Stephen Colbert’s fiery retort to Brett Kavanaugh’s condemnation of hearings
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Politics
Stephen Colbert’s fiery retort to Brett Kavanaugh’s condemnation of hearings
Yahoo Entertainment 3 hours ago
-
Now Playing
On The Late Show With Stephen Colbert , Colbert took issue with Brett Kavanaugh ’s attitude toward the Senate Judiciary hearings concerning the Supreme Court nominee’s alleged sexual assault of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford when they were in high school. Unlike in his recent interview with Fox News , in which he was calm and collected the entire time, Kavanaugh came out swinging, blaming Democrats for creating what he called a “calculated political hit.” Speaking to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh said, “You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind.” But Colbert saw things differently . He believes the only people Kavanaugh has to blame are the ones who support him most. “The wind was sown when Donald Trump had 19 credible allegations of sexual assault against him, bragged about sexual assault on tape,” Colbert said, “and your Republican buddies up on that committee said, ‘Yeah, but we want our guy on the Supreme Court.’ And that’s you, Brett.” Though there are multiple sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh , the hearing’s main focus was on those brought by Dr. Ford, and throughout, Kavanaugh seemed offended that he even had to be there. This did not sit well with Colbert. “That doesn’t mean you’re guilty,” said a visibly angry Colbert, “but please, save your indignation that finally someone is taking one woman's accusation of sexual assault seriously.”
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
And there we have it. This is much, much, much more about hatred of Trump than it is anything to do with Kavanaugh.
Of course not. He's a liberal. Nothing about the current American government sits well with him.
That's not why he's indignant. He's indignant because a random woman who has come forward with completely unverified, unsubstantiated, wild accusation from 36 years ago is being treated as equally credible with a longstanding federal judge with a spotless record.
Her "witnesses" all state they have no idea WTF she's talking about. She conveniently fails to offer a date or place of this supposed assault, which would give him an actual chance to clear his name.
Colbert would be as angry as Kavanaugh if it were happening to him, and he would be MUCH less dignified about it.
Maybe it's hatred against sexual predators, irrespective of party affiliation.
Before anyone can get to that, they have to believe her accusations. That belief is based in political tribalism, and enemy #1 of Tribe Blue State is Donald Trump.
Merrick Garland was denied even an opportunity for a hearing. It had zero to do with him. It had everything to do with Barack Obama.
Even if it was THEIR idea to begin with!
Tessy hugs are the best!
Agreeing with me in all caps now. Excellent.
That is the issue. Had it been taken seriously, it would have been brought to the committee in July, when it was received. Ford's name could have been kept confidential during the committee's investigation into the allegation. Witnesses could have been called in, etc. Instead, Feinstein, contrary to Ford's alleged wishes, leaks this after the fact, outing Ford, and prompting the circus we are witnessing now. The seriousness of the concern is not really for the allegation, but for the pomp and circumstance. I take the allegation seriously. I take the way it is being handled as political posturing.
Somebody leaked her name to GOP operative Ed Whelan so it's clear that the Republicans can't be trusted to do the right thing.
I can't wait for that juicy tidbit to come out in the FBI report.
What? So, the Post has her name, gives it to the white house before publishing the story, Whelan allegedly looks at her linkedin page prior to the running of the Story, and it's obvious that Republicans can't be trusted to do the right thing? Even assuming a Republican leaked the name to Whelan, it ignores the fact that Feinstein and Eshoo were the only ones that had her name as far back as July 6 (Eshoo). The only other people that had her name were her attorneys and her friends.
Still all of this pays no attention to the fact that Eshoo had the allegation on July 6, and Kavanaugh was nominated after that. Feinstein had the allegation during the investigation into Kavanaugh, but nothing was done during the senate hearings. That's playing politics and lip service to the accuser.
Sounds like she did the right thing and respected a sexual assault victim's request for confidentiality.
.
LOL. Why would the WaPo ever do that much less violate the confidentiality which they promise on their confidential tip line? What we do know is that less than an hour after the WH saw the redacted letter they knew who Kavanaugh's victim was, so it sounds like the WH talked to someone who they knew was party to the rape attempt.
Or, as appears to be the case to me, she waited until she could really get the most out of the allegation.
Sounds like you're suggesting that Feinstein should have ignored a sexual assault victim's request for confidentiality. I can see why a Republican would do that but the Dems are simply better and far more ethical people.