Kavanaugh

[flockofseagulls104]

We should spend the time necessary to investigate whether Dr. Blasey Ford's charge that Judge Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist is true.

No we shouldn't.

Because you're willing to put him on the Court even if every word she says is true? I don't think most of the American people agree with that. --Bob

We have a system of justice for situations like this. Being the above average ethical lawyer you are, I would think you would know that. The dems prefer a trial by the mob, which this is, because they control most media.
"Oh, the Justice system is swayed towards the rich and powerful!" Well who's fault is that, Mr Lawyer? It may well be, but it's the best justice system we have, and it's the correct process for this situation. Infinitely preferable than a political circus and trial by the press.

[Bob78164]

Every word she says is not true.

Were you there? You don't know that. You can't know that. You've just decided for political reasons (like most Republican Senators) to prejudge the situation before even hearing the evidence. --Bob

No I was not there. Neither was Kavanaugh.

So you're calling her a liar even before hearing her testimony? --Bob

[Bob78164]

No we shouldn't.

Because you're willing to put him on the Court even if every word she says is true? I don't think most of the American people agree with that. --Bob

We have a system of justice for situations like this. Being the above average ethical lawyer you are, I would think you would know that. The dems prefer a trial by the mob, which this is, because they control most media.
"Oh, the Justice system is swayed towards the rich and powerful!" Well who's fault is that, Mr Lawyer? It may well be, but it's the best justice system we have, and it's the correct process for this situation. Infinitely preferable than a political circus and trial by the press.

Appointing someone to the Supreme Court is a political decision. And like it or not, this is the process we have for it. I expect constituents to hold their Congressional representatives accountable for what they do here.

Trial by mob is what's happening to Dr. Blasey Ford, who no longer lives at her own home and whose family is in hiding. The FBI should be investigating Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations, and those of the other women in the process going forward. And I have yet to hear any reason other than a nakedly political one for delaying the process until that investigation takes place.

I will say this. For an innocent man, Judge Kavanaugh is in one hell of a hurry to get this over with before the facts can come out. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Were you there? You don't know that. You can't know that. You've just decided for political reasons (like most Republican Senators) to prejudge the situation before even hearing the evidence. --Bob

No I was not there. Neither was Kavanaugh.

So you're calling her a liar even before hearing her testimony? --Bob

Well, bob-tel. you are calling Kavanaugh an attempted rapist even though he has categorically denied it numerous times. None of us knows who's telling the truth and who is lying. And everyone involved has their own agenda and their own 'evidence'.

He said, she said. Let her take it to a court of law, and she can do all the investigations she wants. If he's found guilty, he can resign. But accusations are NOT enough to ruin a man's life and career. And if we let this thing happen the way the dems are pushing for, it sets a very bad precedent that your mortal enemies will take advantage of when it's their turn.

[flockofseagulls104]

Because you're willing to put him on the Court even if every word she says is true? I don't think most of the American people agree with that. --Bob

We have a system of justice for situations like this. Being the above average ethical lawyer you are, I would think you would know that. The dems prefer a trial by the mob, which this is, because they control most media.
"Oh, the Justice system is swayed towards the rich and powerful!" Well who's fault is that, Mr Lawyer? It may well be, but it's the best justice system we have, and it's the correct process for this situation. Infinitely preferable than a political circus and trial by the press.

Appointing someone to the Supreme Court is a political decision. And like it or not, this is the process we have for it. I expect constituents to hold their Congressional representatives accountable for what they do here.

Trial by mob is what's happening to Dr. Blasey Ford, who no longer lives at her own home and whose family is in hiding. The FBI should be investigating Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations, and those of the other women in the process going forward. And I have yet to hear any reason other than a nakedly political one for delaying the process until that investigation takes place.

I will say this. For an innocent man, Judge Kavanaugh is in one hell of a hurry to get this over with before the facts can come out. --Bob

You think Kavanaugh isn't getting death threats? Even before Ford was sprung?

Kavanaugh is and has been willing and available to face his accuser. Are you blind to the naked political actions your side has engaged in?

I find it interesting that the media has had this for a week, and, to my knowledge, not one more bit of actual evidence that this party ever took place has been unearthed. Not a who, where, when in sight. Only more unsubstantiated allegations with no way of proving or disproving. Let's see what the porn lawyer comes up with.

[flockofseagulls104]

The FBI should be investigating Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations

No, they shouldn't.

[flockofseagulls104]

Trial by mob is what's happening to Dr. Blasey Ford,

Yes, and it's not right. Dianne Feinstein should be held accountable for this.

[silverscreenselect]

The FBI should be investigating Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations

No, they shouldn't.

Lisa Murkowski disagrees with you:

“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified. It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/us/p ... naugh.html

McConnell doesn't have the votes right now.

[flockofseagulls104]

The FBI should be investigating Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations

No, they shouldn't.

Lisa Murkowski disagrees with you:

“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified. It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”

What do I care what Lisa Murkowski thinks? Why do you think I should care? Is she somehow the ultimate font of knowledge? I thought you were.

[flockofseagulls104]

For bob-tel, here's your answer to what difference would it make to delay the vote for an FBI investigation:

They've done this before.
Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. You may believe women don't lie, but senate democrats certainly have no trouble with it. We won't even go into what the venerated Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, (who killed a woman) did to Robert Bork.
Let the accusers take their accusations to the Justice system, where it belongs.

http://www.sunjournal.com/has-drive-by- ... -lynching/

The Washington Post reported that senior Republicans are increasingly determined to press forward with Kavanaugh’s nomination despite his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, saying that the Federal Bureau of Investigation should investigate her allegation before she testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“They’ve had tons of time to do this,” Graham said of Democrats vetting the accusation. “This has been a drive-by shooting when it comes to Kavanaugh . . . I’ll listen to the lady, but we’re going to bring this to a close.”

That phrase – “drive-by shooting – echoed words used by then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment by law professor Anita Hill after President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1991. Thomas told the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time:

“This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

You probably don't agree with much that Justice Thomas has ruled on, but I dont know of anyone who has accused him of any questionable behavior since he was confirmed. I happen to think he has been a great SCJ. He does the job as it was meant to be done.

[silverscreenselect]

What do I care what Lisa Murkowski thinks? Why do you think I should care? Is she somehow the ultimate font of knowledge? I thought you were.

Because unlike you and I, Lisa Murkowski is one of 100 people who will vote on whether Brett Kavanaugh becomes a justice of the Supreme Court. So, in that regard, her opinion is considerably more important than yours. And, in general, she has at least some degree of common sense, which also makes her opinion more valuable than yours.

[silverscreenselect]

I dont know of anyone who has accused him of any questionable behavior since he was confirmed.

Which could just as easily mean that he's smart enough to realize that any such allegations would be disastrous for him so he avoided them. Men like Thomas harass because they think can get away with it. Now that he knows he can't get away with it any more, he doesn't.

[Beebs52]

I dont know of anyone who has accused him of any questionable behavior since he was confirmed.

Which could just as easily mean that he's smart enough to realize that any such allegations would be disastrous for him so he avoided them. Men like Thomas harass because they think can get away with it. Now that he knows he can't get away with it any more, he doesn't.

Amazing. Just amazing.

[Bob78164]

For bob-tel, here's your answer to what difference would it make to delay the vote for an FBI investigation:

They've done this before.
Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. You may believe women don't lie, but senate democrats certainly have no trouble with it. We won't even go into what the venerated Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, (who killed a woman) did to Robert Bork.
Let the accusers take their accusations to the Justice system, where it belongs.

http://www.sunjournal.com/has-drive-by- ... -lynching/

The Washington Post reported that senior Republicans are increasingly determined to press forward with Kavanaugh’s nomination despite his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, saying that the Federal Bureau of Investigation should investigate her allegation before she testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“They’ve had tons of time to do this,” Graham said of Democrats vetting the accusation. “This has been a drive-by shooting when it comes to Kavanaugh . . . I’ll listen to the lady, but we’re going to bring this to a close.”

That phrase – “drive-by shooting – echoed words used by then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment by law professor Anita Hill after President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1991. Thomas told the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time:

“This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

You probably don't agree with much that Justice Thomas has ruled on, but I dont know of anyone who has accused him of any questionable behavior since he was confirmed. I happen to think he has been a great SCJ. He does the job as it was meant to be done.

Translation: You don't know and you don't want to know, and the danger of delay is that we might learn things that you don't want to know.

My position (which I believe to be shared by a majority of the American people): I don't know and I do want to know. Or at least try our best to find out. Before a vote. --Bob

[Beebs52]

For bob-tel, here's your answer to what difference would it make to delay the vote for an FBI investigation:

They've done this before.
Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. You may believe women don't lie, but senate democrats certainly have no trouble with it. We won't even go into what the venerated Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, (who killed a woman) did to Robert Bork.
Let the accusers take their accusations to the Justice system, where it belongs.

http://www.sunjournal.com/has-drive-by- ... -lynching/

The Washington Post reported that senior Republicans are increasingly determined to press forward with Kavanaugh’s nomination despite his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, saying that the Federal Bureau of Investigation should investigate her allegation before she testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“They’ve had tons of time to do this,” Graham said of Democrats vetting the accusation. “This has been a drive-by shooting when it comes to Kavanaugh . . . I’ll listen to the lady, but we’re going to bring this to a close.”

That phrase – “drive-by shooting – echoed words used by then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment by law professor Anita Hill after President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1991. Thomas told the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time:

“This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

You probably don't agree with much that Justice Thomas has ruled on, but I dont know of anyone who has accused him of any questionable behavior since he was confirmed. I happen to think he has been a great SCJ. He does the job as it was meant to be done.

Translation: You don't know and you don't want to know, and the danger of delay is that we might learn things that you don't want to know.

My position (which I believe to be shared by a majority of the American people): I don't know and I do want to know. Or at least try our best to find out. Before a vote. --Bob

Gosh. You're wired into everrrybody?

[flockofseagulls104]

I dont know of anyone who has accused him of any questionable behavior since he was confirmed.

Which could just as easily mean that he's smart enough to realize that any such allegations would be disastrous for him so he avoided them. Men like Thomas harass because they think can get away with it. Now that he knows he can't get away with it any more, he doesn't.

Which could just as easily mean he never did any of the things the dems tried to smear him with.

I guess we get a little concession by you saying he's smart. Is he smarter than Maxine Waters?

[flockofseagulls104]

which I believe to be shared by a majority of the American people

Oh yeah? Name them.

[Bob78164]

which I believe to be shared by a majority of the American people

Oh yeah? Name them.

Voters. --Bob

[Beebs52]

which I believe to be shared by a majority of the American people

Oh yeah? Name them.

Voters. --Bob

Amazing. Just amazing. Y'all are bordering on racist, too. But that's okay since he's conservative.

[silverscreenselect]

Amazing. Just amazing. Y'all are bordering on racist, too. But that's okay since he's conservative.

Beebs, you're getting as bad as Flock. When you don't have a response, you toss out a catchphrase and add a suggestion of left wing racism as well. It's ironic that Clarence Thomas caught a break when the other women who were prepared to testify against him weren't allowed to do so by Joe Biden, who chaired the Judiciary Committee at the time.

And Thomas hasn't been free of sexual harassment claims since he got on the Court:

http://time.com/4548119/clarence-thomas ... arassment/

[flockofseagulls104]

Amazing. Just amazing. Y'all are bordering on racist, too. But that's okay since he's conservative.

Beebs, you're getting as bad as Flock. When you don't have a response, you toss out a catchphrase and add a suggestion of left wing racism as well. It's ironic that Clarence Thomas caught a break when the other women who were prepared to testify against him weren't allowed to do so by Joe Biden, who chaired the Judiciary Committee at the time.

And Thomas hasn't been free of sexual harassment claims since he got on the Court:

http://time.com/4548119/clarence-thomas ... arassment/

bob-tel, you are not one to throw stones. You are one of the most closed-minded and biased persons I have ever seen. I wrote a post a few months back comparing you and SSS to Groundhog Day. Any time someone makes a valid point, you just ignore it, make up lame excuses and stick with your opinion as fact no matter what. And the next day, the next week or the next month you stick with your narrative, like you've never even read more than the first line of their answers to you. It's impossible to debate with someone like that, so I decided, when you do that, just to make it into a joke. I have plenty of responses to your bullshit, but it's a waste of time with you and SSS. Neither of you take any time to comprehend them, you just do a knee-jerk response. Especially SSS, with his 'trump supporter', 'hannity', 'breitbart' taunts as he completely parrots the leftist talking points word for word.
I got you, babe.

[Bob78164]

Amazing. Just amazing. Y'all are bordering on racist, too. But that's okay since he's conservative.

Beebs, you're getting as bad as Flock. When you don't have a response, you toss out a catchphrase and add a suggestion of left wing racism as well. It's ironic that Clarence Thomas caught a break when the other women who were prepared to testify against him weren't allowed to do so by Joe Biden, who chaired the Judiciary Committee at the time.

And Thomas hasn't been free of sexual harassment claims since he got on the Court:

http://time.com/4548119/clarence-thomas ... arassment/

bob-tel, you are not one to throw stones. You are one of the most closed-minded and biased persons I have ever seen. I wrote a post a few months back comparing you and SSS to Groundhog Day. Any time someone makes a valid point, you just ignore it, make up lame excuses and stick with your opinion as fact no matter what. And the next day, the next week or the next month you stick with your narrative, like you've never even read more than the first line of their answers to you. It's impossible to debate with someone like that, so I decided, when you do that, just to make it into a joke. I have plenty of responses to your bullshit, but it's a waste of time with you and SSS. Neither of you take any time to comprehend them, you just do a knee-jerk response. Especially SSS, with his 'trump supporter', 'hannity', 'breitbart' taunts as he completely parrots the leftist talking points word for word.
I got you, babe.

You seem to have addressed this to the wrong person. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Beebs, you're getting as bad as Flock. When you don't have a response, you toss out a catchphrase and add a suggestion of left wing racism as well. It's ironic that Clarence Thomas caught a break when the other women who were prepared to testify against him weren't allowed to do so by Joe Biden, who chaired the Judiciary Committee at the time.

And Thomas hasn't been free of sexual harassment claims since he got on the Court:

http://time.com/4548119/clarence-thomas ... arassment/

bob-tel, you are not one to throw stones. You are one of the most closed-minded and biased persons I have ever seen. I wrote a post a few months back comparing you and SSS to Groundhog Day. Any time someone makes a valid point, you just ignore it, make up lame excuses and stick with your opinion as fact no matter what. And the next day, the next week or the next month you stick with your narrative, like you've never even read more than the first line of their answers to you. It's impossible to debate with someone like that, so I decided, when you do that, just to make it into a joke. I have plenty of responses to your bullshit, but it's a waste of time with you and SSS. Neither of you take any time to comprehend them, you just do a knee-jerk response. Especially SSS, with his 'trump supporter', 'hannity', 'breitbart' taunts as he completely parrots the leftist talking points word for word.
I got you, babe.

You seem to have addressed this to the wrong person. --Bob

Same difference

[flockofseagulls104]

I am going to watch the hearing that they are giving to Dr. Ford.

I am going to just ignore any theatrics by either side, and count it against the credibility of their case.

I am going to ignore any emotion-based arguments. Our system of justice is not based on emotions. It is based on facts and evidence. Yes, I feel for her for what she may have gone through. But I also feel for Kavanaugh, and I do acknowledge the possibility that he is being smeared, because of the actions that the democrats have done in the past.

I am going to start with the assumption that Kavanaugh is innocent of these accusations because he says he didn't do them. In our system of justice, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I am going to see if Dr. Ford has any additional EVIDENCE that may strengthen her case, which, up to this point is based only on emotion.

I am giving the burden of proof to Dr. Ford. She accused Judge Kavanaugh of doing this thing to her 35 years ago. It is up to her to make a fact-based argument that it indeed happened and that it was Kavanaugh that did it.

If she does not produce any factual evidence that beyond the shadow of doubt links Judge Kavanaugh to the horrendous thing that she says happened to her, I will have no problem with the Senate confirming Kavanaugh as an associate justice. I will also hold the leaders of the democrat party more in contempt than I already do (FWIW, ie nothing) for making the confirmation process a joke. They apparently sat on this accusation for 2 months, which I believe is plenty of time to give it more substantiation than it currently has. If they can only support it with the mantra "a woman has to be believed", then shame on them.

If she does come up with some credible evidence specifically verifying this event and Kavanaugh's role in it, he should withdraw his nomination immediately. If that is the case, he bald-faced lied to the American people, just like Clinton did, and has no place in a position of power in our government. And, if possible, he should be prosecuted for it.

I acknowledge the possibility that it may have happened exactly as she described it, but because it happened so long ago, she has no way to physically prove it happened. If that is the case, it's wrong, it's unfair and it's tragic. But unfortunately, life is sometimes unfair to all of us. She could have reported it when it happened, but she didn't. For whatever reason. In that case, she let him get away with it. And sadly, she will have to live with that decision.

I have no problem, and I would encourage her, if she wants, to prosecute this case in a court of law, where it belongs, to see if she can prove it and to see if she can get some just compensation for the wrongs done to her.

[Bob Juch]

I am going to watch the hearing that they are giving to Dr. Ford.

I am going to just ignore any theatrics by either side, and count it against the credibility of their case.

I am going to ignore any emotion-based arguments. Our system of justice is not based on emotions. It is based on facts and evidence. Yes, I feel for her for what she may have gone through. But I also feel for Kavanaugh, and I do acknowledge the possibility that he is being smeared, because of the actions that the democrats have done in the past.

I am going to start with the assumption that Kavanaugh is innocent of these accusations because he says he didn't do them. In our system of justice, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I am going to see if Dr. Ford has any additional EVIDENCE that may strengthen her case, which, up to this point is based only on emotion.

I am giving the burden of proof to Dr. Ford. She accused Judge Kavanaugh of doing this thing to her 35 years ago. It is up to her to make a fact-based argument that it indeed happened and that it was Kavanaugh that did it.

If she does not produce any factual evidence that beyond the shadow of doubt links Judge Kavanaugh to the horrendous thing that she says happened to her, I will have no problem with the Senate confirming Kavanaugh as an associate justice. I will also hold the leaders of the democrat party more in contempt than I already do (FWIW, ie nothing) for making the confirmation process a joke. They apparently sat on this accusation for 2 months, which I believe is plenty of time to give it more substantiation than it currently has. If they can only support it with the mantra "a woman has to be believed", then shame on them.

If she does come up with some credible evidence specifically verifying this event and Kavanaugh's role in it, he should withdraw his nomination immediately. If that is the case, he bald-faced lied to the American people, just like Clinton did, and has no place in a position of power in our government. And, if possible, he should be prosecuted for it.

I acknowledge the possibility that it may have happened exactly as she described it, but because it happened so long ago, she has no way to physically prove it happened. If that is the case, it's wrong, it's unfair and it's tragic. But unfortunately, life is sometimes unfair to all of us. She could have reported it when it happened, but she didn't. For whatever reason. In that case, she let him get away with it. And sadly, she will have to live with that decision.

I have no problem, and I would encourage her, if she wants, to prosecute this case in a court of law, where it belongs, to see if she can prove it and to see if she can get some just compensation for the wrongs done to her.

The standard in U.S. criminal courts is not "beyond the shadow of doubt", it's "with no reasonable doubt". In civil courts, it's by the "preponderance of evidence". I say that's sufficient in this case.

As to why Dr. Ford didn't report the crime, beyond the same reasons most victims don't report, she probably knew Kavanaugh's mother was a prosecutor and therefore may have felt she had no chance of being heard.