WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?
To quote President Trump, “What do you have to lose?” We all heard that ludicrous statement used by the most disingenuous man who has ever sat in the White House. Now we should ask the same question in regard to Justice Kavanaugh. If he is telling the truth, “What do you have to lose?” if the man is telling the truth. A full and extensive investigation and hearing would certainly exonerate an innocent man. The information that could be gained by an FBI investigation could be completed in 3 to 4 days. A hearing with the testimony of all potential witnesses would probably take no more than three days. At the end of that period of time, the public would have a clearer picture of what happened almost 40 years ago and the country could move on with either the confidence that Justice Kavanaugh is innocent of the charges that are being levied against him, or the Republicans could join with their Democratic counterparts in a rare show of cooperation and vote down the nomination of a man for whom the testimony proved is unfit to serve on the SCOTUS. This could all happen in a week to ten days. A small price to pay for a confirmation to a position that will last a lifetime.
“What do you have to lose?” The implications of the question are massive. The Kavanaugh nomination was made to fulfill a campaign pledge. The President promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices who would either repeal or decimate Roe v. Wade. It was the central promise made to bring his most conservative and religious supporters on board. It was a promise to the single issue voters of this country. The President’s promise got half way home with the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to a SCOTUS seat that was controversial only in the fact it should have been filled a year earlier, under the Obama administration. Gorsuch, however, was replacing the most conservative member of the court, and thus, didn’t change the ideological makeup of the court.
This nomination is different. Kavanaugh is replacing the swing vote on the court. It changes the ideological balance {which is a presidential prerogative}. That is not the issue. The issue is the honesty and veracity of a SCOTUS nominee. Throughout the process, there have been questions about Kavanaugh’s veracity during his nomination to the D.C. circuit, and his propensity for over-analyzing decisions through creative, if not oddly drawn logic. He was, however, on the road to confirmation.
The allegations of Dr. Ford are another major issue that must be fully investigated. What do you have to lose? Dr. Ford is either telling the truth or is being mendacious. If she is telling the truth, Kavanaugh has no business on the court. If she is being mendacious, the confirmation can proceed unfettered. It does seem strange, however, that the accuser is pressing for a full scaled investigation under penalty of perjury, while the nominee and the entire republican establishment are trying to discourage fact finding. You would think that truly innocent individuals would be fully supportive of a complete investigation.
What do you have to lose? We understand that one of the things you have to lose is a Trump toady who will fight for the principle that a sitting president is immune from any crime or the investigation into any crime. We understand that you will have a strong anti-choice vote on the SCOTUS, but every nominee that this White House brings forth will be anti-choice, since every nominee has to be approved by the Federalist Society.
What do you have to lose? A perception that the administration is full of sexual predators and is trying to normalize predation among women. A perception that this president cannot choose competent nominees for offices. The realization that the republican party may still have some sane members who will not march in lockstep with the president’s march toward burning the capitol while he plays the fiddle. And it seems, a senate that only can think with one mind. A realization that they are rats that are willing to go down with the sinking ship and will drown in a sea of public anger.
Maybe what the administration has to lose is actually what the nation has to gain.
Tags
Who is online
200 visitors
So far the optics are all in Dr. Ford's favor. She wants the investigation. She wants witnesses. She has evidence. Kavanaugh wants nothing. His one witness doesn't want to testify in public. It certainly leads to believing Dr. Ford's account.
Okay, I'll bite.
What witnesses to what exactly?
Ford has claimed she was alone with Kavanaugh and his friend. Said friend says he doesn't remember anything like what she says happening ever.
That leaves Kavanaugh and Ford.
There is simply NO evidence.
Let's establish that there was a party...who was at it.....what their recollections were? If the particular party is proven, Kavanaugh lied {he swore he wasn't at any party}. Did students speak of the incident? Without an investigation, we'll never know. Doesn't the discussions with two different therapists and the lie detector test result give credence to the allegation? All of this constitutes at least a prima facie case for continued investigation.
I am quite sure that Kavanaugh attended SOME party when young.
Now how will we know WHICH party Ford is referencing when she can't remember the date or place?
Will just any old party do?
And can YOU remember what specifically you did at a party some 35 years ago? I doubt it, and doubt anyone else can, either.
She claimed she did not tell anyone of the incident until years, no decades, later. What would the students be talking about then?
Here's the "investigation" in a nutshell:
FBI interviews Ford. She makes her allegations. The FBI interviews Kavanaugh, He denied the allegations. No witnesses who claim to remember anything. No physical evidence at all. No police reports filed. No medical treatment sought.
Not one credible shred of evidence for a prosecutor to even bring charges, never mind ever taking this clunker to an actual court--at least not if he wanted to seek reelection ever again.
Case closed. Kavanaugh confirmed.
How's about we skip the histrionics and just get it over with already?
You've obviously never been through an FBI non-criminal investigation. They are exceptionally good at unwinding rumors or allegations from 40 years previously. they have agents who do nothing but this type of investigations. Let it happen....It happened with the Anita Hill allegations and worked out well for the republicans. What do you have to lose? It will only confirm the truth.
You just answered your own question.
This isn't a criminal investigation, it's a background investigation so it includes investigations of any derogatory claims.
Which is a very strong indication that she's telling the truth. If she were lying she wouldn't have invented a potentially exculpatory witness.
Yes--no witnesses other than the supposed victim and her "attackers".
Classic case of he said/she said.
No proof at all anywhere.
More like the proof is as stable as a Jenga game in an earthquake.
WHY do they investigate
things...
sometimes, to provide proof
one way or another, as to, what were the actual circumstances and events, that actually transpired, or DID NOT transpire, determinable much easier, after a minor investigation.
What are the GOP so afraid of...
How many years were wasted investigating Hillary ?
and,
I doubt too many on the "Right" were complaining then, and why not throw in another FRCKN BENGHAZI investigation as well
HIPPO CRITICAL BULLSHIP
How about the actual investigation of Anita Hill?
"Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Delaware Democrat who heads the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement today that when Ms. Hill first contacted the committee, on Sept. 12, she insisted that her name not be used and that Judge Thomas not be told of her allegations. He said this effectively tied the committee's hands.
Only on Sept. 23, Mr. Biden said, did she agree to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate the allegations. The report was finished by Sept. 25, he said, and all committee members were notified of it by the next day. On Sept. 27, the committee deadlocked 7 to 7 on the nomination.
The White House today described the F.B.I. report as finding the allegations as “without foundation.”
How about it ?
I thought Hill was far more convincing than coke can man.
Was Biden a Republican then ?
WHy weren't the 3 or so, other accusers allowed to testify ?
Times have slightly changed since that hearing.
Between the Divider in Chief, and the #metoo movement, I'd say the political landscape has been vastly altered.
Well if that's all she has and is the actual totality of her proof, Krazy Cavanaugh should smoothly sail through.
Again, what is the GOP so afraid of...FAX ?
Or no proof of Fax ?
Nice try. Not one damn thing to do with Benghazi or any other investigation.
FBI can talk to her, talk to him, then close the case.
No evidence otherwise besides her word.
We don't convict on hearsay and NO evidence.
I'm sure you did.
Was Biden a Republican then ?
WHy weren't the 3 or so, other accusers allowed to testify ?
I'm guessing that Biden knew they were Teddy's volunteers, whose testimony would have been torn to shreds. You forgot - the FBI looked into all of it
Times have slightly changed since that hearing.
You mean a lot of the "Greatest Generation" has passed away or that the university has indoctrinated so many? I think you might be surprised how many are able to now see that the world hasn't come to an end with this particular President. I also think women are much smarter that the liberals give them credit for. This whole exercise has fooled nobody and I suspect democrats will pay for it in November.
So Hillary IS INNOCENT of ALL CHARGES, CORRECT ?
.
Would not a short small investigation clear all this up ?
Of course it would, but why is the GOP so frightened then ?
If Hillary was never charged with anything, then YES, she isn't guilty of anything.
WTF does Hillary have to do with anything?
Hell XD in just the 5 hrs I have been up I have deduced it most likely took place in 1982 at someones house in chevy chase MD at a small gathering of 5 others and her , making the total present maybe 7 people...… just have to figure out whose house it was and who are the 4 ( ? ) unnamed individuals, maybe those names are the ace in the hole? , at least we can say from the statement it wasn't a barn burner block party....
last I knew , Hillary was accused of multiple things , but never charged , and still walks free.
First of all a party like what was described probably happened at some point. The question is was Kavanaugh there? Kavanaugh swore he wasn't there, no other people have come forward to say anything to corroborate her story that he was. So, right now she has zero evidence.
EDIT: Remember the Duke Lacrosse team and the rush to judgement they went through and the destruction of their reputations over FALSE allegations of rape. Do you want to see that happen again? If not, then you need to demand that she puts out proof that Kavanaugh was at that party other than her say-so and therapist's notes that mention NO names and states that part of her story is questionable as those notes state that FOUR boys attacked her.
So she;s "innocent" then, right ?
I think Hillary learned the ropes in the days of the "Whitewater Investigation":
The independent counsel goes on to charge that Clinton “destroyed" personal records of her work for Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, which gave the Clintons sweetheart loans. As a lawyer for the Little Rock, Ark.,-based Rose Law Firm, Clinton was retained by Madison to conceal from federal bank examiners a fraudulent $300,000 cross-loan in the Castle Grande real estate deal.
using the premise I do, innocent until proven guilty , yes she is , that does not translate to me liking her , her political style stances or beliefs , or voting for her, which I never have.
goes back further , I remember her from Watergate and how she was "let go".
No, she isn't innocent, she just wasn't charged. Big difference. There is definitely enough evidence to have charged her with violating the Negligence Clause of the Espionage Act of 1917, but the FBI and DOJ has not brought charges against her. And, with the way Comey handled the investigation, he has single-handedly tainted any attempt to actually charge her. Any charges brought now would be declared political and would not result in any conviction as she would be able to point to the FBI's determination not to charge her. So, no, she is not innocent; just getting away due to a technicality.
I think she is guilty as SIN
just played the game Slick Willy taught her, parsing every letter of the law.
.
Like people defending Trump for not paying taxes, " He just took advantage of the laws on the books, so he's a smart business man" deal.
.
Have never been a Hillary fan, but compared to the LIAR in Chief...PLEASE
lokk under your post
Nobody has walked away from more sleazy scams than the Clintons. They created a powerful political machine and had people who would readily lie for them.
Right, Comey's handling of the investigation of Hillary stinks of collusion between Comey and Hillary's campaign. Some believe Comey was in the bag with Trump and throwing the election to Trump. If that were the case, then Comey would've recommended charges ending Hillary's campaign, but the first time he exonerates her and the second time when emails were found (of all places) on Wieners laptop he waits months till just before the election to do the least possible damage to Hillary but timed so as to stop endless investigations and possible impeachment when she became president.
The therapist obviously confused the number of gang rapists with the number of other people at the party.
But what the therapist's notes confirm is that Ford revealed the rape attempt many years before Trump was installed by the EC and long before he nominated Ford's assailant.
LOL.
Was Hillary convicted of anything?
Are you getting to some sort of point, or what?
You read the words under my name, did you not?
Who else would have wrote them under my name?
Isn't that a rather silly question to ask?
There is JUST as much evidence to support what the therapist stated as there is for Ford's statement.
In fact, I would believe the therapist much more because he or she doesn't have an ax to grind like Ford does.
So you're saying that both Kavanaugh and Judge lied about not being wannabe rapists?
You mean apart from one statement being made by the victim and the other not?
Wow, that is really, really an EXCELLENT point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So we can just go ahead with the vote, and if the FBI investigates at all, it can come after the vote.
Precedent and all, you know!
If she is going to rely on the therapist as some sort of "proof" that she was assaulted, well, then lets RELY on the therapist's word and notes.
You can't pick and choose parts of what the therapist says if you want to use the therapist.
Like I said, the therapist has ABSOLUTELY no reason to lie.
Ford appears to have an agenda.
Actually the committee vote came several days after Hill's allegations were made public and after the FBI had completed the 2nd investigation. The committee had negotiated with Hill for three weeks before the allegations were made public, in sharp contrast to how the committee today is trying to rush the process to push a rapist onto the court.
Another big difference is that 25 years ago the chairman of the judiciary committee asked for an FBI investigation and the president granted it. With the GOP in charge today both the prez and the chairman of the judiciary committee have rejected that.
.
Sounds like you're rather desperate to discredit a sexual assault victim. The therapist's notes are merely proof that Ford first talked about the rape attempt 6 years ago, proof that Ford's allegation isn't merely political theater despite the moronic claims you've repeatedly made.
Then we should take the therapists' word.
Why wouldn't we? You want us to take the therapists' word that she told him about the incident, right?
It is a fact, and it IS a little funny, especially how so many Democerats were crying that he sabotaged her campain=gn!
if that were the truth, why did DiFi sit on this allegation for months?
the intent is obvious, an 11tth hour smear. I think most Americans can see that.
There’s that. And the fact that dems are using the “MeToo” movement as a cheap political stunt.
Actually, according to an Echelon-Insights poll this week....46% believe Ford, only 19% believe Kavanaugh and the rest was to see an investigation to prove the allegation one way or another.....So I guess your insight to what Americans can see is just a bit reversed.
Those poll numbers give me even more confidence in my insights.
Not just the wording, but also the chosen demographic - polls are so easily skewed. The only pollsters that IMO have an ounce of veracity are Gallup and Pew, and I'm not so sure about them.
She's afraid to testify. She has no evidence. She has no facts. She rejects logic and common sense. She's a liberal operative. Co firm Kavanaugh on Monday. Screw the liberals.
She identifies three people and Kavanaugh at the party. All four deny being present/it happening.
It's absurd this is moving forward.
What intrigues me is the use of the yin yang symbol on the FP post of this article. For those who are unaware, it is the most popular Taoist symbol, representing a philosophy wherein two elements are required to benefit each other - a symbiotic relationship - for example there would be no shadow if there were no light. A dictionary explanation with respect to human application that I found is this:
Perhaps DocPhil (is that an indication that the member is a Doctor of Philosophy? And if so, is it honourary or if not then what field? Or is the name of the member "Phillip" and he is a medical doctor or dentist?) should explain what relevance the symbol has to this article. As I see it, it could mean that perhaps Kavanaugh and Ford were bound together in such an incident if it happened, and one would not have done it if the other were not supportive, as it was a benefit to both. How one may describe it afterward could depend on intent.
Look to the left of symbol
Maybe what the administration has to lose is what the nation has to gain.
"Look to the left of [the] symbol" ??? The symbol fills the whole space for a picture. There is NOTHING to the left of the symbol. Your following statement has nothing to do with yin yang - the significance of yin yang is that both benefit - "gain and loss" is irrelevant to yin yang.
Geez Buzz, my bad, it's to the left of symbol here, and symbolizes to me,
the loss of the pompous selfish self & nation defeating direction this administration has taken our country,
would benefit ALL OF US in this COUNTRY, just some aren't bright enough to get that, cause they've been played
What is there to lose? A man's reputation will be forever tainted as was the Duke Lacrosse team over false allegations. Ford needs to provide actual proof and witnesses to back up her current story which is somewhat contradicted by her therapist's notes (being attacked by FOUR boys not two and no names). The witness she claims to have been there cannot remember anything like that happening, so she is providing us with a nothing burger expecting us to do exactly what was done in the Duke Lacrosse team incident and immediately believe her without any sort of proof and destroy Kavanaugh's reputation. Until she provides actual evidence that there was a party that she and Kavanaugh attended and has witnesses corroborate the happenings at the party; then there should not be any movement to investigate this.
It's cute some liberals are still going through the charade of pretending to care what Ms. Ford testifies to. It's cute they pretend that allegations of violence against women trouble them. The current VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY has been accused of assaulting multiple women (not to mention the Democratic Senators who will sit on Judgement of Kavanugh who've been accused of assaulting women too) and they could care less. What do the men and women who are so worked up about a single 35 year old allegation say in defense of Karen Monaghan? Nothing.
Hell they got more worked up over allegations about an imaginary Monaghan and the imaginary rapes of her at the UVA. Demonizing Frat boys is political gold for Democrats, black Muslim Democratic party leaders, not so much.
Democrats only care about these allegations when it's politically advantageous. Anybody who argues otherwise is selling you something.
I give credit to the Democratic activist who wrote the Op-ed in the New York Times and admitted evidence doesn't matter. It's all about politics. Everything the Democratic leadersihip has done since they decided to sit on this allegation has been dictated by political considerations. Not fairness, not justice. Just a cynical attempt to steal a Supreme Court seat.
YOu naively ask "what's the problem with delay?" as if delay hasn't been the whole point of everything the Democrats have done. They want to steal the seat (Harano admitted as much) and delaying everything is the best chance of doing that. IF you think the people who are leading the parrots in chirping for delay give a shit about justice, or fairness, you've not paid attention.
So let's stop pretending the Democrats care about White as anything other than a tool to steal a seat. Look at their treatment of Karen Monaghan if you need evidence of that. It'd be better for everyone if we were honest about what's going on.
Nonsense. There is no investigation that would ever appease those demanding his hide.