Lindsey Graham WRECKS Senate Democrats in Kavanaugh Hearings
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A normally-meek Republican Senator from South Carolina let his frustration with the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings be heard during his allotted question period.
“If you wanted an FBI investigation you could have come to us, said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020! “You’ve said that!”
Graham pointed at Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who had just finished questioning Kavanaugh.
take our poll - story continues below
“This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics. Boy y’all want power, and I hope you never get it,” Graham said to the Democrat members of the committee.
WATCH:
Lindsey Graham to Democrats: “If you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy. Boy, you all want power, God, I hope you never get it”
Tags
Who is online
82 visitors
Well Ah do declare Ms Lindsey shorly suffered the vapours this ahftanoon !
Homophobic attacks on social media! What would the Democratic Inquisition say?
For starters, probably cost you your job and prove your guilt in any number of hate crimes over the last couple decades. Hope you didn't drink alcohol in school or make any jokes in your yearbook!
Ah haven't a "homophobic" bone in mah body, sur !
What's the "democratic inquisition" ?
My job ? I have had my own business for the past 26 years so I'm not worried about my job.
I drank in high school and may have made jokes in year books but I certainly never physically attacked anyone, ever.
Your post is pure hyperbole.
Graham acts like a southern belle.
In what manner do you think?
His name sounds feminine and his manners seem a bit feminine to me.
Aren't you on the team that hates political correctness ?
It's funny you think that matters.
hat's the "democratic inquisition"
I guessed you miss the hearings today. Have you ever made a fart joke? Senator Whitehouse needs to know.
ank in high school and may have made jokes in year books but I certainly never physically attacked anyone
Per the Democrats, it's evidence you have, in fact, attacked someone. Probably many people at rape parties.
If I had a lemon aid stand it would be a "real business" and it would be "real" successful. That's not my line though.
Sean, take a deep breathe. Repeat.
Lindsey Graham disgraced himself today. So did Kavanaugh.
How did he disgrace himself? All he did was call out the Democrats for their hateful tactics designed to destroy a person's reputation as per the Duke Lacrosse team scandal.
Almost everyone said Blasey Ford was believable.
That is more than enough reason to postpone any vote until this is sorted out completely.
If Blasey Ford is believable than Kavanaugh is lying, or he was so drunk that night that he cannot remember.
Graham's tirade had nothing to do with the facts of the case.
Everyone said the girl who cried rape against the Duke Lacrosse team was believable, until they found out that the story wasn't true. The facts of the case are that there is no evidence that Kavanaugh raped her, only her word, every witness denies remembering that party or the assault, one witness even went so far to say that she didn't even know Kavanaugh let alone attended a party with him and Ford, the story that Ford claims to have had happen to her kept changing since she first told it in 2012: Four boys attacked her at a party (according to her therapist's notes), Two boys attacked me but Four attended the party (when the letter came out), and then around Sept 16 it changed to 3 boys and a girl were at the party. I didn't watch the hearing today, so I have no idea what her final version was. I did see the clip of Graham laying into the Democrats, though.
That dog just won't hunt. She began her attempts to inform Congress when she saw him on the short list, before he even became the nominee.
A conspiracy to slander a nominee would need to wait and find out who the nominee is actually going to be before the conspiracy could be put into motion. Otherwise, all of that fancy "made up slander" would stand too big of a chance of being misdirected and wasted.
The fact that she began before he was even selected blows that conspiracy theory right out of the water.
Are they not reporting that part on Fox News?
He was a high ranking official in the Bush administration; and is currently a federal judge. Both very public positions; and high power. Why didn't she come out then- instead waiting until "She was concerned Kavanaugh would be on the SC" as her husband claimed? No political agenda there what-so-ever./S
Why would Feinstein wait until the 11th hour to present the letter? Because they wanted to make sure it would be needed. Why use a fake bullet when you don't have to? If Kavanaugh came up for nomination in the future then they could trot out the letter at the 11th hour to derail it again.
The fact that she waited until he was on the short list for nomination absolutely makes it politically motivated.
No facts, no evidence, and all witnesses she name have denied it; but the left wants to end someone's career. The Clintons must be laughing at the left's blatant hypocrisy.
There's no good explanation for how the Democrats handled her letter.
Are you saying you think this whole thing is a pre-planned conspiracy on the part of the Dems? That this woman is some kind of paid crisis actor or something? That they started the ball rolling back in 2012 with her therapist?
For real?
So in your mind, if Kavanaugh is not confirmed, Trump's next nominee will be a liberal?? Is that what you're claiming???
Gosh, I didn't know that Gorsuch was a Liberal. Ya learn something new everyday on NT.
Yes, there is but, like a professor said in class one day, there's no convincing a Mule.
If it was all political, then why didn't the left do the same thing to Gorsuch?
Oops. There goes that argument.
Only three Democrats voted for Gorsuch this time I expect none so it is darn close to being the same.
Wow. You want quantity rather than what was the guiding principle of civility: “Let a 1000 guilty people go free rather than condemn 1 innocent person.” You would rather we condemn 1000 innocent people rather than let 1 guilty person go free. Right now, I see another Kristallnacht being handed to us by the Democratic Party. That is what Maxine Waters has pushed. That is what Michael Avennatti is pushing. That is what these Democrats have been pushing about this SCOTUS pick since BEFORE he was nominated. Do you want to go down in history as someone who supports Kristallnacht tactics?
So you had to reach back 12 years for an actual example of a false accusation? I've heard that used numerous times now by Trump defenders trying to deflect from the 19 credible accusations of sexual assault against him. Apparently conservatives now like cherry picking the lone outliers and presenting them as the new common "rule". Sure, likely 98 out of 100 accusations are valid (just 2% to 7% of sexual assault claims were found to be fraudulent) but if you were a rapist or someone who had committed sexual assault of course you would point to the two false claims if you were ever accused as proof of your innocence.
I am showing an example of what is actually going on here that happened in another case. You are saying there are more than the three non-credible accusers? I say non-credible because each witness has denied what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done, either never happened or they have no recollection of it. Secondly, each of the stories get more famtastic than the previous story. Hell, Ford, alone, has 3 different stories about what happened to her. The one being represented by Stormy Daniel’s lawyer, has this incredible story of going to multiple parties where rapes were commonplace and well known to happen that she WILLINGLY attended. Until any of them can produce witnesses from the timeframe or physical evidence to corroborate their stories what they say Kavanaugh did did not happen. Otherwise, this is Duke Lacrosse v 2.0.
E.A OR believe that " Groups of People make their own " Secret Language " for their Club ""
So that in effect any outsider claiming to know that Language is?
It wasn't THAT secret. Their peers all know it, from around the country. He lied about both of those terms and their meanings.
E.A Did they? Site? Documents?
And there is no concrete proof or evidence other than a 35 year old unsubstantiated accusation that Judge Kavanaugh did either. Sounds more like your post is the pure hyperbole here.
I find it hilarious that the one person on here that claims to be a champion of LGBT rights, claiming anyone that does not agree with her, is a bigot and a homophobe, is the first to throw homophobic posts against a Republican Senator.
Hilarious, but not surprising.
Homophobic much?
You don't have to answer that. We already know.
just saw you on the television set Ms Lindsey, and I do declayuh you looked simply divine!!We must meet for a mint julep on the verandah when you are back in Charleston.
Made up for alot of missteps with that speech.
It was a great speech. I wonder if the Democrats are even capable of shame anymore?
So many memorable things happened today
Kavanaugh's openeing statement was a tour de force
Senator Graham's statement was a Joseph Welch moment for the 21st Century.
Senator Stolen Valor admonishing Kavanaugh with the phrase "false in one thing, false on everything." For a guy who lied about serving in Vietnam to say that........
Your commentary is a shell of what it once was, and it wasn't that great to begin with.
You commentary is a shell of what it once was, and it wasn't that great to begin with.
You can always tell when John realizes he's losing......
Yep. Ad hominem attacks. Sad.
Same with many of the progressive leftist liberals posting. They cannot stomach the prospect of being found or proven wrong, so their favorite tactic is to fall back and verbally attack the messenger. Not only sad, but totally pathetic.
That may have been the most ironically hypocritical moment of the day.
And lets not forget Corey Booker, who actually committed sexual assault.
Dr. Ford was credible, believable, honest and emotional. She was everything the GOP didn't want her to be. No one cares what [deleted] graham says, (he has never been married and has no girlfriend...do the math). If Kavanaugh is confirmed, the GOP will lose the house and the senate in November.
[deleted]
[Removed]
Sure, but none of that is evidence. There is no evidence that supports her story and plenty that contradicts it. At the end of the day, this issue should be decided on the evidence, not her manner.
Then you agree that Kavanaugh did it. She 100% ID'd him. Ford knew who Brett Kavanaugh was before the night of the incident and on the night of the incident. Unless she is lying, he did it.
You can't say, "I believe her , but..".
No. I agree she had a compelling delivery and her story, by itself, is certainly plausible. But that's not enough.
The problem is that all the evidence we have points against her story and/or fails to support it. There are no witnesses or evidence that support her story and lots that supports Kavanaugh's story.
And the evidence indicates that she's 100% wrong. That happens sometimes.
I don't believe or disbelieve her about being attacked. What matters is if Kavanaugh attacked her and the evidence indicates that he did not.
Actually, there isnt a single shred of evidence that she is wrong. Other than Kavanaugh's say so. All the other people who she says were there said they coudn't recall. I don't remember every party I was at 40 years ago, but if I had been attacked by someone with a claw hammer at one of them I guarantee you I would remember. Ford remembers it because she had reason to.
Please tell me how she can be "wrong". Are you saying she was never attacked, or that she is lying about it?
There is not a single piece of evidence that "proves" Kavanaugh didnt attack her. What you are really saying is that she cannot prove it. She 100% ID'd him, and she knew who he was at the time.
Unless she is lying , he did it.
Again, she 100% identified him. And she was familiar , at the time, with who he was. It is NOT a case of mistaken identity.
There is no evidence that he did not attack her. You are confusing people saying "I don't recall" with evidence.
She can still be wrong. I can be 100% sure I left my car keys in the living room, but I find them in the kitchen anyway. Her brain is not infallible. In fact, we have evidence of its imperfection. First, she admits to drinking on the day in question. Second, she claims to have, at minimum, PTSD, claustrophobia, anxiety disorder, and who knows what else. It's easily plausible that she imagined her attacker was Brett Kavanaugh.
There is!
First, every witness to the event she named failed to corroborate her story. Every one - including her friend, who remembered no such event and said she doesn't even know Kavanaugh.
Second, today he produced a calendar of the time in question. It's highly detailed with multiple events on each day, including the names of people he was with. This is powerful evidence that he was doing something else on the day and at the time Dr. Blasey-Ford says she was attacked.
Far more likely that he was drunk when he assaulted her.
We also have evidence of Kavanaugh's black out drunk drinking history which is at odds to his own claims.
We have, on one hand, a possible victim who voluntarily took, AND PASSED, a lie detector test and supported an FBI deeper background check.
On the other hand, we have a possible sexual assaulter who refused to take a polygraph and refused to request the FBI confirm his claim of innocence.
Why?
Not really. We have the assumptions of other people who were admittedly drunk at the time and characterizations of a culture grafted on to Kavanaugh. It's merely guilt by association.
They are properly called "polygraph examinations." They are not lie detector tests. That's marketing. It's bullshit science and there is a reason they are not admissible as evidence. It's because they are not lie detectors.
I have no reason to doubt Dr. Blasey's beliefs about her memories but her sincerity does not make her correct. She admits to drinking at the time. She says it was one drink, but in my experience, people routinely underestimate how much they had to drink. Drinking can impact memory. If it can impact Kavanaugh's memory, it can impact Blasey's.
She also claims to be suffering from the long term effects of PTSD, anxiety, and claustrophobia. These things can impact memory. PTSD often occurs in concert (what the psych nerds call "co-morbidity") with other mental health disorders like depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. These, too, can impact memory.
It's not up to someone accused of a crime to prove a negative. It's not his burden to prove his innocence. It is the accuser's burden to prove his guilt.
I think just for optics, it would have been nice if the president asked the FBI to investigate. He is the only one I know of who has that authority. Although I doubt very much it would have changed anything.
Kavanaugh doesn't have any special power to influence the president or the FBI. It's not fair or honest to act like he does. Furthermore, it's far more appropriate for him to behave as he has, i.e. to be open and submissive to whatever the committee wants to do.
I 100% ID you as the one that broke into my house and stole all my stuff. I don't have any proof of this, but my mind says it was you, so it must be.
You're guilty...
Bugsy, she knew who Kavanaugh was before that night. If you don't understand the significance of that then I can't help you.
If I was a neighbor of yours and you ID'd me as the one breaking in your house , it would be a more powerful ID than if I was someone you had never seen before.
We have statements from his classmates, entries by Kavanaugh in his yearbook, and a thinly disguised book by his best friend in school.
First this is not a court of law, the test can be brought up during testimony.
Second is the fact that he refused to take one.
Bull about optics, an innocent person would be all for them proving himself innocent.
The Republican run committee could also make the request of Trump to direct the FBI to look into it.
Kavanaugh himself could advise the committee during testimony and to all news agencies that he would encourage Trump and the FBI to look into it.
Doesn't matter, he could still state that he is fine with a deeper background check and would encourage Trump to do it. Not only did he not do it, when one of the Congressman specifically asked if he would support such an investigation HE REFUSED TO ANSWER.
And we have an alleged co-assailant in the room who is now in hiding.....
Didn't "Judge" Kavanaugh recently rule that polygraph results can be considered determinative by employers in making hiring decisions? Isn't this a job interview? And don't our intel agencies use polygraphs with their employees too?
Or is his refusal to be polygraphed just more conservative hypocrisy?
I don't know anything about his rulings or thoughts on polygraph, so I can't speak to whether or not he is a hypocrite on the matter. I spoke only for myself. Polygraphs, in spite of the marketing, are not lie detectors.
So what? It is also well known that she and her lawyers are activists and rabid anti Trumpers, hating Trump with a passion, much like many posters on here.
If you were my neighbor, and I did not like you, according to your "logic", I can accuse you with zero evidence and you would be guilty, simply because I said it was you.
No, as is she knew him and had met him several times.
[deleted]
And if you can manage to be objective, so was Judge Kavanaugh
[deleted]
[Removed for context]
What does Graham's sexual orientation have to do with the B.S. the [deleted] pulled in the senate.
He was 100% right in what he said.
But par for course the left has to drag sex into the discussion because they have nothing else.
Removed for context
Come on Ed, you know that's not the truth. I was simply pointing out a fact. I actually like Graham, he can be fairly bi-partisan when he wants to be, but when he leans right, he REALLY leans to the right. Hope all is well with you and yours.
I should have stated that comment was meant more in jest than anything. I am getting by down here on the Southern border. Wet and rainy down here playing heck with arthritis. Hope all is well with you as well. Semper Fi Sir!
Sen Grahams little "kaniption" ( that wasn't a touch of the "vapors " folks) against Sen Durbin , reminded me of a time , when another GOP and dem had a violent and heated disagreement in chambers where it got personal and the dem tried to grab a photo op acting nicey nice outside .
the result was the 2 faced dem harry reid was told to "FUCK off by then senate president Dick cheney as he walked away leaving a speechless reid in the DC dirt.
Conniption: noun - a fit of rage or hysterics
Connipulation: noun - attempting to manipulate others perception by distracting them with a fit of faux rage or hysterics
watched todays proceedings from start to finish , and where I stand as a member of jury of the court of public opinion ?
pretty much the same place I was at the start , waiting to see if the accusor , presents even a shadow of proving the allegations made that would even warrant a cursory investigation , which by the way the cmte is and has been doing themselves ,
any and all hits to the accusors credibility took place BEFORE the sworn hearing, the only possible hit to her credibility is sticking to her story while providing no proof of the allegations .
The hits to her credibility that pre existed was and is , the people she named as witnessing the incident failed to back up HER version of events, but the only change in the story as of today is that there is now an unidentified male that was at what appears to be a ficticious gathering that cannot be named , thus leaving the door open that SOMEONE , could still be out there to verify her claims, because if it is left to those just named , her story does not stand .
If viewed a a set of scales just as lady justice holds , with both parties on either side, the accusation and the denial evening the scales , the denials by the named supposed witnesses , would definitely end up on the side of the accused , so that would mean the accusor has the burden of proof to bring the scales back over to their side , that was not done in todays hearing , not by a long shot.
Graham didn't wreck anything and he did revive 'the fire' in the Trump base.
Most importantly however, Graham successfully 'auditioned' for the upcoming opening in the US Attorney General position. The "Russia Investigation" days are numbered.
well at least we found out that the "devils triangle " is a drinking game based on quarters , and not a description of a womans lady bits …… have to admit I was wondering about that ( NOT).
Mark, Brett Kavanaugh tried to rip off 15 year old Christine Blasey's clothes on that bed 36 years ago. Since Kavanaugh is lying about it, we probably can't believe him on the meaning of "Devil's Triangle" either.
Chirstine Blasey Ford knew who Brett Kavanaugh was, at the time, and she says she is 100% sure he is the one who attacked her. There was no mistaken identity.
The only question is, who cares?
My feeling is that his supporters OVERWHELMINGLY believe it was 36 years ago, he was 17 at the time, and a man's life should not be ruined in his 50's over a mistake that happened when he was 17.
Ok you have made the accusation , now , can you prove it ? beyond a shadow of a doubt ?
as I have maintained all along , burden of proof rests with those making the accusations to prove those accusations , not the other way around and the accused having to prove the opposite.
She positively ID'd him.
She knew who Brett Kavanaugh was prior to the incident. She wasn't meeting him for the first time that night. She says she has always been 100% sure he did it.
This is not a case of mistaken identity mark. Unless you are saying she is lying, he did it.
She first made this claim , in a public sense, in 2012, long before he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
He did it.
If you think he didnt do it, then say Ford is lying, because that is the only way that he didnt do it. There is no "mistaken identity" involved here.
fine , if you want me to be the judge , by a preponderance of the evidence already presented with the statements of the 3 supposed witnesses she named , she is lying about the accused being involved in any way. she has provided no , absolutely NO evidence , connecting the accused to a date time OR place , has absolutely NO witnesses that can verify her statements period . She and those backing her have not met even a simple burden of proof . simple burden of proof being that all these individuals were in the same place , at the same time. I find for the defendant .
There I said she is lying , I don't think she is lying about her having someone doing what she claims , but I think she is lying about , the WHO, why would she do that/ you will have to ask her if she ever is charged with perjury before the committee, which wont happen either. because the burden of proof she is lying still has to be met .
Happy now?
EVERY WOMAN WHO WILL BE IMPACTED BY HIS LIES AND HIS MISOGYNY. Abuse is a BFD. IT MATTERS.
If he did it he is a liar, TODAY. Would you vote to put a known liar on the Supreme Court?
The accuser was the one who was calm and collected. Kavanaugh was ranting, insulting and uncomposed.
"Liberals" , and even moderates have to realize the country is at war, a civil war, and the moderates need to pick a side. That is reality.
No.
The selfish, ideologically driven extremists need to quit dividing our nation.
That is reality.
Why we would still be bowing down to kiss the Queens rump if not for the so called extremists. I’d rather be called an extremist than a puppet owned by the government.
We are not dealing with a foreign power over us. We are dealing with ourselves with an existing framework to address our problems internally.
Our political extremists see only ideology, not we the people.
Continually broadening the chasm because of ideology is no better than the Sunni vs Shia divide in Islam.
Our extremists are only moving use further in that direction. Even the comment I replied to advocated a further divide, rather than sorting things out for We the People.
We the People gets pushed further and further back as selfish, blind ideology moves closer to the forefront each election cycle.
If we don't jump off that merry go round, the real civil war/revolution wish of the extremists will come true at some point. All because of blind, selfish ideology.
[Removed]
George Washington wasn’t fighting a foreign government he was fighting his own government. Everyone that signed the Declaration of Independence was an extremist.
Dave, the political ideology of trumpism has to be defeated and sent to the garbage pile of history.
That will not be accomplished by people devoted to the idea that "both sides" are equally wrong.
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
I understand what you are saying. Yet it is fair to say the great majority of people living in what would become the USA had no sense of belonging to King George's Empire, which was oppressive in many ways, and without the political mechanism built into what our Founding Fathers put in place.
We now have a framework to work within. Currently, I am of the mind that the people "we" have elected into office have never taken a Social Studies class.
No one is working together for We the People. All that matters is blind, selfish, diametrically opposed ideology.
Let me ask you this: Who got us here?
Not wanting a rapist and highly partisan political operative on the court is "extreme"? Wake up.
I am wide awake and right here is the context of my statement:
It is that very thinking that has taken us to this point.
If we do not jump off the merry go round, our situation will only get worse.
Driving the wedge deeper and creating a bigger chasm is only for the extremists and their causes.
We have a framework in place to follow. For the life of me I can't see were "our" elected officials have the slightest idea of what our Forefathers have put in place. Or if they do, they don't care. All they see and pursue is blind, selfish, ideological personal and political gain.
JMO.
SCOTUS nominations have always been contentious but I'm definitely on the side which isn't trying to put a highly partisan rapist on the court.
Agree 100% with that mindset.
Disagree with last minute drama when information worthy of opening an investigation has taken this long.
Now it is all a spectacle of drama and political points to one side or the other rather than what could have been part or the process from months ago.
The investigation is needed. How we got here is wrong.
Maybe, but if so it's due in part to a process failure on the judiciary committee in regards to how to deal with confidential allegations. I sure wouldn't trust those GOP assholes to treat any rape or sex assault victim with respect, much less to respect her request that the information remain confidential. How exactly did a political operative like Ed Whelan learn her identity just minutes after the information was forwarded to the WH by the FBI? That fact alone should be investigated.
Also the fact that there's "drama" has as much to do with the loss of privilege of angry white guys as it does with the nature of the allegations. The GOP could have dealt with this sanely and deliberately but they wanted to push this nominee on to the court no matter what.
Neither side of the isle has clean hands.
Unfortunately for her, our justice system is based on proof not accusations. The burden is on her as the accuser. She did not file a complaint then NOR has she filed one now. There is no statute of limitations for this type of crime in Maryland, yet no accuser has filed a complaint with local police. Why not?
Reminder, this is NOT a trial, this is Kavanaugh's job interview, which he failed miserably. Which makes he perfect in gop eyes evidently. Why a party would want to piss off half the country is beyond me, but enjoy November.
Oh ya, those are the liberal talking points we keep hearing. No I'm afraid the hearings for Judge Kavanaugh ended two weeks ago. This was living hell for two people who neither wanted to be a part of this political circus, nor should have been there. This was all forced upon the American public because Diane Feinstein forced a frail traumetized individual to testify before the entire nation. Her allegations easily could have been heard as Ms Ford would have preferred - in privacy, but it's all about delay and/or defeating the nomination.
Why a party would want to piss off half the country is beyond me
In case you hadn't noticed, this country is bitterly divided. Like Chuck Grassley, you seem to think it goes away by accommodating one side (the radical obnoxious side). We will see you at the polls in November.
So you agree that if Kavanaugh isn't confirmed that he should be imprisoned, right?
How can he be imprisoned? None of the accusers have ever filed a complaint with the Police, not even the one Michael Avenatti has invested so much in. If the allegations were to be proven true (that Ford was pushed on a bed and Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth), what would the charges be? Would Ford file the charges? There is no statute of limitations in Maryland for sexual assault. Why, even now, hasn't she filed them?
She can still file in Maryland. She is in the hands of an attorney recommended by Diane Feinstein and an activist attorney, neither of them is charging her any money. I am sure they would have filed if there was any possible way to prove these allegations.
Yes Sir....I have to tip my hat to you!
Wait.....are you claiming that this is just a job interview and that Vic's comment that "our justice system is based on proof not accusations" isn't even remotely relevant to the topic of a job interview? For that matter it isn't even relevant to a rape case since there are many perps who have been convicted based just on the credible accusations of the victim. Heck.....even Trump supported exactly that standard when he called for the lynching of the Central Park 5.
The only reason I could think Vic's comment would have any possible relevance is if he though this was a criminal trial. Seems like a lot of conservatives are using language which indicates that they think it is rather than merely a job interview.
Could point! It sounds like you're beginning to realize that this isn't a criminal trial.
It's being repeatedly called "a job interview" by the left to excuse the accuser from providing real proof of her allegation
The only reason I could think his comment would have any possible relevance is if he though this was a criminal trial.
There is a relevant issue that I'm sure you don't know much about. It has been the golden thread of common law not only in the US but in other countries. That is the concept that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Impressions of who sounded sincere are irrelevant.
It's being called a job interview because that's exactly what it is. In fact I doubt there are many HR departments today which would hire anyone who had been credibly accused of sexual assault, much less someone being hired for a key position.
By the way Kavanaugh has ruled that a polygraph is not just acceptable but determinative when used to screen employees or potential employees. So why is he refusing to take one now?
OMG, I f'd up a word!!!!! My life is now in ruins. Woe is me, woe is me!!!!
Or maybe I was in and out of a fitful dream of being on a beautiful isle were there is no "BULLSHIT" flying around every political discussion.
You know, the kind of "BULLSHIT" where no one is able to recognize their own contributions to problems.
Anyhow, you are right, it is aisle not isle, though my preference is isle.
It's okay to be a dick, asshole, prick sometimes, but spending too much time there is too taxing and dark.
You don't think sexual assault is a crime? Really? LOL
And Senator Whitehouse, who asked him about it, apparently has no idea what a drinking game is.
Yeah, sure he doesn't.
Oh, don't be so sure:
Real meanings can be found inside that article or plenty of other places.
Actually yes I can be sure because when asked what it meant , that was his response . when I was at that age we called quarters duckfuck , and we had any number of ways to play but the premise was the same get the quarter into the glass or glasses .
whatever anyone else thinks it means is up to their own dirty little minds. and is actually irrelevant since he stated what the Yb post was about.
He lied about what both of those mean. Read my links.
of boof and Devil's Triangle? "Real" meanings? Are we serious right now? We're looking up words on Twitter? Urban Dictionary? For slang shared among a group of friends in the 1980s???
For the Supreme Court?
If you want the truth of what those entries back in the 1980's meant, you need to reference them. Kavanaugh just pulled those lies out of his ass, they have NEVER meant what he said. If he lies about the little things, likely lies about the big ones. No wonder Trump loves him.
Unless you were part of Kavanaugh click 35 years ago you have no clue what they meant by "Boof" or "Devils triangle.
Just like the left wing has a hard time with well regulated in the 2nd Amendment. They try to put todays meaning into it when in fact you would refer to a time piece as well regulated as in running smoothly back then.
Strong point: He's supposed to be Bill Cosby in high school and then suddenly he gets over it.
If you know anything about these cases, you know that someone who is at the level of drugging and raping people doesn't suddenly stop doing it without being forced to.
I won't speak to the 3rd accusation because I don't know enough about it, but I can totally see a kid who can't handle his booze become an aggressive, belligerent drunk who can't control himself and blacks out. Numerous people have stipulated he did. And I don't think he has to have carried it on as an adult, but I DO think his attitudes about women have carried on. That alone is enough for me. No way that man can be seated. I believe Ford, you either believe her or think she is lying. I think Kavanaugh is lying. We all need testimony under oath from Mark Judge. Period.
I'm not aware of anyone who has said that he blacked out from drinking, but even if he had at some point in his life, there is nothing to make us believe that he did on the day in question.
He is probably the strongest advocate for young female lawyers in Washington D.C. I don't know of anyone who disputes that.
This is a false choice. I believe she is mistaken.
Why? We already have a statement from him and if he's lying, he goes to jail. What do you imagine will happen? Do you think some senator is going to turn into Perry Mason and get him to confess to lying?
Even Dr. Blasey's friend, though she "believes" her, cannot confirm the events she is supposed to have witnessed and denies even knowing Kavanaugh. Combined with the other denials, that really should be the end of our inquiry and it's glaring proof that Dr. Blasey's memory is not trustworthy, no matter how heartfelt her testimony appears. I feel for her, but the evidence tells me she has made a mistake.
Bullshit, we know EXACTLY what his attitudes about women actually are. We can look at his body of work and his words. He does NOT have the temperament to be on SCOTUS. And if he does get there, expect a big blow out from women. I've never been so pissed at a bunch of patronizing, sanctimonious old white men in my life, and that is saying something. This is an absolute disgrace, and I predict if he does get on, women will be confronting republicans and Kavanaugh in the future. Expect it to get really nasty.
Maybe Grassley realizes that the GOP's message to women is already loud and clear. They simply don't give a crap that their nominee might be a rapist.
By the way this wasn't at all surprising: half of evangelicals support him even if all the allegations are true.
The predominate narrative of METoo is that men in power abuse their position (Weinstein, every news executive etc...) to take advantage of women sexually. Kavanaugh supposedly was leading a rape ring in high school and then became an honest guy once he obtained power and had women working for him.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
(j/k Sorry, I felt the need to lighten the mood a little.)
Wow. You have no idea what you are talking about. Sexual abuse and #MeToo isn't just about men in power positions. You can be an abusing peon. Its about POWER and CONTROL over women (or any victim). I think Kavanaugh was drunk, by the way, I think he does black out and have memory gaps. His lies about his past add to his unfitness to that position. He is not the best by any stretch.
[Removed]
The Sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Ford and Kavanugh said based on the evidence presented, she wouldn't have prosecuted, let alone be able to obtain a search warrant from a Judge.
Flake's a Yes.
Kavanaugh's opening statement might have been the most effective speech of my lifetime.
LOL. In the world of Trumpism , yes, it was effective.
In a world of reality, it was bizarre and wildly inappropriate. In truth, his opening statement is in itself a good reason for voting him down.
n a world of reality, it was bizarre and wildly inappropriate
The only people who would have reacted differently to being falesly accused of running a rape ring are either not fully functional human beings or scumbags whose reputations are already so low that another accusation doesn't matter. As Charles Cook said, T o wonder why a man in Kavanaugh’s position is angry is to betray either a disastrous lack of empathy or a telling lack of humanity. Of course he’s angry.
Cooke's whole piece on the subject of anger is spot on.
In most cases, this has been a purely political cry, prompted by partisan irritation that Kavanaugh has given himself a fighting chance of being confirmed. Had he been docile, as his would-be assassins were evidently expecting him to be, he’d have been dead in the water by 3pm — and, most likely, have been swiftly accused of the opposite sin: “He’s so calm! That’s a clear indicator of guilt.”
That's the problem. This ISN'T a 'political' problem. But it will be. This is a credible accusation of sexual assault. A week can be a long time, and I expect women to come forward (not necessarily about Kavanaugh, just assault in general), and peers of Kavanaugh are already coming forward, angry he is lying about his drinking and partying. I look forward to a real investigation. If it gets that far. I don't think Kavanaugh wants it.
Fuck you have some low standards, you would have been in awe of my 2 year old's tantrum yesterday.
I wonder what the public reaction would be if Ford had acted as belligerent and irrationally irate as Kavanaugh and Graham acted? Or do only men get permission to act that way?
Any female falsely accused of a sex crime who acted like Kavanaugh would be a national hero.
I take that back, any female Democratic nominee accused of a sex crime who acted like Kavanaugh would be a national hero.
I can't even imagine how rapturous the media would be about her. It would make the literal swooning over Obama in 2008 seem hostile in comparison.
In Graham's defence, he probably does not understand any of this.
It is a lot different than trolling men's bathrooms.
If he is gay he has my sympathy. I can't imagine what it must be like to live one's life in the closet in a party which hates who you are. I have an elderly uncle like that - presumably gay but in complete denial of that fact simply because of the era he grew up in.
Exactly what "BS" is that - that the GOP seeks to harm gay folks like their platform CLEARLY states and which Trump did (again) yesterday in his change to how the spouses of gay UN staffers are treated?
I suppose if religious conservatives can honor and revere a man in their bible who got drunk and slept with his own daughters, this kind of thing is no big deal. And of course, the authors of the bible, all men, proclaimed it was his daughters fault, those damn sneaky women... And what of Adam and Eve?
"And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." - Genesis 3:12
Men have been blaming women for their own failures and lack of integrity for thousands of years, why would anyone believe they'd stop now?
All Little Lord Lindsey did yesterday was show what fucking tool he is. His main goal was to try to take the heat off Kavanaugh who was in the process of dissolving into a puddle of tears and slobber. It did have its comedic side though: His self-ighteous faux indignation at the Dems in view of how his party has played extreme rightwing take-no-prisoners politics with the SC is as hilariously as it is putrid. Gawd how these worms can project when their backs are up against it.
That and expose how desperate Republicans are now. If they weren't so afraid of having their purely partisan pathetic plan to plant a compromised religious conservative judge on the supreme court all in an attempt to overturn Roe v Wade, they would have been the first to call for a thorough investigation.
Such palpable faux rage. The only thing worse than Republicans with absolute power is Democrats with absolute power, right?
Stuck on that see-saw, eh?
Both sides fucked this up.
The dems held on to it too long. the republicans discarded it too easily.
Our country is a mess and the politicians and the media are to blame.
I see this all as just another step down the road of degradation of our ethics in governmental control of the masses.
When Kavanaugh is confirmed after this mess he will never be totally respected and a shadow will hang over his and the supreme courts head for years. Evidently the republicans dont care, they have the power and are going to use it no matter what.
If this is true and Kavanagh did attack this woman, once again trump's vetting process was a fail.
Considering our president isn't very detail oriented and seems to care more about loyalty to him and his causes than the person he puts forth it doesn't surprise me one bit.
The best of the best is and was just a huge joke as I see it. The best of the best for trump perhaps but I have yet to see a properly vetted person put forth by this president. One after another of trump's people is a problem in hiding.
Good Luck America !
Please explain how exactly.
.
I seriously doubt he has one which extends beyond asking "are you loyal to me?"
The lady accusing reported her story long before any dem moved on it.
Why ?
That lady submitted the letter confidentially. Are you suggesting that Feinstein should have violated the confidence of a sexual assault victim?
From my understanding the letter itself was not offered in confidence only the author's name was asked to remain in confidence. Of course that sure complicated the matter for feinstein but never the less feinstein had plenty of time to decided what to do with the information and she should have known what route to legally and the normal route of delivering that info to the people it mattered to the congress people involved in the conformation hearings she didn't. Why ?
So from what little I know, I'd say feinstein used it inappropriately herself.
That's not correct. Ford labeled the letter "CONFIDENTIAL" at the top and as long as Ford didn't want to speak on the record there wasn't anything Feinstein could do with the information, both from an ethical standpoint and from the standpoint that she knew the GOP couldn't be trusted to respect that confidentiality.
There are more details here including the fact that the "Intercept" which first reported that such a letter existed says that the leak didn't come from Feinstein or her staff.
.
That's simply false based on the facts. Feinstein did exactly the right thing. However we should thank whoever did tell the Intercept about the letter because otherwise none of this would have come to light and there'd now be a rapist on SCOTUS.
Ok then IMO feinstein should have followed up with ford and told her of the problem with moving tthe information ford so desperately wanted moved forward.
I'm not letting feinstein off that easily I do believe she caused part of this problem.
Why - because you've been told by some wingnuts to think that? What exactly was she supposed to do given that Ford was unsure whether she wanted to go public and eventually decided not to do so? It would have been grossly irresponsible of Feinstein or the Washington Post to violate that trust.
This was a bomb shell feinstein knew it, Ford knew it.
You are correct ford herself caused much of the problem by her indecision. IMO: feinstein should have like I said pursued ford and informed her of the problem of moving this highly inflammable information forward anonymously.
Now we are very likely to end up as you stated we are probably going to have an accused justice on the bench with NO real answer to the validity of which is reality. Sad and more division in America that we sure as hell don't need.
This is not good !
Skrekk, you should stop with convicting people before the evidence is in, it makes you look judgmental and foolish. It's what happened with the Duke faculty and administration when they did the exact same thing to the Duke Lacrosse players and coach. It's what caused the Durham DA to be disbarred and go to jail for 1 day. Do you want to repeat that situation? Until actual evidence comes forward, none of the stories should be accepted.
Apparently Feinstein or her staff did do exactly that. Ford knew that Feinstein couldn't do anything with a confidential allegation. So it seems that you're blaming Feinstein for doing EXACTLY WHAT SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.
Note that the other Dems on the committee were rather unhappy that even they didn't know about the allegation until they learned about it indirectly based on the Intercept story.
You folks seem rather confused as to whether this is a criminal trial or a job interview for high office.
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between reasonable suspicion and the very different standard used in a criminal trial? Or is the conservative standard for confirming a judicial nominee a very low ethical standard indeed? "We suspect you might have sexually assaulted someone when you were drunk but we can't prove it, so you're now on SCOTUS." I doubt any woman or ethical person person will forget this.
Good cause she sure as hell should have. From what I Had heard this just basically sat there for quite some time. Like I also said IMO: much of the problem really goes back to Dr Ford and her unrealistic idea of her anonymity to begin with.
Understandable her wanting anonymity but unrealistic considering her mission.
When battling Goliath you dont hide behind "anonymity" It doesn't work.
But I've also heard Dr Ford had decided to basically drop this herself at one point until she became public against her will.
SO perhaps the true blame lies at the feet of whomever leaked her story.
Where ever the blame lays I see ALL of this harmful to America. Anything that continues to divide us I see as the enemy of WE the people. Including many or most of our politicians and the media.
Thanks for clueing me in on feinstein I've backed off till I do my own research and collaboration.
Sitting on it is what Feinstein was supposed to do until and unless Ford chose to go public.
.
Correct.
.
Whoever that was did the country a great service. Most likely it was one of Ford's friends whom she had talked to. There's little doubt however that it did Ford substantial harm.
.
The blame really lies with Trump's completely unvetted nominees, Leonard Leo at the Federalist Society, and with the GOP's choice to try to rush the nomination through before even more adverse information came out. What they SHOULD have done (if they were honest or ethical) was to suspend the nomination until the FBI could thoroughly investigate any and all credible allegations.
I should expand on that - Trump ignored the Senate leadership's opposition to Kavanaugh before he nominated him. That's exactly what Joe Biden warned about repeating after Bork was rejected, the failure to consult with the senate before making the nomination.
I agree. When this came out at this late stage I wasn't happy. Once they had the "hearing" all that was going thru my mind was this sucks. The only realistic thing to do at this point is put this on hold a short time and have an investigation. Starting with Kavanagh's so called friend.
As Ford concluded and Kavanagh started I wondered if he himself would call for a break and an investigation to clear himself. As the day went on and it was apparent both himself and congress was pressing forward and indicating no further investigating was going to be done I wondered if maybe the president would be concerned enough to call for an investigation. I had resigned myself to the fact NO No one was going to do what I though was the logical thing to do.
When flake did what he did I was almost shocked but coming from AZ in his district and had voted for him I was glad I had. I think this was the first time I was actually glad a candidate I voted for did what I thought should really be done.
Unfortunately even he himself said later in an interview that IF he had been running for reelection he could not politically have done what he did and what he considered the right and best thing to do.
That's sad. When our own representatives are afraid to represent us in the best way they believe they should want do we really have ?
One really big problem is that despite what Grassley claimed there doesn't seem to be a safe way for people to come forward with confidential allegations. The GOP's callous treatment of Ford is proof of that.
.
Note that the FBI hasn't interviewed Ford or any of the corroborating witnesses who were named by Ramirez (I don't know about Swetnick yet). So it seems that there are severe constraints on what the FBI is being allowed to investigate.
.
Exactly. It says a lot about the current state of the GOP.
That was why I really liked Russ Feingold as my senator - he always voted the way he thought was the right thing to do even when it pissed off the Dem base.
E.A Is not the KEY word " Confidential " and does that not mean that a Police Crime Report has to be filled and Longed with earmarked " Confidential " and then one has to wait for the Police to report what they have found?
Sorry but you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
E.A Hhmmm OK thanks that says a LOT, thank you!
E.A https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2333&context=bclr
E.A " The nation's law-enforcement agencies now face a major new challenge: preventing another terrorist attack inside the United States.6 As some reports suggest, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the "FBI") and other agencies have engaged informants with links to terrorist organizations in order to detect and prevent future terrorist plots.? In national security investigations, however, the policies regarding informants differ from those in the criminal context.5 This Note addresses how the rules governing the use of informants change when national security is at stake. The law imposes a number of restrictions on the use of informants in criminal investigations. Under the Fourth Amendment, courts may issue search warrants on the basis of information provided by an informant, but only upon a preliminary demonstration that the source of such information is somewhat reliable. 9 An even more stringent standard of review is imposed upon the use of informants to support an application for electronic surveillance. 19 In addition to these warrant requirements, other defenses and remedies exist for the criminally accused whose rights may have been violated during an investigation involving the use of informants. 11 "
Rest My Case!!
LOL.
So, where do you draw the line? Anyone can accuse anyone else of doing something criminal without proof and it will destroy their chances to get a job at all. Right now, it looks like everything that Ford stated is not provable, which means one thing: she LIED. The polygraph is not enough as there was no baseline to compare her answers to, since they only gave her 2 questions in it. Everyone else that she pointed to, either cannot remember or denies the alleged attack occurred. This is why I compare this to the Duke Lacrosse scandal, because the people involved were judged by the media and the people of the area as being guilty without any proof and punished for their assumed guilt before it was found out that nothing of the sort happened. 3 players were kicked off the team, the coach was fired, the season was cancelled, and then..."OOPS, the story was false. Ummm...we're sorry we destroyed your reputations, here is some money to make up for it; but no matter what people will look at you as rapists despite the falseness of the story that we rushed to judgement about..."
I do not ever want to see something like that. Heck, I am still very, very ticked off over how Penn State and the NCAA handled the Jerry Sandusky scandal and how they posthumously pinned the blame of it on Joe Paterno using third-hand information (since Joe Paterno never used email or text messaging and the emails they used as proof came from other people not from him). I have personal knowledge of how a rapist can hide their true natures from close friends as a friend of mine was convicted of rapes on both the Penn State campus and in Florida. He was one of the nicest people I knew before that. It was an absolute shock to learn of those things.
Right now, you want to do what Duke and Penn State both did, rush to a judgement and punish a person whose only problem is that someone accused him of doing something. There doesn't seem to be any substance behind the accusations as no one can come forward and corroborate the story, just as what happened in the Duke Lacrosse case. They took the word of the "victim" at face value without any evidence to back it up outside of the party occurring. With Kavanaugh, we have even less evidence than what was used to punish the Duke Lacrosse team before the investigation proved that the allegations against them were false. A completely innocent person was fired from their job, because all he did was stand up and defend them and their right to be "innocent until proven guilty". If you have even a single ethical bone in your body, you would actually agree with me that Kavanaugh should not be punished for just being accused. If a person can be punished for being accused of something without any proof, then ANYONE can be accused and their lives ruined by ANYONE ELSE just because SOMEONE said "So-and-so did this potential crime, but I have only my word that this occurred." This is the situation Kavanaugh is in now, we have 3 people accusing him of sexual assault but NONE of them have shown any evidence that this might have occurred outside of their say-so.
Anyone can accuse anyone else of doing something criminal without proof and it will destroy their chances to get a job at all.
Yes anyone can accuse anyone of anything at any time, If they do so falsely they could be subject to at least a few laws. Especially if they swear under oath.
So, Go for it !!!
Right now, it looks like everything that Ford stated is not provable, which means one thing: she LIED.
OR it could mean possibly a "real" investigation now or then would have provided more proof. Unfortunately, We'll never know.
.
A two day investigation on this serious of a issue..... LOL
Good move rebs !
Vote !