Brett Kavanaugh Circus

The allegation was not brought up earlier because there was so much other dirt on K.

His finances are suspicious. Someone paid a $100,000 fee to join an exclusive golf club, for example. A judge should not be accepting favours like that.
Most federal employees cannot accept gifts anywhere near that. But the Republicans won't even discuss it.
He had a large part in secret national security courts, where suspects were held and tried in secret.
Kavanaugh was evasive and clearly lying in his own interviews. He is anti abortion but refuses to admit it and made some stupid remarks when asked about it. There were a few times he pretended not to understand a question so he could avoid answering.

The Republicans are lying hypocrites over this appointment. They want to ram it through without debate. When the Dems attempted to debate the Republicans accused them of lacking decorum. The Republicans had no problem filibustering Obama's hearings for Garland.
The Republicans refused to discuss the 100,000 gift, they won't discuss how Kavanaugh bought a lavish house on his judge's salary. But they demanded to know how the woman who said he assaulted her could afford a $300 lie detector test.

Kavanaugh's own performance should have sunk him.
Trying to rush through his appointment is bad.
Kavanaugh himself is almost irrelevant, it is the behaviour of the Republicans that is the issue.

Riddle me this. If someone is lying (Dr.Ford)and they know that lying to the FBI is a crime, why would they be asking for an FBI investigation? If a sitting Federal Judge is accused of something he denies with his reputation at stake why wouldn’t he demand one?
Steve Schmidt tweet

Cock Throppled said:

The whole mess of the SC nomination of Brett Kavanaugh seems to me to fall squarely on the shoulders of Dianne Feinstein. She's the one who sat on the allegation for two months when an investigation could have been done.

If the Democrats were really interested in fact-finding, as they repeatedly state, they would have brought the accusation forward a long time ago, instead of trying to score a "gotcha" last minute surprise. The accusation cannot be proved one way or the other, so the damage has been done because some will believe the accuser no matter what happens.

Click to expand...

Actually this play by Feinstein is perfect timing. An FBI investigation, hearings etc will most likely delay the vote until after the midterms. Maybe it might work and the house and senate might be swung to the Democrats?

No surprise about the Republicans, they think they are above the law and can ram things through without full disclosure or hearings. They pulled the same thing with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.

Also, let's not forget the Republicans withheld an enormous amount of requested data and then dumped 40,000 pages the night before the hearings. And Feinstein is the problem?

WetWillieWinkie said:

I thought that Feinstein did not do anything with the information under instructions from her client.

Makes me wonder why an established Professor at Stanford would put herself though the ordeal that is surely to follow.

Click to expand...

The Prof is not a Feinstein client...Feinstein is not even a lawyer, she's a professional politician. The Prof didn't want to go public with this, but she felt somebody should know. Once shit started to leak to the media she decided to go all in...but still doesn't want to testify until the FBI does an investigation.

Has anyone seen his response to Kamilla Harris question about his potential discussion about the Trump investigation with a certain Law firm ? Talk about cringe worthy !!! It was seriously the most blatant disrespect to a question. Kind of like a teen after being asked an incriminating question from his parents.

Westcoast1 said:

Has anyone seen his response to Kamilla Harris question about his potential discussion about the Trump investigation with a certain Law firm ? Talk about cringe worthy !!! It was seriously the most blatant disrespect to a question. Kind of like a teen after being asked an incriminating question from his parents.

Click to expand...

Really was a liar liar pants on fire moment.

Turns out a good friend of his works for that firm and they worked together in the Bush Whitehouse.

Kavanaugh turned a bit red and didn't want to tell the truth.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/06/brett-kavanaugh-kamala-harris-law-firm-questions-809140

Gardener said:

Riddle me this. If someone is lying (Dr.Ford)and they know that lying to the FBI is a crime, why would they be asking for an FBI investigation? If a sitting Federal Judge is accused of something he denies with his reputation at stake why wouldn’t he demand one?
Steve Schmidt tweet

Click to expand...

Here's your riddle. She is not talking to the FBI and won't talk to the Senators either. She wants the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh based on her 36 year old memory of not knowing where or when her fantasy took place. The FBI has already said they wouldn't. And since when does anyone have to prove they didn't do something? The onus is on her to prove he did.

BIGOZZIE said:

Here's your riddle. She is not talking to the FBI and won't talk to the Senators either. She wants the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh based on her 36 year old memory of not knowing where or when her fantasy took place. The FBI has already said they wouldn't. And since when does anyone have to prove they didn't do something? The onus is on her to prove he did.

Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that perhaps you've already made up your mind on the legitimacy of her accusations?

Just to answer the implied question, the FBI have a few things they can investigate... questioning his former classmates to see if anyone can corroborate his presence at a party he says he didn't attend (goes to credibility) and also about his behaviours to see if there's anything consistent with the accusations, and likewise question her classmates, solicit witnesses or entice other victims (if there are any) to come forward. If he did this, then it would be unlikely to be his only transgression. Building a picture of an MO, if it exists, would corroborate her story. Questioning his colleagues about his behaviour to see if there any red flags (like the suggestion that he hired interns for their looks... did it stop there or did he impose on them?).

And while you are right to be cautious about guilty until proven innocent, this isn't some random Joe. The guy has voluntarily submitted himself to any and all scrutiny by virtue of pursuing one of the most powerful positions in their country. They would be remiss if they didn't "leave no stone unturned."

Ronald Reagan's daughter has come to Ford's defence, explains how the spotted memory and silence rings true as she, 40 years later, reveals her own rape:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8719177250f_story.html?utm_term=.edb3bd83de79

it is 36 years in the past,

so why bring it up now, to ruin is career
she could have done that a long time ago with such accusations.
he can't be held criminally responsible for anything.

I kind of think she was put up to it or its a witch hunt.
like some one said,

it is he said this she said this,
there was a co worker accused of some shit,
and that is what the judge said,
who do I believe,
and the case was acquitted I believe, meaning,
not enough to convict not enough to prove innocence either.

in the end all this is, is a smear campaign

the lady in my opinion is well I dunno not shinning so bright either,
simply because she waited 36 years and to this moment, when most likely nothing can be proven either way,

some one said these me too ladies who have to jump on the band wagon, look week,
I want to say britinay spears but not her,

I agree some of them do, to bring up something that happened thirty years ago,
and maybe some guy patted your ass, or said nice tits, and then say thirty years latter it ruined your life, or you have ptsd

and I don't want to make light of ladies who have gone through real traumatic experiences,
but they must be rolling their eyes too, they were viciously raped,
and they have to put up with these women saying well you know some guy patted my ass once and I was soo soo traumatized

you know I understand
being a child of a dysfunctional home,
my father in and out of jail for rape.

I get it. it takes a long time to find your voice,
yeah it really does,

but consider you wait until, no criminal charges can be pressed. to much time, has expired.
it will most likely come down to her word against his,
dirt will be brought up about her,
unless the man has a pattern of mis behaviour.
in my estimate she is going to look like the fool.

there is a lot of work going on about memory,
it has been shown 30 years after the fact, memory gets blurred,
you invent things to fit your story, what you want to put out there,

in my own case, some fifty years in the past,
yeah you exaggerate if you need a crutch to lean on you go poor me, I was rapped or my dad was in jail.

im not saying the lady or some one can be traumatized by some event, but years latter, the story comes out different,
your mind plays with your feelings which are genuine for sure what you feel is real, but you actually might exaggerate the story, or misinterpret events
that go with your feelings.

all im saying is,
you wait so long, unless it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt,
the optics look bad,

some one mentioned Clinton, he is free as a bird, making millions,
what do you think it feels like to accuse someone publicly and nothing comes of it,
your told your a liar, its a witch hunt,

I personally believe unless you can put the guy in jail,
you should shut up.
confront him personally slap his face accuse him in front of his friends his family, stand there and tell everyone what he did,
or do in personally in private, to him face to face,

but this public scandal news feeding frenzy,
I don't actually think it will benefit the woman.

I don't think it does, unless it results in a conviction,

there is a group of women I think nine of them.
accusers of trump I think, or maybe Clinton.

publicly accused them but nothing comes of it.
I dunno just my thoughts.

she will be dragged through the mud her highschool days,
which were described as drunken orgies or hookup parties,

like I said unless you can put the guy away, shut up,

sevenofnine, you know trauma, no doubt, but everyone experiences it and processes it differently.

When she was assaulted, she did not decide to seek justice. She was not taking her time to steel herself for it. At the time she basically felt there was nothing she could do. She wrote it off an tried to live with it. As you can imagine, it nonetheless stuck with her and shaped her. e.g. She apparently needed two exits in her bedroom to be able to sleep. She internalised her trauma. She was not biding her time.

Then this guy from her past reappears "in front" of her, up for a job that basically gives him some manner of control over her life. Now she has no escape from his influence on her life. She even told her husband that she might want to move out of the country to deal with the anxiety. She may not remember every detail but it's not like a day went by in 30 years that it left her mind.

So, just because she did her best to cope and move on with her life, in spite of the scars, she should shut up because he took 30 years to "reinsert himself" in her life (virtually speaking) in a way she could no longer cope with?

A victim that has done her best to cope, who's now been pushed over the edge, should now leave her life as she knows it and country because she already chose to bear the burden for 30 years?

Cock Throppled said:

Bill Clinton has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by four women: Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of raping her in 1978; Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without consent in 1993; Leslie Millwee[1] accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1980; and Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 as well as sexually harassing her. The Jones allegations became public in 1994, during Clinton's first term as president, while Willey's and Broaddrick's accusations became public in 1999, toward the end of Clinton's second term. Millwee did not make her accusations until 2016.

Bill Clinton has denied all accusations. Hillary Clinton has publicly stated that all the women are lying.

Does anybody see the hypocrisy of the Democrats and CNN hosts foaming at the mouth over Kavanaugh?

Also thought it was funny that Broaddrick has offered to testify before congress if Ford decides not to appear.

Click to expand...

I'm not minimizing Clinton's behaviour but more wanting to keep this on the SCOTUS subject.

Let's not forget these appointments are for life and these judges do not have to retire. Judge Ginsberg is now 85 for example. Kavanaugh could be on the bench for the next 30+ years if he remains in good health.

Clarence Thomas is another who should not have passed scrutiny during hearings and is yet another Republican nominee with a questionable past.

I thought Anita Hill's testimony was honest and thorough of her interactions with Thomas. I wonder if he would be put on the bench in 2018 with these allegations?

Cock Throppled said:

Bill Clinton has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by four women: ...

Click to expand...

Hitler was responsible for killing 6 million Jews, so it is ok for me to go out and kill Jews ??? Of course not! So if Clinton abused women, does that make it right that Kavanaugh did it ??? Of course not!

And btw, there is now another woman reporting abuse by Kavanaugh! So that is at least 2 now. Who knows where the count will end:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...rett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

And another story just now:

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/23/mi...h-credible-information-about-brett-kavanaugh/

I predict that Kavanaugh is done like dinner

JD