They're addmitting it's true, they just don't care it's true and he lied

[gipper]

No. The Rs turn chicken shit with D POTUS nominees. They will rubber stamp any D nominees. Look how they treated Big Ears nominees. Both women were not qualified, but got in easily. Name one D nominee treated like Clarence Thomas, Judge Bork, etc.

The times today are no different from decades ago.

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

They never have. No one ever has. Only the modern, cunty righties would do such a dastardly thing.

both parties are dastardly *****. Too bad you aren’t smart to know this most obvious fact.

 

[forkup]

Yes elections have consequences BO was chosen 2 times giving him the authority to nominate someone to the supreme court. Congress has the authority to advice and consent on those nominees. Choosing NOT to meet with the candidate is NEITHER.

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
I have precedent of Scotus nominees confirmed doing election years, no less then 14 times, what do you base your assertion on? As to definitions, I used Webster's dictionary what did you use for your definition?

Again you refuse to answer. The Ds would have done the same.

No I don't refuse to answer, I refuse to answer a hypothetical situation without having a clear idea how they would react. The way I see it, Democrats are notoriously bad at playing hardball. On the other hand by acting the way the Republicans did during Garland nomination and the limited to no damage they have received by acting that way, they have effectively said to the Democrats, "take the gloves of because we did and the electorate doesn't care". If you see the pundits on the left, people like Bill Maher, Scarborough and more. You will notice that bringing up these accusations, the way they did and the time they did, you will hear criticism on their own side, hell even me don't necessarily think Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated. It's a political weakness on the left the right doesn't have. Republicans in general don't really let things as ethics get in the way of getting power. We forced Al Franken to resign. You guys supported Roy Moore despite credible accusations of statutory rape of minors. So NO I don't know Democrats would react the same. Precedent doesn't give me enough to go on to get to an informed opinion.

The Ds destroyed Judge Bork That was a long time ago. They also did their best to destroy Thomas a long time ago. Name one justice the Rs treated similarly.

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, are you being deliberately obtuse here? As to Bork
Washington Talk: The Bork Hearings; For Biden: Epoch of Belief, Epoch of Incredulity
When confronted with a request to subpoena Judge Bork’s video rental records in a search for possible pornography, Mr. Biden refused. (The records, which revealed that Judge Bork’s only weakness was for Cary Grant, were leaked anyway to The Washington City Paper.) At this same time, Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign collapsed in the face of plagiarism charges, but he won bipartisan praise for conducting the Bork hearings with fairness and restraint.
Bork was rejected, but they had a hearing, a hearing that was deemed by BOTH sides to be conducted fairly. There was ZERO presumption from Democrats that Bork shouldn't get a hearing.

So you think Garland was treated like Bork was. Is that right?

No I think Garland was treated worse. At least Bork got his chance to explain why he should be in the Supreme Court.

 

[gipper]

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

The constitution clearly states, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
How does NOT meeting with the nominee fit that definition?

Doesn’t matter. BO didn’t fight for it. The DNCMSM didn’t fight it The D party didn’t fight for it.

What fight do you suggest they could have pulled of. I also notice you changed your argument from "The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees." To, "well congress could pull it of so BO should have just fought harder, so fuck the consequences of elections or the constitution"

If you think the two criminal parties follow the constitution, you are more naive than I thought.

 

[gipper]

Yes and the American people quickly said no to BO ‘s policies, by putting in R senators two years in.

Did you notice how BO and the Ds put up little resistance to the Rs refusal to accept BO’s nominee? They thought they bought Hillary the job and she would get to put in some radical leftist. Elections have consequences. Accept it like a man.

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

Again you refuse to answer. The Ds would have done the same.

No I don't refuse to answer, I refuse to answer a hypothetical situation without having a clear idea how they would react. The way I see it, Democrats are notoriously bad at playing hardball. On the other hand by acting the way the Republicans did during Garland nomination and the limited to no damage they have received by acting that way, they have effectively said to the Democrats, "take the gloves of because we did and the electorate doesn't care". If you see the pundits on the left, people like Bill Maher, Scarborough and more. You will notice that bringing up these accusations, the way they did and the time they did, you will hear criticism on their own side, hell even me don't necessarily think Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated. It's a political weakness on the left the right doesn't have. Republicans in general don't really let things as ethics get in the way of getting power. We forced Al Franken to resign. You guys supported Roy Moore despite credible accusations of statutory rape of minors. So NO I don't know Democrats would react the same. Precedent doesn't give me enough to go on to get to an informed opinion.

The Ds destroyed Judge Bork That was a long time ago. They also did their best to destroy Thomas a long time ago. Name one justice the Rs treated similarly.

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, are you being deliberately obtuse here? As to Bork
Washington Talk: The Bork Hearings; For Biden: Epoch of Belief, Epoch of Incredulity
When confronted with a request to subpoena Judge Bork’s video rental records in a search for possible pornography, Mr. Biden refused. (The records, which revealed that Judge Bork’s only weakness was for Cary Grant, were leaked anyway to The Washington City Paper.) At this same time, Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign collapsed in the face of plagiarism charges, but he won bipartisan praise for conducting the Bork hearings with fairness and restraint.
Bork was rejected, but they had a hearing, a hearing that was deemed by BOTH sides to be conducted fairly. There was ZERO presumption from Democrats that Bork shouldn't get a hearing.

So you think Garland was treated like Bork was. Is that right?

No I think Garland was treated worse. At least Bork got his chance to explain why he should be in the Supreme Court.

I don’t agree. Mitch the lying turtle said from the jump, garland would not get his chance.

 

[forkup]

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

The constitution clearly states, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
How does NOT meeting with the nominee fit that definition?

Doesn’t matter. BO didn’t fight for it. The DNCMSM didn’t fight it The D party didn’t fight for it.

What fight do you suggest they could have pulled of. I also notice you changed your argument from "The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees." To, "well congress could pull it of so BO should have just fought harder, so fuck the consequences of elections or the constitution"

If you think the two criminal parties follow the constitution, you are more naive than I thought.

What exactly did Obama do unconstitutional by nominating Garland? Don't deflect answer that question if you can?

 

[gipper]

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

The constitution clearly states, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
How does NOT meeting with the nominee fit that definition?

Doesn’t matter. BO didn’t fight for it. The DNCMSM didn’t fight it The D party didn’t fight for it.

What fight do you suggest they could have pulled of. I also notice you changed your argument from "The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees." To, "well congress could pull it of so BO should have just fought harder, so fuck the consequences of elections or the constitution"

If you think the two criminal parties follow the constitution, you are more naive than I thought.

What exactly did Obama do unconstitutional by nominating Garland? Don't deflect answer that question if you can?

Never stated that he did.

 

[forkup]

Yes two years in they elected a Republican senate and 2 years after that they REELECTED that same president. Why don't you accept that result as a man? The president has a right described in the constitution and congress chose not to perform their responsibility as described in the constitution.

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

No I don't refuse to answer, I refuse to answer a hypothetical situation without having a clear idea how they would react. The way I see it, Democrats are notoriously bad at playing hardball. On the other hand by acting the way the Republicans did during Garland nomination and the limited to no damage they have received by acting that way, they have effectively said to the Democrats, "take the gloves of because we did and the electorate doesn't care". If you see the pundits on the left, people like Bill Maher, Scarborough and more. You will notice that bringing up these accusations, the way they did and the time they did, you will hear criticism on their own side, hell even me don't necessarily think Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated. It's a political weakness on the left the right doesn't have. Republicans in general don't really let things as ethics get in the way of getting power. We forced Al Franken to resign. You guys supported Roy Moore despite credible accusations of statutory rape of minors. So NO I don't know Democrats would react the same. Precedent doesn't give me enough to go on to get to an informed opinion.

The Ds destroyed Judge Bork That was a long time ago. They also did their best to destroy Thomas a long time ago. Name one justice the Rs treated similarly.

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, are you being deliberately obtuse here? As to Bork
Washington Talk: The Bork Hearings; For Biden: Epoch of Belief, Epoch of Incredulity
When confronted with a request to subpoena Judge Bork’s video rental records in a search for possible pornography, Mr. Biden refused. (The records, which revealed that Judge Bork’s only weakness was for Cary Grant, were leaked anyway to The Washington City Paper.) At this same time, Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign collapsed in the face of plagiarism charges, but he won bipartisan praise for conducting the Bork hearings with fairness and restraint.
Bork was rejected, but they had a hearing, a hearing that was deemed by BOTH sides to be conducted fairly. There was ZERO presumption from Democrats that Bork shouldn't get a hearing.

So you think Garland was treated like Bork was. Is that right?

No I think Garland was treated worse. At least Bork got his chance to explain why he should be in the Supreme Court.

I don’t agree. Mitch the lying turtle said from the jump, garland would not get his chance.

Ah so when you say from the get go," hey you won't get the same rights as Bork", somehow he's treated better than him?..... Interesting logic.

 

[forkup]

The constitution clearly states, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
How does NOT meeting with the nominee fit that definition?

Doesn’t matter. BO didn’t fight for it. The DNCMSM didn’t fight it The D party didn’t fight for it.

What fight do you suggest they could have pulled of. I also notice you changed your argument from "The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees." To, "well congress could pull it of so BO should have just fought harder, so fuck the consequences of elections or the constitution"

If you think the two criminal parties follow the constitution, you are more naive than I thought.

What exactly did Obama do unconstitutional by nominating Garland? Don't deflect answer that question if you can?

Never stated that he did.

If you think the two criminal parties follow the constitution, you are more naive than I thought.

What did you state?

 

[gipper]

I do accept it. The Rs controlled the Senate so they decide SC nominees. It’s in the Constitution. Elections matter.

The Ds destroyed Judge Bork That was a long time ago. They also did their best to destroy Thomas a long time ago. Name one justice the Rs treated similarly.

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, are you being deliberately obtuse here? As to Bork
Washington Talk: The Bork Hearings; For Biden: Epoch of Belief, Epoch of Incredulity
When confronted with a request to subpoena Judge Bork’s video rental records in a search for possible pornography, Mr. Biden refused. (The records, which revealed that Judge Bork’s only weakness was for Cary Grant, were leaked anyway to The Washington City Paper.) At this same time, Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign collapsed in the face of plagiarism charges, but he won bipartisan praise for conducting the Bork hearings with fairness and restraint.
Bork was rejected, but they had a hearing, a hearing that was deemed by BOTH sides to be conducted fairly. There was ZERO presumption from Democrats that Bork shouldn't get a hearing.

So you think Garland was treated like Bork was. Is that right?

No I think Garland was treated worse. At least Bork got his chance to explain why he should be in the Supreme Court.

I don’t agree. Mitch the lying turtle said from the jump, garland would not get his chance.

Ah so when you say from the get go," hey you won't get the same rights as Bork", somehow he's treated better than him?..... Interesting logic.

You need to research the Bork nomination. No justice in history was treated as badly.

 

[forkup]

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, are you being deliberately obtuse here? As to Bork
Washington Talk: The Bork Hearings; For Biden: Epoch of Belief, Epoch of Incredulity
When confronted with a request to subpoena Judge Bork’s video rental records in a search for possible pornography, Mr. Biden refused. (The records, which revealed that Judge Bork’s only weakness was for Cary Grant, were leaked anyway to The Washington City Paper.) At this same time, Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign collapsed in the face of plagiarism charges, but he won bipartisan praise for conducting the Bork hearings with fairness and restraint.
Bork was rejected, but they had a hearing, a hearing that was deemed by BOTH sides to be conducted fairly. There was ZERO presumption from Democrats that Bork shouldn't get a hearing.

So you think Garland was treated like Bork was. Is that right?

No I think Garland was treated worse. At least Bork got his chance to explain why he should be in the Supreme Court.

I don’t agree. Mitch the lying turtle said from the jump, garland would not get his chance.

Ah so when you say from the get go," hey you won't get the same rights as Bork", somehow he's treated better than him?..... Interesting logic.

You need to research the Bork nomination. No justice in history was treated as badly.

You know making a statement over and over again does NOT give it more credence. I think we are done here since you are now just repeating talking points. Gipper thank you for keeping it civil. It's rare enough and appreciated.

 

[gipper]

So you think Garland was treated like Bork was. Is that right?

No I think Garland was treated worse. At least Bork got his chance to explain why he should be in the Supreme Court.

I don’t agree. Mitch the lying turtle said from the jump, garland would not get his chance.

Ah so when you say from the get go," hey you won't get the same rights as Bork", somehow he's treated better than him?..... Interesting logic.

You need to research the Bork nomination. No justice in history was treated as badly.

You know making a statement over and over again does NOT give it more credence. I think we are done here since you are now just repeating talking points. Gipper thank you for keeping it civil. It's rare enough and appreciated.

I always keep it civil as long as my opponent does. Thank you too.

 

[forkup]

No I think Garland was treated worse. At least Bork got his chance to explain why he should be in the Supreme Court.

I don’t agree. Mitch the lying turtle said from the jump, garland would not get his chance.

Ah so when you say from the get go," hey you won't get the same rights as Bork", somehow he's treated better than him?..... Interesting logic.

You need to research the Bork nomination. No justice in history was treated as badly.

You know making a statement over and over again does NOT give it more credence. I think we are done here since you are now just repeating talking points. Gipper thank you for keeping it civil. It's rare enough and appreciated.

I always keep it civil as long as my opponent does. Thank you too.

As I said rare enough in a place like this, see you around.

 

[Lesh]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

There are numerous admissions that the Kav's supporters think it's true but want us to "move on". It was just a "youthful indiscretion".

Interestingly Kavanaugh claims to have not been at "the party"...but no one has specified what party it was...no date was ever mentioned!

And his friend says he has no memory of it.

HE however has written a book about being blackout drunk most of the years when this occurred (with Kavanaugh). He doesn't remember ANYTHING from that time

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Merrick Garland. To the point that they refused to talk to him. As for the rest I'm on my phone so linking is difficult but I'll send you a comprehensive list of judicial nominees Obama nominated and which were blocked and an equally big list of those spots being filled now Trump is doing the nominating. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of stated Republican accomplishments that they did that according to the GOP. Are you now honestly lamenting that they didn't block every nominee?

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

They never have. No one ever has. Only the modern, cunty righties would do such a dastardly thing.

both parties are dastardly *****. Too bad you aren’t smart to know this most obvious fact.

It certainly must appear that way to a Fox viewer.

There is no equivalency. It is always the Republicans who's cuntery move the goalposts into unprecidented areas.

 

[gipper]

BO was a lame duck. Do you really think the Ds would have given a lame duck R POTUS a a SC pick? Come on now.

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

They never have. No one ever has. Only the modern, cunty righties would do such a dastardly thing.

both parties are dastardly *****. Too bad you aren’t smart to know this most obvious fact.

It certainly must appear that way to a Fox viewer.

There is no equivalency. It is always the Republicans who's cuntery move the goalposts into unprecidented areas.

Partisans are just so dumb. If only they would go away and stop dividing the nation. Then we could unite and get rid of this criminal government.

 

[2aguy]

No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.

Fuck all of you worthless hypocrites.

Not only that...they still trot bill "the rapist" out in public as a democrat hero...even in #metoo America...... now that is freaking hypocrisy....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Obama wasn't a lame duck president at the time of Garland if memory serves it was 8 months before the election and as a result the seat was vacant for 400 days Definition of LAME DUCK, making it the longest vacancy since 1869. Take Kavanaugh, Kennedy stepped down on July 31. His confirmation without this hubub would be done and sealed in less then 2 months. Now as to your other rethorical question. Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia
With another Supreme Court pick, Trump is leaving his mark on higher federal courts

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

They never have. No one ever has. Only the modern, cunty righties would do such a dastardly thing.

both parties are dastardly *****. Too bad you aren’t smart to know this most obvious fact.

It certainly must appear that way to a Fox viewer.

There is no equivalency. It is always the Republicans who's cuntery move the goalposts into unprecidented areas.

Partisans are just so dumb. If only they would go away and stop dividing the nation. Then we could unite and get rid of this criminal government.

Sure, tell us some more about why only the Republicans should control the SCOTUS appointments, fool.

 

[jknowgood]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.

Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?

I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?

We had our differences and disagreements in the past, but you have acually show you will look at something from all directions.

 

[gipper]

Still a lame duck. I guess it depends on how you define it.

But again, you know damn well the Ds would do the same thing if they were in the same position. Right?

They never have. No one ever has. Only the modern, cunty righties would do such a dastardly thing.

both parties are dastardly *****. Too bad you aren’t smart to know this most obvious fact.

It certainly must appear that way to a Fox viewer.

There is no equivalency. It is always the Republicans who's cuntery move the goalposts into unprecidented areas.

Partisans are just so dumb. If only they would go away and stop dividing the nation. Then we could unite and get rid of this criminal government.

Sure, tell us some more about why only the Republicans should control the SCOTUS appointments, fool.

Never said that dumbass. Did you learn your debate skills from Big Ears?

 

[candycorn]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.

Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?

I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?

We had our differences and disagreements in the past, but you have acually show you will look at something from all directions.

There are things that are political and the answer is either A or B.

Then there are things that are right and wrong.

I think a 35 year old accusation of this magnitude where there was apparently no escalation to the authorities is wrong.

If that changes and there is some fact finding that was done, that should be scrutinized.

I’m sure we’ll be kicking the political football around again next week.