OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

[Stormy Daniels]

Unfortunately these hearing has left lots of doubt about this guy.

1. He did not answer many of the questions asked of him, instead going out in left field in many cases. Why did he avoid answering those questions?

2. What judicial demeanor? His demeanor was angry, unbalanced, almost deranged at times. Judicial ethical standards require that a judge be courteous, dignified, and patient.
who would want to have their case held in his court with that demeanor?

3. And a big one there remain accusations that he committed felony sexual abuse, without any evidence to the contrary. An FBI investigation could have discovered that evidence, but unfortunately it was not looked for.

4. Finally, if he did in fact commit even a single one of the accused crimes, he also committed perjury.

There exist many possible candidates for the Supreme Court without all these doubts. Trump said there should be no doubts. Let's pick a candidate with no doubts!

So why didn’t she go to the police again?

look it up, google it

why sexual assault victims do not report


or

you can ask one of the hundreds of teens those pedophile Priests sexually assaulted and did not report it for 20 to 40 years...

You're talking to the same crowd who thinks religious neutrality is a war on Christmas. I don't think they put much stock into those claims against the church.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

amazing the 3rd accuser and ford are friends both represented by the same lawyer.

Do you have any evidence they are friends? Actually, never mind. Stay on track. Even if they are friends, it still doesn't explain how Ford knows details of Kavvy's childhood when that should be impossible according to Kavvy's testimony.

suddenly you want evidence.

how fucked up is that? blind accusations are cool when you like the direction but now a party foul.

sorry - but FUCK THAT. i ain't playing that game. if you establish that accusations are enough and the accused must prove their innocence, then you prove they're NOT friends.

now tell me, is this a good tactic to become "standard"?

Your boy Kavvy walked right into a glaring discrepancy, and now you're melting down because nobody will believe your made up claims.

wah.

blind accusations w/o proof suck and i'm not going to go along with them from anyone on any side.

discrepancy - like 4 guys!. no wait, 2 and 2 were down stairs. no wait, i had a girlfriend with me... funny you don't give a shit about her ever changing story.

And yet you still can't escape the fact that Ford knew details about Kavvy's childhood which, according to Kavvy's testimony, should be impossible.

 

[iceberg]

amazing the 3rd accuser and ford are friends both represented by the same lawyer.

Do you have any evidence they are friends? Actually, never mind. Stay on track. Even if they are friends, it still doesn't explain how Ford knows details of Kavvy's childhood when that should be impossible according to Kavvy's testimony.

suddenly you want evidence.

how fucked up is that? blind accusations are cool when you like the direction but now a party foul.

sorry - but FUCK THAT. i ain't playing that game. if you establish that accusations are enough and the accused must prove their innocence, then you prove they're NOT friends.

now tell me, is this a good tactic to become "standard"?

Your boy Kavvy walked right into a glaring discrepancy, and now you're melting down because nobody will believe your made up claims.

wah.

blind accusations w/o proof suck and i'm not going to go along with them from anyone on any side.

discrepancy - like 4 guys!. no wait, 2 and 2 were down stairs. no wait, i had a girlfriend with me... funny you don't give a shit about her ever changing story.

And yet you still can't escape the fact that Ford knew details about Kavvy's childhood which, according to Kavvy's testimony, should be impossible.

and yet, you still allow HER to have an ever changing story but if he can't counter her ever changing story, HE is guilty.

again - FUCK THAT.

 

[forkup]

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.

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.

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.

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....

One thing that is very telling is that the attorney that the Republicans brought in was clearly in "cross examine" mode when questioning Ford, but not so when questioning Kavvy. It just goes to show that she came in to treat Ford as a hostile witness.

wah.

they're not playing fair with our unfair accusations.

wah.

How do you know the accusation is unfair?

 

[iceberg]

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.

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.

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....

One thing that is very telling is that the attorney that the Republicans brought in was clearly in "cross examine" mode when questioning Ford, but not so when questioning Kavvy. It just goes to show that she came in to treat Ford as a hostile witness.

wah.

they're not playing fair with our unfair accusations.

wah.

How do you know the accusation is unfair?

because it can't be proven. it's word against word and people will just group up into their standard groups and duke it out.

when you can prove what you say, come forward with it. if you can't, shut up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The FBI could investigate for 100 years and find nothing

There is nothing there. She lied

No, she did not lie. She just hasn't yet proven her charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Repubtards & Kavanaugh are refusing an FBI investigation because it could prove her charges beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attempting rape & murder is far beyond any sexual harassment accusations against Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton!!!

I really don't see how the FBI has anything but "She now remembers" to go on... Where is her calendar, diary, journal from 36 years ago? What did she tell her parents, her minister, her teachers, the police back then ----- or even now for that matter?

Four people have given sworn affidavits to the committee stating what Ford told them about the accusation years BEFORE he was nominated. She has further asserted she told her congressman about Kavanaugh when he was put on the shortlist. She also wrote the Washington Post around the same time. Meaning there is a written record the accusation didn't just surface with his nomination.

Four people have given sworn affidavits to the committee stating what Ford told them about the accusation years BEFORE he was nominated.

That's called hearsay.

Sure, on the other hand stating that we don't know what she told other people is incorrect.

What she told other people, 30 years after the "event", isn't proof that anything happened.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Unfortunately these hearing has left lots of doubt about this guy.

1. He did not answer many of the questions asked of him, instead going out in left field in many cases. Why did he avoid answering those questions?

2. What judicial demeanor? His demeanor was angry, unbalanced, almost deranged at times. Judicial ethical standards require that a judge be courteous, dignified, and patient.
who would want to have their case held in his court with that demeanor?

3. And a big one there remain accusations that he committed felony sexual abuse, without any evidence to the contrary. An FBI investigation could have discovered that evidence, but unfortunately it was not looked for.

4. Finally, if he did in fact commit even a single one of the accused crimes, he also committed perjury.

There exist many possible candidates for the Supreme Court without all these doubts. Trump said there should be no doubts. Let's pick a candidate with no doubts!

So why didn’t she go to the police again?

look it up, google it

why sexual assault victims do not report


or

you can ask one of the hundreds of teens those pedophile Priests sexually assaulted and did not report it for 20 to 40 years...

NO. I am asking about why when she did decide to go public why she first went to the Washington Post and then to Diane Feinstein? According to you guys he committed a felony. There is no statute of limitations! She has two masters degrees and a PhD. She has two lawyers who know who know what a felony is. So, why didn’t they go to the police or to the FBI? Want me to tell you? She was nobody’s victim. This was a political hit job start to finish. It was not about justice or truth or the American way. It was about a corrupt political party and revenge. Poor Democrats they are so evil and mindless. I loathe them.

There was a statute of limitations at the time. Her lawyers understand ex post facto.

 

[HaShev]

Clinton’s DNA was all over the place! Please produce Kavanaugh’s DNA.

LOL - DNA on dress of a willing Clinton groopie who threw herself at him. LOL
Give the FBI 30+ years to investigate Kavanaugh's forced rape + attempted murder!!!

The FBI could investigate for 100 years and find nothing

There is nothing there. She lied

No, she did not lie. She just hasn't yet proven her charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Repubtards & Kavanaugh are refusing an FBI investigation because it could prove her charges beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attempting rape & murder is far beyond any sexual harassment accusations against Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton!!!

I really don't see how the FBI has anything but "She now remembers" to go on... Where is her calendar, diary, journal from 36 years ago? What did she tell her parents, her minister, her teachers, the police back then ----- or even now for that matter?

Four people have given sworn affidavits to the committee stating what Ford told them about the accusation years BEFORE he was nominated. She has further asserted she told her congressman about Kavanaugh when he was put on the shortlist. She also wrote the Washington Post around the same time. Meaning there is a written record the accusation didn't just surface with his nomination.

That is false and incomplete information that paints a false narrative. The 4 sworn papers handed to the committee are from HUSBAND and other relatives =(self testimony) while those claimed there say it never happened, those people hold more weight. We don't know if they merely state her accounting an incident and not naming the perp. and or them filing in the blank to support her, especially since time and time again we find MSM tweeking their narrative to fit their propaganda. *Notice they handed "4" family witness statements to counter and smokescreen the "4" testimonies from people she claimed witness the events who denied her claims.
Even her best friend denied her claim and so Ford threw her under the bus telling thr world that Ladies business with excuses that it's because she has health issues. Some Dr can't even keep her school days best friend's confidentiality.

 

[OldLady]

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.

So you have a problem with a partisan answer to a partisan question?

Did you see his smart ass response to Senator Klobuchar? She was doing her job of trying to get to bottom of the allegations. He asked if SHE had ever been blackout drunk.
C'mon, that wasn't USMB. Smart ass responses to something like that are unprofessional. If you missed it, the exchange is below. Trying to determine if he drank to excess and might have forgotten an incident is at the heart of the allegations and wasn't "partisan" on Senator Klobuchar's part. After a potty break, Kavanaugh came back and apologized to her--apparently someone took him aside and told him it was out of line. His excuse was "this is a tough process." Poor him.

Kavanaugh Apologizes to Klobuchar For Drinking Question

Klobuchar is an annoying bitch like the rest of them. Kavanaugh apologized because he is gentlemanly, something that is wasted on Democrat women these days.

She asked a hard question, but she didn't pull those allegations out of her ass. She was at least trying to do her job. I notice that the Republicans used their time during the Kavanaugh questioning to complain about the Dems and argue about holding onto the letter for six weeks, etc. etc. and nothing to do with the actual accusations.

 

[forkup]

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.

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....

One thing that is very telling is that the attorney that the Republicans brought in was clearly in "cross examine" mode when questioning Ford, but not so when questioning Kavvy. It just goes to show that she came in to treat Ford as a hostile witness.

wah.

they're not playing fair with our unfair accusations.

wah.

How do you know the accusation is unfair?

because it can't be proven. it's word against word and people will just group up into their standard groups and duke it out.

when you can prove what you say, come forward with it. if you can't, shut up.

This means that a huge amount of sexual assault cases will never be reported. After all a lot of those come down to he said, she said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

amazing the 3rd accuser and ford are friends both represented by the same lawyer.

Do you have any evidence they are friends? Actually, never mind. Stay on track. Even if they are friends, it still doesn't explain how Ford knows details of Kavvy's childhood when that should be impossible according to Kavvy's testimony.

suddenly you want evidence.

how fucked up is that? blind accusations are cool when you like the direction but now a party foul.

sorry - but FUCK THAT. i ain't playing that game. if you establish that accusations are enough and the accused must prove their innocence, then you prove they're NOT friends.

now tell me, is this a good tactic to become "standard"?

Your boy Kavvy walked right into a glaring discrepancy, and now you're melting down because nobody will believe your made up claims.

wah.

blind accusations w/o proof suck and i'm not going to go along with them from anyone on any side.

discrepancy - like 4 guys!. no wait, 2 and 2 were down stairs. no wait, i had a girlfriend with me... funny you don't give a shit about her ever changing story.

And yet you still can't escape the fact that Ford knew details about Kavvy's childhood which, according to Kavvy's testimony, should be impossible.

And yet you still can't escape the fact that Ford knew details about Kavvy's childhood

What details did she know?

 

[forkup]

LOL - DNA on dress of a willing Clinton groopie who threw herself at him. LOL
Give the FBI 30+ years to investigate Kavanaugh's forced rape + attempted murder!!!

The FBI could investigate for 100 years and find nothing

There is nothing there. She lied

No, she did not lie. She just hasn't yet proven her charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Repubtards & Kavanaugh are refusing an FBI investigation because it could prove her charges beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attempting rape & murder is far beyond any sexual harassment accusations against Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton!!!

I really don't see how the FBI has anything but "She now remembers" to go on... Where is her calendar, diary, journal from 36 years ago? What did she tell her parents, her minister, her teachers, the police back then ----- or even now for that matter?

Four people have given sworn affidavits to the committee stating what Ford told them about the accusation years BEFORE he was nominated. She has further asserted she told her congressman about Kavanaugh when he was put on the shortlist. She also wrote the Washington Post around the same time. Meaning there is a written record the accusation didn't just surface with his nomination.

That is false and incomplete information that paints a false narrative. The 4 sworn papers handed to the committee are from HUSBAND and other relatives =(self testimony) while those claimed there say it never happened, those people hold more weight. We don't know if they merely state her accounting an incident and not naming the perp. and or them filing in the blank to support her, especially since time and time again we find MSM tweeking their narrative to fit their propaganda.

Wow so evidence can not possibly be true. It has to be fabricated?

 

[edward37]

Unfortunately these hearing has left lots of doubt about this guy.

1. He did not answer many of the questions asked of him, instead going out in left field in many cases. Why did he avoid answering those questions?

2. What judicial demeanor? His demeanor was angry, unbalanced, almost deranged at times. Judicial ethical standards require that a judge be courteous, dignified, and patient.
who would want to have their case held in his court with that demeanor?

3. And a big one there remain accusations that he committed felony sexual abuse, without any evidence to the contrary. An FBI investigation could have discovered that evidence, but unfortunately it was not looked for.

4. Finally, if he did in fact commit even a single one of the accused crimes, he also committed perjury.

There exist many possible candidates for the Supreme Court without all these doubts. Trump said there should be no doubts. Let's pick a candidate with no doubts!

So why didn’t she go to the police again?

look it up, google it

why sexual assault victims do not report


or

you can ask one of the hundreds of teens those pedophile Priests sexually assaulted and did not report it for 20 to 40 years...

NO. I am asking about why when she did decide to go public why she first went to the Washington Post and then to Diane Feinstein? According to you guys he committed a felony. There is no statute of limitations! She has two masters degrees and a PhD. She has two lawyers who know who know what a felony is. So, why didn’t they go to the police or to the FBI? Want me to tell you? She was nobody’s victim. This was a political hit job start to finish. It was not about justice or truth or the American way. It was about a corrupt political party and revenge. Poor Democrats they are so evil and mindless. I loathe them.

my feelings exactly about racist lying corrupt republicans AND the man at the head of their party

 

[beautress]

It's amazing how for 30 years Repubtards were beyond obsessed that Clinton may have harassed a couple women, yet now support a rapist who spews Clinton conspiracy theories. Republicans had FBI investigating Clinton while allowing 9/11 attacks, but refuse the FBI investigate repubtard political operative judges rape.

Isn't it a little difficult for a 17-year-old young man who is a virgin to be a rapist?

 

[iceberg]

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....

One thing that is very telling is that the attorney that the Republicans brought in was clearly in "cross examine" mode when questioning Ford, but not so when questioning Kavvy. It just goes to show that she came in to treat Ford as a hostile witness.

wah.

they're not playing fair with our unfair accusations.

wah.

How do you know the accusation is unfair?

because it can't be proven. it's word against word and people will just group up into their standard groups and duke it out.

when you can prove what you say, come forward with it. if you can't, shut up.

This means that a huge amount of sexual assault cases will never be reported. After all a lot of those come down to he said, she said.

so what would be your answer to be fair to both? you can't simply accuse people w/o proof. are you not seeing how easily that can manipulated?

 

[forkup]

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.

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....

One thing that is very telling is that the attorney that the Republicans brought in was clearly in "cross examine" mode when questioning Ford, but not so when questioning Kavvy. It just goes to show that she came in to treat Ford as a hostile witness.

wah.

they're not playing fair with our unfair accusations.

wah.

How do you know the accusation is unfair?

because it can't be proven. it's word against word and people will just group up into their standard groups and duke it out.

when you can prove what you say, come forward with it. if you can't, shut up.

Seems a lot has changed since november 2017

because the floodgates have been opened up.

i don't disagree there are some asshole men out there. we're seeing far too much of it and to a point i'm glad we're finding out just who these people are. but to the other point, we weren't around for a picture, we don't know the entire story and i still think if you didn't stop him 10 years ago, why bother now?

fad. pop culture. trend.

but if we're calling for moores head based on accusations and mob justice, gotta take diaperboy also.

 

[iceberg]

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.

So you have a problem with a partisan answer to a partisan question?

Did you see his smart ass response to Senator Klobuchar? She was doing her job of trying to get to bottom of the allegations. He asked if SHE had ever been blackout drunk.
C'mon, that wasn't USMB. Smart ass responses to something like that are unprofessional. If you missed it, the exchange is below. Trying to determine if he drank to excess and might have forgotten an incident is at the heart of the allegations and wasn't "partisan" on Senator Klobuchar's part. After a potty break, Kavanaugh came back and apologized to her--apparently someone took him aside and told him it was out of line. His excuse was "this is a tough process." Poor him.

Kavanaugh Apologizes to Klobuchar For Drinking Question

Klobuchar is an annoying bitch like the rest of them. Kavanaugh apologized because he is gentlemanly, something that is wasted on Democrat women these days.

She asked a hard question, but she didn't pull those allegations out of her ass. She was at least trying to do her job. I notice that the Republicans used their time during the Kavanaugh questioning to complain about the Dems and argue about holding onto the letter for six weeks, etc. etc. and nothing to do with the actual accusations.

so why did they hold onto the letter for 6 weeks?

you seem to be demanding all the lefts questions get answered but the right? well those are stupid questions that don't deserve an answer.

 

[Obama2020]

Should have been called 7 weeks ago check would have been completed but NOOOO.Feinstein used it to DELAY...You know what ABNORMALS FUCKED UP, THEY LOSE! Actions have consequences!

LMAO. 7 weeks..... 1 week... who bloody cares. As per Anita Hill, the investigation took 3 days and we're at least 2 weeks into this quagmire.

You're using ultra-partisan Chucky lines (Grassley) as your sole defense BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Nakedly partisan Kavanaughty is being railroaded to the SC to support a future evangelical rule and protect Trump-style dictatorships.

Gotta admit he'd look better with that black turban... At least we'd be spared that fake hair !

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Do you have any evidence they are friends? Actually, never mind. Stay on track. Even if they are friends, it still doesn't explain how Ford knows details of Kavvy's childhood when that should be impossible according to Kavvy's testimony.

suddenly you want evidence.

how fucked up is that? blind accusations are cool when you like the direction but now a party foul.

sorry - but FUCK THAT. i ain't playing that game. if you establish that accusations are enough and the accused must prove their innocence, then you prove they're NOT friends.

now tell me, is this a good tactic to become "standard"?

Your boy Kavvy walked right into a glaring discrepancy, and now you're melting down because nobody will believe your made up claims.

wah.

blind accusations w/o proof suck and i'm not going to go along with them from anyone on any side.

discrepancy - like 4 guys!. no wait, 2 and 2 were down stairs. no wait, i had a girlfriend with me... funny you don't give a shit about her ever changing story.

And yet you still can't escape the fact that Ford knew details about Kavvy's childhood which, according to Kavvy's testimony, should be impossible.

and yet, you still allow HER to have an ever changing story but if he can't counter her ever changing story, HE is guilty.

again - FUCK THAT.

Oh, you are so pathetically desperate.

The fact still remains that HE has corroborated her story, in part, to the contradiction of his own testimony. You can complain about imaginary "changes" to her story that haven't actually happened all you want. It doesn't matter. Kavvy has trapped himself in a lie. Kavvy says that he and she never knew each other, and that their social circles never would have overlapped. But Ford's knowledge of details about Kavvy's life shows that to be a lie.

She is not being considered to sit on the Supreme Court. The question is whether Kavvy should be on the court. As I have said this entire time, whether this sexual assault occurred shouldn't be determinative of his confirmation outcome, as Democrats would like to insist. It's a matter of his integrity. His honestly was severely damaged in the initial hearings, and now he has 100% undoubtedly committed perjury before a Congressional committee. He is not fit for the Supreme Court.

 

[BluesLegend]

Mitchel the sexual crimes prosecutor who questioned Ford says...she could not take this anywhere near a court room, she wouldn't even seek a search warrant so Ford is a big fat liar!