Kavenaugh Nomination

[sfreeman8]

So, Feinstein had a letter since July but didn't bring it up in Committee or publicly until Friday. Dems wanted to delay because of the allegations made by this woman...BUT he WAS vetted total 6 times for various government positions. This woman is a Dem, comes from a Dem state, is a professor at a liberal college...need I say more?

Why didn't this woman come out then? The FBI was given the letter with a request to investigate but they refused stating it was so long ago that there would be no evidence now.

Judge Kavenaugh denies this happened. The "other man" in the room denies it. From Judge Kavenaugh's record, his record is impeccable and he's been a very neutral judge over all these years.  Do you believe something done when a teenager (if true) should be held against him  from 35-40 years ago?  Is this just "revenge" by the Dems because Garland wasn't confirmed? Remember how they followed Joe "Biden's rule" to not confirm a sCOTUS during a PRESIDENTIAL election. This is not a presidential election so a judicial confirmation is okay.

I don't believe this woman's story. If it happened, why didn't she come out in response to the first time Kavenaugh was nominated for the first or second, or even 6th confirmation hearing. To come out now is more than suspicious since one side has been trying to block the nomination process since before he was nominated.

[linderlizzie]

So, Feinstein had a letter since July but didn't bring it up in Committee or publicly until Friday. Dems wanted to delay because of the allegations made by this woman...BUT he WAS vetted total 6 times for various government positions. This woman is a Dem, comes from a Dem state, is a professor at a liberal college...need I say more?

Why didn't this woman come out then? The FBI was given the letter with a request to investigate but they refused stating it was so long ago that there would be no evidence now.

Judge Kavenaugh denies this happened. The "other man" in the room denies it. From Judge Kavenaugh's record, his record is impeccable and he's been a very neutral judge over all these years.  Do you believe something done when a teenager (if true) should be held against him  from 35-40 years ago?  Is this just "revenge" by the Dems because Garland wasn't confirmed? Remember how they followed Joe "Biden's rule" to not confirm a sCOTUS during a PRESIDENTIAL election. This is not a presidential election so a judicial confirmation is okay.

I don't believe this woman's story. If it happened, why didn't she come out in response to the first time Kavenaugh was nominated for the first or second, or even 6th confirmation hearing. To come out now is more than suspicious since one side has been trying to block the nomination process since before he was nominated.

You said it all. I totally concur with everything you said. Such a witch hunt.

[paints]

Would you find it more credible if she was a Republican? 

[JediJohnnie]

This is the same thing they did to Clarence Thomas. The more Conservative the potential Justice, the harder the Libs will rake them over the coals.

[paints]

The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan.  And it was Anita Hill that got raked over the coals.

[sfreeman8]

Would you find it more credible if she was a Republican? 

Doesn't make one bit of difference which party she belongs. It's the idea that Feinstein had this info since July and brings it up AFTER the hearings and right before the vote was to be taken which is delaying something that should have gone smoothly like other confirmation processes prior to this one.

 It's also the idea that she waits until now to come out and she doesn't remember what day, where, or who was even at the party (if it was a party). First she said 2, then she said 4 people were there besides her. So far, she has no one to validate this accusation, except her therapist who, may I add, should have been under the same physician/client privilege. The committee has been bending over backwards to accommodate her and she kept changing her mind about what she wants before she testifies.

[paints]

Would you find it more credible if she was a Republican? 

Doesn't make one bit of difference which party she belongs. It's the idea that Feinstein had this info since July and brings it up AFTER the hearings and right before the vote was to be taken which is delaying something that should have gone smoothly like other confirmation processes prior to this one.

 It's also the idea that she waits until now to come out and she doesn't remember what day, where, or who was even at the party (if it was a party). First she said 2, then she said 4 people were there besides her. So far, she has no one to validate this accusation, except her therapist who, may I add, should have been under the same physician/client privilege. The committee has been bending over backwards to accommodate her and she kept changing her mind about what she wants before she testifies.

She's taken a lie detector test, and passed it.  She's asked for an FBI investigation.  She's willing to testify before the committee.

My question is, why the rush?  Why are they willing to ignore this to get him confirmed?

Both Grassley and Hatch said having the FBI investigate was the "absolute right thing to do," when it was Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. 

So, what's changed?

[InfuseMe1]

what a mess - interesting to see what happens next...

[sfreeman8]

Would you find it more credible if she was a Republican? 

Doesn't make one bit of difference which party she belongs. It's the idea that Feinstein had this info since July and brings it up AFTER the hearings and right before the vote was to be taken which is delaying something that should have gone smoothly like other confirmation processes prior to this one.

 It's also the idea that she waits until now to come out and she doesn't remember what day, where, or who was even at the party (if it was a party). First she said 2, then she said 4 people were there besides her. So far, she has no one to validate this accusation, except her therapist who, may I add, should have been under the same physician/client privilege. The committee has been bending over backwards to accommodate her and she kept changing her mind about what she wants before she testifies.

She's taken a lie detector test, and passed it.  She's asked for an FBI investigation.  She's willing to testify before the committee.

My question is, why the rush?  Why are they willing to ignore this to get him confirmed?

Both Grassley and Hatch said having the FBI investigate was the "absolute right thing to do," when it was Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. 

So, what's changed?

She was asked 2 questions...TWO questions on that lie detector test that isn't admissible in court cases su it shouldn't be admissible in confirmation cases either. Kavanaugh said he's willing to take one. There was no rush, either. They did 3 days of hearings plus the day last week. She asked for the FBI investigation because her attorney wanted it. Her attorney, recommended by Feinstein. Feinstein wanted an FBI investigation since she dropped the letter bomb which Ford wanted kept confidential. Someone leaked it and it's looking more and more like it was either Ishoo's office or Feinstein's office.

What changed? Kavanaugh has already been vetted and undergone FBI investigations 6 times. Nothing was fund. Those investigations cover family, friends, coworkers, anyone and everyone who had any contact with him over the years. I'm sure they would have found something in those 6 investigations.....so we taxpayers are paying for a 7th unnecessary investigation and nothing will be probably be found there either.   It's a waste of time and a delay tactic because Dems think they're going to take over in November and will be able to block everything the president does.

[UGetPaid]

It's a waste of time and a delay tactic because Dems think they're going to take over in November and will be able to block everything the president does.

My personal belief is that this is going to backfire on Dems in the November elections and the Repubs will still hold a Senate majority. The voters are not stupid and most are able to see through the political posturing that Feinstein and her cronies engaged in while making this woman a political *bleep* to suit their own agendas.  They care ZERO about Dr. Ford's own personal trauma (I do believe that she had something traumatic take place 36 years ago, but she is unfortunately unable to prove that it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her) and they care 100% about defeating a man perfectly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, but who is the opposing swing vote un-aligned with their liberal viewpoint.


Lindsey Graham said it best.

[madeara]

I believe the woman.  Our standards as a nation have changed.  Kavanaugh came across as angry.

[UGetPaid]

I believe the woman.  Our standards as a nation have changed.  Kavanaugh came across as angry.

So, let's just say for sake of argument that he did not do this (whether you actually believe him or her or not) - wouldn't anger be a natural reaction? 


For hypothetical purposes, let's say that you were being considered for a job at the local animal shelter and I accused you of killing baby kittens -- including my own pet kitten who wandered into your garage 25 years ago and I truly believe that I saw you break my kitty's neck and toss its limp body into a garbage bag (but there is no other independent evidence that you killed my cat or any others).  Your hiring for this new job turns on my accusation of which I have no proof, but there are thousands of PETA supporters in the news who are calling you a kitty killer (they also have no proof, but I come across as a victim and believable) and the animal rights activists and news media demand that you be forbidden from ever having contact with animals again.  As a result, other neighbors come out of the woodwork and say that they think you killed their pets also (also no evidence at all). 


For the sake of the argument, let's say that my cat actually got run over by a car in some other neighborhood and never came home (but I didn't know this) and you were actually just bagging up stuffed animals to donate to Goodwill when I mistakenly thought you were killing my kitten (but you were unable to connect that event up with the time I think I saw you killing my cat - so the real explanation never comes out). The activists stage protests and do everything to destroy your reputation even beyond getting this job and you are demonized in your community and by all pet lovers who have never met you or given you a chance to show what an upstanding person you really are. They just fall into the mob mentality of it all and we only have my very strong memory and trauma from what I truly believe happened.


None of your attackers care about what really happened, but are only driven by keeping you out of that job at whatever cost and have been saying vile things about you in the press with you having no ability to give your side of the story.


When given the chance to speak your side, would you be angry or would you just say with no emotion at all that I was mistaken and that you never did this?


{{DISCLAIMER: I know that my hypothetical is far from perfect and does not represent an ideal comparison to the Ford/Kavanaugh scenario. It was the best that I could come up with in the moment.}}


Of course he came across as angry! I think he came across showing some tremendous restraint! So if you are basing his guilt or innocence of this allegation based upon his anger response, you really need to rethink that conclusion.  EDIT: I also think that if I was in his position and people were making death threats against my wife, I would tend to get slightly angry as a result and I believe rightfully so...


When you say that our standards as a nation have changed you are absolutely correct.  Guilty until proven innocent has never been the standard in this country and it is criminal (IMO) for that standard to be wholly ignored purely for political purposes - which is exactly what is going on in the liberal news media and among the Democratic politicians.


BOTH Ford and Kavanaugh came across as believable in their Senate hearings, IMO. I truly believe that she believes that he did this, and she has been victimized by the people who claim to support her.  But there has been absolutely zero corroborating evidence, outside of her testimony in which she could not remember several key details, Kavanaugh was involved in this. He has gone through SEVEN FBI investigations and they have turned up nothing to support the allegations.


As much as the Diane Feinsteins and Chuck Schumers and CNNs and MSNBCs try to spin it, this has nothing to do with rape or sexual harassment victims and Ford has become the biggest *bleep* in their chess game.  This has nothing to do with Brett Kavanaugh and his fitness to sit on the Supreme Court and they would have dug up accusations against any nominee that Trump named to fill this crucial spot. This is solely about the conservative vs. liberal makeup of the court.

[sfreeman8]

I believe the woman.  Our standards as a nation have changed.  Kavanaugh came across as angry.

Wouldn't you if someone smeared you and your family? Or would you be fine with it? I feel so bad for his wife and daughters. They don't deserve to see their loved one smeared so badly. I just saw a poll the other day and the tide is turning where the people think what's been going on is a sham.

[UGetPaid]

Ford has become the biggest *bleep* in their chess game

Since when was the word P*A*W*N considered offensive and bleepable?   

[vg7405]

Oh Lord, this particular situation is so mired in controversy. Unfortunately, this situation is a simple case of "he said, she said". With the only evidence being contradictory eyewitness testimony for an event that occurred over 30 years ago, I would probably chalk this up as an "L (loss)" for Dr. Ford.