OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

[Auld Phart]

They had months and months to investigate this. Feinstein had the information TWO MONTHS before the official hearings were held.

So we should keep trying people until we find the guilty? How Fascist of you.

Actually trying to prosecute him would be better because you would be held to a far higher standard of evidence, and any judge would throw out the charges in a heartbeat.

They are asking for "An investigation" as cover to vote no and use Ford's accusation as a shield, at least the Dems from Red States are.

-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Kavenaugh will receive an up or down vote
Something Garland never received

The writing was on the wall with Garland, he wasn't going to get the votes.
How many times did Reid shelve Bills because there wasn't the votes. No difference

Then they should have had to put their vote on the record and be accountable for it
If Garland was voted down, Obama should have had the opportunity to name a replacement

Just like Trump will

Biden Rule

 

[yiostheoy]

But her life was not effed up. She went on to school and multiple advanced degrees. Not only a successful life, but an exemplary career by all standards. She seems to be REALLY dwelling on something that happened a really long time ago, was very short, and did not rise to actual rape or even close.

I hear what your saying, but, just the incident that happened is enough to screw things up for her.....doesn't have to be noticed by people.
My point is that something probably happened, but, not with Kav.

I have no doubt that it was and can continue to be disturbing. What I dispute is the grandstanding and the drama we saw today. This woman has had a successful life in every arena of life. People who are deeply traumatized do not typically do that. I cannot say she was not disturbed or bothered. But I can say it did not have a deep traumatic impact on her life. I mean...objectively.

I disagree. There are lots of accomplished people that are deeply traumatized. In fact that trauma is often instrumental to them over achieving.

I saw a stat somewhere that 25% of females and 10% of males are sexually exploited at some point.

Yeah and its got to be way higher than that since its so under reported.

Possibly sure.

 

[rightwinger]

-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Kavenaugh will receive an up or down vote
Something Garland never received

The writing was on the wall with Garland, he wasn't going to get the votes.
How many times did Reid shelve Bills because there wasn't the votes. No difference

Then they should have had to put their vote on the record and be accountable for it
If Garland was voted down, Obama should have had the opportunity to name a replacement

Just like Trump will

You are comparing apples and tactical nuclear warheads.

Just admit you see character assassination as a viable political tool, regardless of the evidence at hand.

Three witnesses have come forward about his character

Republicans seem content to overlook it as long as they get their conservative on the bench

 

[Indeependent]

-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Kavenaugh will receive an up or down vote
Something Garland never received

The writing was on the wall with Garland, he wasn't going to get the votes.
How many times did Reid shelve Bills because there wasn't the votes. No difference

Then they should have had to put their vote on the record and be accountable for it
If Garland was voted down, Obama should have had the opportunity to name a replacement

Just like Trump will

Biden Rule

Run and lose?

 

[rightwinger]

-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Kavenaugh will receive an up or down vote
Something Garland never received

The writing was on the wall with Garland, he wasn't going to get the votes.
How many times did Reid shelve Bills because there wasn't the votes. No difference

Then they should have had to put their vote on the record and be accountable for it
If Garland was voted down, Obama should have had the opportunity to name a replacement

Just like Trump will

Biden Rule

No such rule

 

[SassyIrishLass]

ignores the fact that Kavanaugh was a virgin.

...and a choir boy too.

It is unfortunate that Kavanaugh had played the church card before all this.

He was a dirt bag drunk not a church mouse growing up.

You know this how? Oh wait EVEN MORE hearsay

Hearsay is not facts, moron so stop stating it as such

 

[Pop23]

They had months and months to investigate this. Feinstein had the information TWO MONTHS before the official hearings were held.

So we should keep trying people until we find the guilty? How Fascist of you.

Actually trying to prosecute him would be better because you would be held to a far higher standard of evidence, and any judge would throw out the charges in a heartbeat.

They are asking for "An investigation" as cover to vote no and use Ford's accusation as a shield, at least the Dems from Red States are.

-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Kavenaugh will receive an up or down vote
Something Garland never received

The writing was on the wall with Garland, he wasn't going to get the votes.
How many times did Reid shelve Bills because there wasn't the votes. No difference

Then they should have had to put their vote on the record and be accountable for it
If Garland was voted down, Obama should have had the opportunity to name a replacement

Just like Trump will

Sources tell me that Garland did the same thing that Kavanaugh was accused of, only with a 15 year old boy named Rightwinger, and the Dems got the Republicans to agree to stop the process and avoid the embarrassment.

And no, I will not reveal the sources as I gave them a pledge of confidentiality and I ain't no Feinstein!

(the above is supplied for comic relief only and not to be taken seriously as Rightwinger would never have had an issue with it if it really happened)

 

[jc456]

The lady-professor told her story.

It was the opening volley in a huge battle between GOP and DEMs that will continue all day.

Then a vote tomorrow, unless Kavanaugh or Trump withdraws the nomination first.

nothing new was learned today.

BTW, I knew this before this ever happened. It's why I said last Tuesday there should have been a vote.

Meh, it does seem pretty pointless so far, but even so it needed to be done even if just for appearances.

no it didn't, elections have consequences not giveaways.

I don't play partisan games ~shrug~

nor do I. the issue is what the issue is. there was no fking way possible to determine anything from her allegation. and as such, no measure of any consideration was necessary without more information.

 

[yiostheoy]

Lindsey Graham was hysterical and childish, Dr. Ford was emotional, mature and rational.

Republicans needed to break her story and establish that she was not credible

They failed

Ford established that herserlf

She didn’t break
She calmly laid out her story and Republicans failed to break it

LMAO What was to break. She has no witnesses. No proof. Its a he said. She said and that's about it.

I watched her and she looked far from credible to me. She couldn't remember where the party was or how she got home.

The whole thing was a big waste of time over something that happened 30+ years ago. Something that should have been reported then. Something that should have been investigated then.

He said. She said.

It's she said she said, I can't disprove something that didn't happen 40 yrs ago either, can any of you! So if I can't disprove it I must be guilty, and if you cant prove it you must be telling the truth. HUH?

The lady-professor is credible.

The accusation is therefore credible.

The accusation is serious.

The crimes are serious.

Kavanaugh is toast.

Otherwise the GOP will be toast in November.

 

[SweetSue92]

K so let's really break this down.

When she was 15, someone pushed her into a room, groped her over her clothes, laughed with her friend about it, briefly covered her mouth and....that was it. She escaped and that was the end of that.

Not good. Very bad. Unfortunate. If true, the guy's a cad.

But this woman, a wife and mother with two sons, two master's degrees, a PhD and etc is so traumatized by this almost 40 years later she "can't fly"? (but can). She needs two doors on the first floor? (But not until 2012).

That's just not right. I don't think it jives. I think she DID recover from this, and maybe trouble in her marriage brought it up again, fine. But to NOW cast this as if it "broke her". Nope. And don't a single man here fall for it, either.

Sorry but I know women that have been through the same thing and it indeed fucks up their lives.

But her life was not effed up. She went on to school and multiple advanced degrees. Not only a successful life, but an exemplary career by all standards. She seems to be REALLY dwelling on something that happened a really long time ago, was very short, and did not rise to actual rape or even close.

I hear what your saying, but, just the incident that happened is enough to screw things up for her.....doesn't have to be noticed by people.
My point is that something probably happened, but, not with Kav.

I have no doubt that it was and can continue to be disturbing. What I dispute is the grandstanding and the drama we saw today. This woman has had a successful life in every arena of life. People who are deeply traumatized do not typically do that. I cannot say she was not disturbed or bothered. But I can say it did not have a deep traumatic impact on her life. I mean...objectively.

I disagree. There are lots of accomplished people that are deeply traumatized. In fact that trauma is often instrumental to them over achieving.

Well, she does seem crazy to me. If that comes with trauma, I'll give you that.

The little girl voice. I'm a small woman and I have a naturally high pitched voice (soprano) but I would never talk like that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Face it folks, the Republican Party is in deep excrement, and it is their own fault. The hysteria expressed by Lindsey Graham was laughable, and the comments on Fox News at the moment is nitpicking minutia; their talking heads are trying to convince their base, that Kavanaugh will tell the real truth.

 

[martybegan]

They already did one. Six of them. They wouldn't turn up anything more on this, because as we have seen, there is ZERO documentation of what happened that night.

The Committee has sent questions to anyone they can reach who was involved, that is the same thing the FBI would do, it would just take them longer.

A background check is a very specific thing. They just gather INFORMATION, they don't use it to build a case, which is basically what the left is calling for here.

So if I investigate somebody 100 times but afterwards stuff comes out that I missed does that mean I don't have a right to investigate those things? The only thing I've seen the left, or anybody do is ask for an investigation. Show me one who is even suggesting prosecuting Kavanaugh?

They had months and months to investigate this. Feinstein had the information TWO MONTHS before the official hearings were held.

So we should keep trying people until we find the guilty? How Fascist of you.

Actually trying to prosecute him would be better because you would be held to a far higher standard of evidence, and any judge would throw out the charges in a heartbeat.

They are asking for "An investigation" as cover to vote no and use Ford's accusation as a shield, at least the Dems from Red States are.

-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Where was Kavanaugh objections on the Clinton impeachment? You call it irrelevant. I call it highly appropriate. If I hit you in the face, would you, hitting me back be unjustified? I don't know for certain certain these accusations are true. I very much suspect they were. She has to be the best actress in the world to give that account she did during the hearing. You don't know for certain that they are untrue. Yet you are perfectly willing to assert that Kavanaugh doesn't deserve this. In the end can't you guys just pull this guys name and nominate someone equally dreadful?

he was a mid level drone at that point. And with Clinton HE WAS ON RECORD AS LYING.

And well all know the next one will face the same type of attack, any little thing rumored in their past will be brought up.

And you didn't answer my last question.

 

[caddo kid]

The GOP is getting nervous; they are feeling the HEAT

Chris Wallace on Christine Blasey Ford Testimony: 'This Is a Disaster for Republicans'


Kavanaugh confirmation vote should be delayed due to 'sickening' assault allegations, some GOP governors say

Wallace is not a Conservative and neither was his father.

I guess you missed this link, also in the post.

Kavanaugh confirmation vote should be delayed due to 'sickening' assault allegations, some GOP governors say

 

[Indeependent]

Republicans needed to break her story and establish that she was not credible

They failed

Ford established that herserlf

She didn’t break
She calmly laid out her story and Republicans failed to break it

LMAO What was to break. She has no witnesses. No proof. Its a he said. She said and that's about it.

I watched her and she looked far from credible to me. She couldn't remember where the party was or how she got home.

The whole thing was a big waste of time over something that happened 30+ years ago. Something that should have been reported then. Something that should have been investigated then.

He said. She said.

It's she said she said, I can't disprove something that didn't happen 40 yrs ago either, can any of you! So if I can't disprove it I must be guilty, and if you cant prove it you must be telling the truth. HUH?

The lady-professor is credible.

The accusation is therefore credible.

The accusation is serious.

The crimes are serious.

Kavanaugh is toast.

Otherwise the GOP will be toast in November.

Schmuck...Rs and Is will vote R thanks to the loons on the Left.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Kavenaugh will receive an up or down vote
Something Garland never received

The writing was on the wall with Garland, he wasn't going to get the votes.
How many times did Reid shelve Bills because there wasn't the votes. No difference

Then they should have had to put their vote on the record and be accountable for it
If Garland was voted down, Obama should have had the opportunity to name a replacement

Just like Trump will

Sources tell me that Garland did the same thing that Kavanaugh was accused of, only with a 15 year old boy named Rightwinger, and the Dems got the Republicans to agree to stop the process and avoid the embarrassment.

And no, I will not reveal the sources as I gave them a pledge of confidentiality and I ain't no Feinstein!

I will believe you, the left says we must believe you.

This is called going full circle and karma and bank it one day karma will rear it's ugly head on this one

side note: could be rightdinger's problem in life

 

[Wyatt earp]

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Kavenaugh will receive an up or down vote
Something Garland never received

The writing was on the wall with Garland, he wasn't going to get the votes.
How many times did Reid shelve Bills because there wasn't the votes. No difference

Then they should have had to put their vote on the record and be accountable for it
If Garland was voted down, Obama should have had the opportunity to name a replacement

Just like Trump will

You are comparing apples and tactical nuclear warheads.

Just admit you see character assassination as a viable political tool, regardless of the evidence at hand.

Three witnesses have come forward about his character

Republicans seem content to overlook it as long as they get their conservative on the bench

Why did that drunk whore lie about flying?

What was the point except try to delay, her character is shot to hell


Kavanaugh accuser's fear of flying comes under scrutiny at hearing


.

 

[Auld Phart]

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Kavenaugh will receive an up or down vote
Something Garland never received

The writing was on the wall with Garland, he wasn't going to get the votes.
How many times did Reid shelve Bills because there wasn't the votes. No difference

Then they should have had to put their vote on the record and be accountable for it
If Garland was voted down, Obama should have had the opportunity to name a replacement

Just like Trump will

Biden Rule

No such rule

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

(someone should tell Biden)

 

[dcbl]

There's a major problem with the whole setup of this hearing today. The sexual assault consultant hired by the 11 Repubs without balls, seems MORE INTERESTED in implicating a Demo conspiracy, than fact finding on Kavanaugh. This is because she's being PAID to be yet another political shill tossed into this cluster fuck.

Big mistake... This is a Congressional inquiry, not a rape counseling or legal interrogation. And as USUAL, the Repubs entirely FOLD and shrink from their duties..

No idea WHICH of 4 (now 5) kids present LIVED IN THE HOUSE. How she got there. Alone or with someone else and who they were.

No wonder these senile ball-less wonders need a surrogate questioner.

WATCH -- When Kavanaugh gets up there, the Demos are gonna pound him like an Abalone. If you don't answer that -- you're not nearer to ANY truth....

Republicans are handcuffed here

I agree that they are too often weak

But the game is to win in the court of public opinion

We have the ammo for that based on today

I keep telling y'all that this issue is about moderate voters in purple districts and states

We're winning with that audience, and I fully expect a floor vote on the nomination

This circus has done more to stop a blue wave than anything else to date

 

[Asclepias]

Sorry but I know women that have been through the same thing and it indeed fucks up their lives.

But her life was not effed up. She went on to school and multiple advanced degrees. Not only a successful life, but an exemplary career by all standards. She seems to be REALLY dwelling on something that happened a really long time ago, was very short, and did not rise to actual rape or even close.

I hear what your saying, but, just the incident that happened is enough to screw things up for her.....doesn't have to be noticed by people.
My point is that something probably happened, but, not with Kav.

I have no doubt that it was and can continue to be disturbing. What I dispute is the grandstanding and the drama we saw today. This woman has had a successful life in every arena of life. People who are deeply traumatized do not typically do that. I cannot say she was not disturbed or bothered. But I can say it did not have a deep traumatic impact on her life. I mean...objectively.

I disagree. There are lots of accomplished people that are deeply traumatized. In fact that trauma is often instrumental to them over achieving.

Well, she does seem crazy to me. If that comes with trauma, I'll give you that.

The little girl voice. I'm a small woman and I have a naturally high pitched voice (soprano) but I would never talk like that.

Her voice sounds to me like someone that has issues with various phobias.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

One thing that bothers me...…….why isn't her family in DC with her? At the very least her own husband?

I know if I was facing such circumstances, I'd want all the support I could get.