYTHING to take and keep power.
-Somebody just molded their memory so it included Kavanaugh and Judge? Not anybody else, just those 2? Offering little details to corroborate the timescale. You know, I don't remember were I was 14 days ago at 4 pm. I do remember exactly were I was when my mother died, I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know the exact date on that. Were I was when the Twin Towers fell, I know the exact date on that because the public description of it has become a concept in itself. If you would ask me what I had for dinner that day, I wouldn't be able to tell you but I do remember bits and pieces from that day. That's how memory works. You might not remember all the details but you do remember the important stuff.
What you are suggesting is that someone INVENTED the most crucial detail about one of the most traumatic events of her life. On that unlikely scenario you are suggesting to promote somebody to the highest judicial position in the land.
-As to due process, I'll let slide that due process has often been the least of the GOP's concern. Due process in the case of something like this has always included the effort to establish the facts of these allegations. That's not the case here. At the very best Graham and the likes are contending that because the Democrats brought this up to late, they are exempt from having to follow due process. A dubious argument at best.
The difference is you are not trying to use those memories to ruin someone's life. Once you try to do that you damn well better remember enough to allow them to defend themselves.
Show me where the GOP has been against due process.
-They have refused to call up Mark Judge, Ramires or Swetnick. They have refused to ask the President to reopen the FBI background check. They have refused actually ANY witness except Ford or Kavanaugh.
The bigger issue is if that he's not appointed because of the accusation his career is likely over and he is forever tainted over something:
1. He denies vehemently
2. That cannot be proven in any court of law, be it criminal or even civil.
The fact that the memories that could be checked out in any way is the most damning thing about this, be it a willful fabrication or just her mind remembering parts of what happened (to her) that didn't actually happen.
The background check would turn up nothing additional, because there is ZERO documentation of the incident in question.
As for the other 3, the committee (as a whole) had access to all the statements made, and even questioned some of them via paper.
Is your lust for power so great that ruining a possibly innocent man is worth it?
-AN FBI investigation could actually be helpful. They could interview Mark Judge for instance. Something that is better then simply accepting a statement. They could check when Judge worked at that supermarket establishing a time of the assault. Something that Ford suggested by the way. They could talk to the other 2 people who have made similar allegations and look for corroboration or exonerating evidence for Kavanaugh in the form of alibis or what not. There are a lot of facts the FBI could uncover that the Senate committee is simply not equipped for.
no one can explain who's house they were at either.Nobody can seem to explain how Ford knew that Kavvy, Mark Judge, and this PJ person were all good friends. According to Kavvy, he and his friends did not socialize with girls from Ford's school, he did not know her, and she did not know him.
So how did she know? How did she ever become aware of the three of them, much less the fact that they were friends? How did she ever know information about Kavvy's childhood? If it was someone else who assaulted her, how would she have magically mistake someone else in the room who just happens to also be Kavvy's childhood friend?
also - if this were a courtroom, it would take more than an unsubstantiated accusation for a judge to even listen to it.I was hollering into the television screen, "YES or NO" If this had been a courtroom, Kav would have been shut down quick by the judge for all his equivocating and roundabout answers. Amazing how Grassley had NO problem with them.Kavanaugh going on and on trying to waste the 5 minutes of questioning time.
ever read what the FBI does and why this is not their role? the left is asking for something they know they're not going to get so they can whine the system isn't being fair to them when in reality they're not playing by the system setup but trying to work around it instead.How about the ball-less republicans couldn't face a woman but turned cheerleaders for a lying spoiled rich boy. Kavanaugh was belligerent and didn't agree to a FBI investigation. His belligerence is the sign of any guilty person when caught, and his refusal for an FBI investigation is a sign he is a liar and knows it. The guilty always overact their innocence because they must also convince themselves as well as the other. Kavanaugh being the heartless bigot even dissented on the ACA and he lied about his position on Roe v Wade. Many people are easily fooled by dramatic exclamations of innocence, that he did well. Sad that Americans are so easily played. Ever been on a jury?
'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' Ian Millhiser
OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread
.
amazing the 3rd accuser and ford are friends both represented by the same lawyer.
For what.Oh, is that right? And what is this "nasty ride" you're feeling all confident about? All I hear is the whining sour grapes of helpless impotence.
Well for starters, the American bar association (ABA) finally woke up and just sent a letter asking for due process and an FBI investigation.
A lot of sour grapes about to take to the streets
The FBI doesn't reach a conclusion. The report would be worthless.
At least that's what Biden used to say.
How Joe Biden’s comments about the FBI and Anita Hill are now being used against Democrats
Hypocrites.
For what.Oh, is that right? And what is this "nasty ride" you're feeling all confident about? All I hear is the whining sour grapes of helpless impotence.
Well for starters, the American bar association (ABA) finally woke up and just sent a letter asking for due process and an FBI investigation.
A lot of sour grapes about to take to the streets
The FBI doesn't reach a conclusion. The report would be worthless.
Hypocrites.
I've been questioned and cross examined enough times to know that if I didn't immediately give a yes or no response to a yes/no question, I was going to get told by the judge to answer the question. If I was lucky, and it was a question that required more than a yes/no, the judge would let me continue....Just a comment. When having a hearing, if I were asking a yes or no question, I would want an answer. They weren't "trick" questions, from what I recall.I was hollering into the television screen, "YES or NO" If this had been a courtroom, Kav would have been shut down quick by the judge for all his equivocating and roundabout answers. Amazing how Grassley had NO problem with them.Kavanaugh going on and on trying to waste the 5 minutes of questioning time.
Considering Ford's accusations would never get to the point of a trial, calling for the Standards of Judge to be enacted would result in the hearing never happening in the first place.
Usually it's an Attorney on either side that wants the yes or no response only, not the judge. The judge only decides if the attorney's request is valid or not.
-They may clamor for it. Doesn't mean they will get it.By the way what makes you think if the Democrats win they wouldn't clamor for his impeachment if he gets on the bench?-Actually that is in the scheme of things pretty minor. Firstly, he STILL holds a position at the appellate court. He still has a career. Also the law is bigger then one man. The Supreme Court makes decisions for all Americans.-I'm sorry, but are you now again suggesting that because Ford remembers her assault, this somehow makes it unfair to Kavanaugh to bring her sexual assault up? Again this guy is up for SCOTUS, not a dog catcher.-Somebody just molded their memory so it included Kavanaugh and Judge? Not anybody else, just those 2? Offering little details to corroborate the timescale. You know, I don't remember were I was 14 days ago at 4 pm. I do remember exactly were I was when my mother died, I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know the exact date on that. Were I was when the Twin Towers fell, I know the exact date on that because the public description of it has become a concept in itself. If you would ask me what I had for dinner that day, I wouldn't be able to tell you but I do remember bits and pieces from that day. That's how memory works. You might not remember all the details but you do remember the important stuff.
What you are suggesting is that someone INVENTED the most crucial detail about one of the most traumatic events of her life. On that unlikely scenario you are suggesting to promote somebody to the highest judicial position in the land.
-As to due process, I'll let slide that due process has often been the least of the GOP's concern. Due process in the case of something like this has always included the effort to establish the facts of these allegations. That's not the case here. At the very best Graham and the likes are contending that because the Democrats brought this up to late, they are exempt from having to follow due process. A dubious argument at best.
The difference is you are not trying to use those memories to ruin someone's life. Once you try to do that you damn well better remember enough to allow them to defend themselves.
Show me where the GOP has been against due process.
-They have refused to call up Mark Judge, Ramires or Swetnick. They have refused to ask the President to reopen the FBI background check. They have refused actually ANY witness except Ford or Kavanaugh.
The bigger issue is if that he's not appointed because of the accusation his career is likely over and he is forever tainted over something:
1. He denies vehemently
2. That cannot be proven in any court of law, be it criminal or even civil.
The fact that the memories that could be checked out in any way is the most damning thing about this, be it a willful fabrication or just her mind remembering parts of what happened (to her) that didn't actually happen.
The background check would turn up nothing additional, because there is ZERO documentation of the incident in question.
As for the other 3, the committee (as a whole) had access to all the statements made, and even questioned some of them via paper.
Is your lust for power so great that ruining a possibly innocent man is worth it?
-AN FBI investigation could actually be helpful. They could interview Mark Judge for instance. Something that is better then simply accepting a statement. They could check when Judge worked at that supermarket establishing a time of the assault. Something that Ford suggested by the way. They could talk to the other 2 people who have made similar allegations and look for corroboration or exonerating evidence for Kavanaugh in the form of alibis or what not. There are a lot of facts the FBI could uncover that the Senate committee is simply not equipped for.
You really think that if he is not confirmed for this, and the Dems take the house, their base won't clamor for his Impeachment?
I find it comical you appeal to the law when if this was a court proceeding under the law he wouldn't be indicted.
All the investigation thing is moot because Dems waited 2 months to bring this up for political reasons, sorry, actions have consequences.
Floor vote time.
Nope. I really had not decided how I would decide on this until I heard them both. So I watched them both yesterday, and what I said earlier about my impression of his character and also the strident partisan tone of his statement--and attitude toward the Democratic questioners--stands. Your insults don't change my mind in the least.amazing how you have no problem with unfounded accusations.I was hollering into the television screen, "YES or NO" If this had been a courtroom, Kav would have been shut down quick by the judge for all his equivocating and roundabout answers. Amazing how Grassley had NO problem with them.Kavanaugh going on and on trying to waste the 5 minutes of questioning time.
wait. it's you. not its not. carry on with the leftist bashing. i think we both know if someone on the left were accused of something so stupid you'd NOT be believing the accuser at that point and your tone would be very different.
Lol, not really. Never saw him getting questioned like yesterday.Wasn't he? Several times?That is exactly what they said. Now since you are so concerned about rapist getting taken care of. Shouldn't you be calling for Bill Clinton to be investigated?That is not what they saidWhen you don't know when, how, or where and all 4 of your witnesses says it didn't happen. You're a liar.2Let’s hear it Republicans
All women lie about these things
I've been questioned and cross examined enough times to know that if I didn't immediately give a yes or no response to a yes/no question, I was going to get told by the judge to answer the question. If I was lucky, and it was a question that required more than a yes/no, the judge would let me continue....Just a comment. When having a hearing, if I were asking a yes or no question, I would want an answer. They weren't "trick" questions, from what I recall.I was hollering into the television screen, "YES or NO" If this had been a courtroom, Kav would have been shut down quick by the judge for all his equivocating and roundabout answers. Amazing how Grassley had NO problem with them.Kavanaugh going on and on trying to waste the 5 minutes of questioning time.
Considering Ford's accusations would never get to the point of a trial, calling for the Standards of Judge to be enacted would result in the hearing never happening in the first place.
Usually it's an Attorney on either side that wants the yes or no response only, not the judge. The judge only decides if the attorney's request is valid or not.
Nope. I really had not decided how I would decide on this until I heard them both. So I watched them both yesterday, and what I said earlier about my impression of his character and also the strident partisan tone of his statement--and attitude toward the Democratic questioners--stands. Your insults don't change my mind in the least.
I've been questioned and cross examined enough times to know that if I didn't immediately give a yes or no response to a yes/no question, I was going to get told by the judge to answer the question. If I was lucky, and it was a question that required more than a yes/no, the judge would let me continue....Just a comment. When having a hearing, if I were asking a yes or no question, I would want an answer. They weren't "trick" questions, from what I recall.I was hollering into the television screen, "YES or NO" If this had been a courtroom, Kav would have been shut down quick by the judge for all his equivocating and roundabout answers. Amazing how Grassley had NO problem with them.Kavanaugh going on and on trying to waste the 5 minutes of questioning time.
Considering Ford's accusations would never get to the point of a trial, calling for the Standards of Judge to be enacted would result in the hearing never happening in the first place.
Usually it's an Attorney on either side that wants the yes or no response only, not the judge. The judge only decides if the attorney's request is valid or not.
Booker and Harris were playing disgusting grammar and syntax games.I've been questioned and cross examined enough times to know that if I didn't immediately give a yes or no response to a yes/no question, I was going to get told by the judge to answer the question. If I was lucky, and it was a question that required more than a yes/no, the judge would let me continue....Just a comment. When having a hearing, if I were asking a yes or no question, I would want an answer. They weren't "trick" questions, from what I recall.I was hollering into the television screen, "YES or NO" If this had been a courtroom, Kav would have been shut down quick by the judge for all his equivocating and roundabout answers. Amazing how Grassley had NO problem with them.Kavanaugh going on and on trying to waste the 5 minutes of questioning time.
Considering Ford's accusations would never get to the point of a trial, calling for the Standards of Judge to be enacted would result in the hearing never happening in the first place.
Usually it's an Attorney on either side that wants the yes or no response only, not the judge. The judge only decides if the attorney's request is valid or not.
Games like are you a drunk? Turns out he is.Booker and Harris were playing disgusting grammar and syntax games.I've been questioned and cross examined enough times to know that if I didn't immediately give a yes or no response to a yes/no question, I was going to get told by the judge to answer the question. If I was lucky, and it was a question that required more than a yes/no, the judge would let me continue....Just a comment. When having a hearing, if I were asking a yes or no question, I would want an answer. They weren't "trick" questions, from what I recall.I was hollering into the television screen, "YES or NO" If this had been a courtroom, Kav would have been shut down quick by the judge for all his equivocating and roundabout answers. Amazing how Grassley had NO problem with them.
Considering Ford's accusations would never get to the point of a trial, calling for the Standards of Judge to be enacted would result in the hearing never happening in the first place.
Usually it's an Attorney on either side that wants the yes or no response only, not the judge. The judge only decides if the attorney's request is valid or not.
Two pieces of shit catering to their mentally disturbed constituents.
