Kavanaugh hearing

[83fan]

So you're happy that McConnell and republicans look bad, even if it means possibly destroying the career and reputation of an innocent man. Yet you're complaining about other people politicizing this?

* Sigh * seriously. I can't stand mitch mcconnell. He's a hypocrite. Biggest one in the GOP...well then again maybe not, there's so many. I don't care if he gets his nomination in before the midterms at all. After all, that's all he seems to care about, not much else. After all the BS he's said in the past, I don't give 2 ***** about him. If Kavanaugh has nothing to worry about, there shouldn't be any problem. I have not once said Kavanaugh is guilty of anything. Not once. I haven't said "I choose her side". This woman/these women need to be heard. If they have a he said/she said how does it make it any different from any other political sexual scandal, Clinton, etc? It doesn't. Shouldn't have been about politics then, it shouldn't be now. How is that complaining and not stating a fact?

 

[oneforthebus]

seriously. I can't stand mitch mcconnell. He's a hypocrite. Biggest one in the GOP...well then again maybe not, there's so many.

So, here's my point...you say these accusations shouldn't be politicized, yet you keep bringing up how much you hate republicans and Mitch McConnell. So what are you doing if not politicizing them? What do your feelings about Mitch McConnell and republicans have to do with whether this woman is telling the truth, or whether Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty?

If Kavanaugh has nothing to worry about, there shouldn't be any problem. I have not once said Kavanaugh is guilty of anything.

But you've said we can't call her accusations BS. So how does he defend himself without calling her accusations BS?

This woman/these women need to be heard.

No one is disagreeing with you on that. Not even Mitch McConnell

 

[deljzc]

Everyone says "the women should be heard", but what standards of evidence and what statute of limitations are reasonable?

To me, neither of these accusations reach a level of credibility or level of importance (based on when they occurred) to allow the woman (women) to be heard. There has to be some sort of common sense on this or else we fall into chaos of any remote "possibility" of sexual impropriety (and I'm not even close to calling either of these cases "assault") with only he-said/she-said stories that are hazed over by alcohol and time.

That's just a crazy step to go in our judicial appointments and review. Especially since it has been proven (by BOTH sides) in our determination of Presidents that our acceptance for sexual inappropriateness is pretty tolerant/lenient.

If the voting public doesn't give a **** about this with our Presidents, why are we all holier than thou when it comes to our Supreme Court justices? That's partly why this just reeks of delay tactics. These events (even if they are partially true) should not eliminate his ability to be a justice. Not when taken in context with his other life's work.

 

[Spike]

This has gone on long enough, push it through


Senate majority leader says he believes Republicans have the votes to confirm Kavanaugh

https://mobile.twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/1044657693145862144

----------------

git er done!

Senate eyes Kavanaugh vote next week

Senate Republicans are eyeing a vote on the floor on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination next week.

GOP Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the No. 2 GOP senator and member of leadership, told reporters that if Kavanaugh could get out of the Judiciary Committee on Friday they would be able to be done with the nomination "by the first part of next week.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...pect-to-be-in-town-this-weekend-for-kavanaugh

 

[Supersteeler]

This is just another version of the 2016 election, only the Democrats know what is coming this time so they are at Defcon 5 before the decision rather than afterwards. The Liberal playbook, "If we can concoct enough phony bullshit against a person, surely they will back down and give in to our demands."

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I said I don't feel one bit sorry for the republican party because of all their games they play (still don't), I said **** Mitch McConnell (still mean that and should have been meaner), I said they get whatever they deserve.

I know why conservatives can't stand McConnell. What do you have against him?

Edited for clarity..

 

[JMM]

Let's say he did do what she said he did at 17..I don't think he did but let's say he did. I'm not hiring a 17 year old who might have done what they say he did. I'm hiring the adult who from what everyone says is a standup professional with an exemplary record over the past 20-30 years.

 

[Booted]

If you put the story in perspective, then there has to be some kind of corroborating witness at the very least.......unless of course, there is a side story.

36 years ago.......

 

[Spike]

Bang the coffin shut


McConnell: I Believe We Have The Votes To Confirm Kavanaugh

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) indicated Tuesday that the GOP was full steam ahead in putting on the Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who faces allegations for sexual misconduct.

“I believe he’ll be confirmed, yes,” McConnell said at a press conference at the Capitol, when asked if he had the votes.

Earlier in the press availability, McConnell said he was “confident we’re going to win.”

All signs point to Republicans moving quickly after the hearing, to confirm Kavanaugh as quickly as next week.

“It is our plan to move forward in the very near future,” McConnell said.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-have-votes-confirm-kavanaugh

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

They keep saying, let her be heard. She has been heard. She made an accusation and the scant details she has given has already been refuted by the very people she named as witnesses. She refuses to testify further. So what else is to be heard?

This is just a sham. I would respect the left more if they came out and admitted they are just trying to run out the clock and hope they win back the house in the elections.

 

[83fan]

I know why conservatives can't stand McConnell. What do you have against him?

Edited for clarity..

It's been the things he's said in the past - "One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, 'You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy," Then to say "Apparently there's yet a new standard now, which is not to confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all. I think that's something the American people simply will not tolerate." The whole "Biden rule" with Merrick Garland. I realize there's hypocrisy in politicians, but I don't like how he's pushing this pick through at any cost instead of noting the importance of investigating what this man's accusers are saying vs his accounts. Can we at least make sure this man is telling the truth and the woman/women aren't. I mean I'm just asking for him to pretend that's important at least. I don't like his rushing a vote, it comes off as desperate and that his priorities are skewed for a lifetime position. That's what I don't like. I didn't know the conservatives don't like him. And to add a note for those others who like to read into something it's not, this is about my feelings on McConnell only. Not anywhere in this post did I "suggest" Kavanaugh wasn't telling the truth, nor did I suggest I'm choosing the women, nor am I calling them liars. I'm like everyone else, I want to know what this woman has to say. It's usually pretty easy to tell if the truth is being told or not. Said the same thing for Ben.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I'm like everyone else, I want to know what this woman has to say. It's usually pretty easy to tell if the truth is being told or not. Said the same thing for Ben.

That's a pretty bold statement. A large % of Americans don't want to hear what she has to say. She's presented no case and people realize that this is a sham. Anita Hill v2.0

 

[83fan]

That's a pretty bold statement. A large % of Americans don't want to hear what she has to say. She's presented no case and people realize that this is a sham. Anita Hill v2.0

You're correct, it is bold, I should have said "I" since my post was meant to only represent me. I'm curious to see if she does present any kind of case or not. Like I stated earlier, this is something that's very easy to prove if you've done things correctly, had a rape kit and filed a police report. Anything short of that or pics/video, it's mostly he said/she said. That goes for any sexual misconduct allegations.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You're correct, it is bold, I should have said "I" since my post was meant to only represent me. I'm curious to see if she does present any kind of case or not. Like I stated earlier, this is something that's very easy to prove if you've done things correctly, had a rape kit and filed a police report. Anything short of that or pics/video, it's mostly he said/she said. That goes for any sexual misconduct allegations.

Yep.

But here's the problem. We are setting up a precedent to allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to step forward and say "This politician assaulted me." Well, by golly, if you say it, then we have to have a Congressional hearing. So when the first comes and there's no evidence, the smart thing to do (as is being done) is to present another bogus accuser. Then another. Then another. And stall the issue for quite literally years because "she must be heard."

When does it end?

In today's day and age where human beings are willingly stepping forward and taking money to stomp and scream and yell in Congressional halls knowing they will get arrested, when similar people are willing to accept $$ to terrorize their political opponents at rallies, it's easy - like super super easy - to believe that female vigilantes can be found who are willing to take $$ to create false accusations against political opponents.

We need to have a standard that must be met. Courts will not hear every case. Only a case that has merit will be heard by the court.

CBF has presented NOTHING except her personal claim. No evidence. Not a shred.

But everyone's screaming "she should be heard."

Why? If she had a police report, I concur fully let her come testify. But her claims wouldn't be heard in a smalls claims court.

Enough is enough.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Senate Judiciary Committee reschedules vote on Brett Kavanaugh for Friday morning.

It's on.

 

[Vader]

It's been the things he's said in the past - "One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, 'You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy," Then to say "Apparently there's yet a new standard now, which is not to confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all. I think that's something the American people simply will not tolerate." The whole "Biden rule" with Merrick Garland. I realize there's hypocrisy in politicians, but I don't like how he's pushing this pick through at any cost instead of noting the importance of investigating what this man's accusers are saying vs his accounts. Can we at least make sure this man is telling the truth and the woman/women aren't. I mean I'm just asking for him to pretend that's important at least. I don't like his rushing a vote, it comes off as desperate and that his priorities are skewed for a lifetime position. That's what I don't like. I didn't know the conservatives don't like him. And to add a note for those others who like to read into something it's not, this is about my feelings on McConnell only. Not anywhere in this post did I "suggest" Kavanaugh wasn't telling the truth, nor did I suggest I'm choosing the women, nor am I calling them liars. I'm like everyone else, I want to know what this woman has to say. It's usually pretty easy to tell if the truth is being told or not. Said the same thing for Ben.

Even IF she agrees to testify and then he does, you still won't know the truth. There is no evidence, no witnesses, no film, no nothing but her words against his. There can be no investigation since she has changed her story and admits to not knowing the place, time (can't even get the exact year), and even the people she say were there admit they weren't. What exactly are you going to investigate? Ben's case was different. There were witnesses that remembered everything. She came out not long after it happened, not 36 years later.. The cases couldn't be further apart. They are nothing like each other.

Also this could have been done almost 2 months ago but the Dem who had the letter held it until AFTER the hearings were over. For nothing more than political reasons.

 

[oneforthebus]

Like I stated earlier, this is something that's very easy to prove if you've done things correctly, had a rape kit and filed a police report. Anything short of that or pics/video, it's mostly he said/she said. That goes for any sexual misconduct allegations.

Sexual assault cases are rarely just he said/she said. Generally the accuser can say where it happened and when it happened, and the accused can either prove he wasn't there, or have to admit that he was there. Generally there are witnesses who can corroborate if not an actual assault, things like "Yes, they went into the room together. Yes, the music was turned up loud. Yes, she left without telling anyone. Yes, she called me the next day and was very upset about what happened".

While that type of evidence would probably not be enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault took place, it would at least be enough for the accusation to be taken seriously. We have none of that in this case. In fact, the only witnesses she names, contradict her.

 

[83fan]

Even IF she agrees to testify and then he does, you still won't know the truth. There is no evidence, no witnesses, no film, no nothing but her words against his. There can be no investigation since she has changed her story and admits to not knowing the place, time (can't even get the exact year), and even the people she say were there admit they weren't. What exactly are you going to investigate? Ben's case was different. There were witnesses that remembered everything. She came out not long after it happened, not 36 years later.. The cases couldn't be further apart. They are nothing like each other.

Also this could have been done almost 2 months ago but the Dem who had the letter held it until AFTER the hearings were over. For nothing more than political reasons.

The same could be said about Bill Clinton, accusations, he said/she said. Wasn't that letter sent to Dianne Feinstein and asked to be kept confidential? And yes Ben's case was different, but still accusations, weren't they? There were witnesses that only saw so much, she had a negative rape kit. And political games are played by both sides all the time. I couldn't care less about the GOP and their pick. It doesn't matter anyway, the pubs are gonna vote the same way they would have voted even if this guy was a proven rapist, they want their guy no matter what, they don't care about anything else. There's your political bullshit right there.

 

[hamster]

The same could be said about Bill Clinton, accusations, he said/she said. Wasn't that letter sent to Dianne Feinstein and asked to be kept confidential? And yes Ben's case was different, but still accusations, weren't they? There were witnesses that only saw so much, she had a negative rape kit. And political games are played by both sides all the time. I couldn't care less about the GOP and their pick. It doesn't matter anyway, the pubs are gonna vote the same way they would have voted even if this guy was a proven rapist, they want their guy no matter what, they don't care about anything else. There's your political bullshit right there.

The fact is, the Reps went out of their way to accomodate this woman in hearing her case. All she did was jerk them around. And the other bullshit victime were nothing more than a con job. Time to end this political kabuki theater and fill an opening on the Supreme Court.

 

[deljzc]

You're correct, it is bold, I should have said "I" since my post was meant to only represent me. I'm curious to see if she does present any kind of case or not. Like I stated earlier, this is something that's very easy to prove if you've done things correctly, had a rape kit and filed a police report. Anything short of that or pics/video, it's mostly he said/she said. That goes for any sexual misconduct allegations.

What about this tells you it's going to be an evidentiary hearing? Do you really think the circus that is testifying in front of congress EVER turns into evidence? It never does. All it does is show one aspect of a person's nature (under that type of pressure) and a very small snap shot of character (which will be hotly debated no matter what happens).

There is nothing evidentiary about this whole nonsense. If she had any more evidence than she already has, it'd be out in the press. If Kavanaugh had any more evidence, he would have released it. We know it's a he said/she said. We know that even the actions she discribes could be construed as meaning a hundred different things and a hundred different intents by Kavanaugh (as a 17 year old!).

I told my wife yesterday, this could have just as been two rich, privileged seniors bullying an ugly 15-year old sophmore at a party she wasn't invited too and "scaring" her to go home to her parents. That this party wasn't for her and she was in over her head and this is what "could have happened" to you when you hang out with upper classmen and can't handle your liquor. You can't BEGIN to even put yourself in the mind of this boy with his friend in the room in what his true intensions were or how dangerous a predicament she was in. Sexual assault isn't about the emotional distress you put a female under. It's not based on the imagination of the victim. Just because someone is scared or takes the meaning of something incorrectly doesn't make it sexual assault.

You act like this is some sort of court of law when it couldn't be anything further from that. The closest it gets is that it (sometimes) is under oath but that in itself makes it a circus of legaleze answers.

 

[oneforthebus]

It doesn't matter anyway, the pubs are gonna vote the same way they would have voted even if this guy was a proven rapist, they want their guy no matter what, they don't care about anything else. There's your political bullshit right there.

That's a ridiculous statement, and really is the epitome of political bullshit. It's the kind of thing people say when they run out of rational arguments.

 

[83fan]

What about this tells you it's going to be an evidentiary hearing? Do you really think the circus that is testifying in front of congress EVER turns into evidence? It never does. All it does is show one aspect of a person's nature (under that type of pressure) and a very small snap shot of character (which will be hotly debated no matter what happens).

There is nothing evidentiary about this whole nonsense. If she had any more evidence than she already has, it'd be out in the press. If Kavanaugh had any more evidence, he would have released it. We know it's a he said/she said. We know that even the actions she discribes could be construed as meaning a hundred different things and a hundred different intents by Kavanaugh (as a 17 year old!).

I told my wife yesterday, this could have just as been two rich, privileged seniors bullying an ugly 15-year old sophmore at a party she wasn't invited too and "scaring" her to go home to her parents. That this party wasn't for her and she was in over her head and this is what "could have happened" to you when you hang out with upper classmen and can't handle your liquor. You can't BEGIN to even put yourself in the mind of this boy with his friend in the room in what his true intensions were or how dangerous a predicament she was in. Sexual assault isn't about the emotional distress you put a female under. It's not based on the imagination of the victim. Just because someone is scared or takes the meaning of something incorrectly doesn't make it sexual assault.

You act like this is some sort of court of law when it couldn't be anything further from that. The closest it gets is that it (sometimes) is under oath but that in itself makes it a circus of legaleze answers.

No, I said it would be easy to prove IF she had done things correctly, you know, to those who doubt her, not about a court of law. You and I and pretty much everyone else on this board are on total opposites of the political spectrum. I ask you, would you feel the same if this were done against a dem? Politics aren't gonna change, been like this forever. My middle ground on this is I heard him talk, I want to hear her. I don't care if you do or anyone else does. I do. She's going to, I'm going to listen, like I listened to his interview. And anyone else who wants to listen will. As I said above, it's a moot point, the pubs have one goal, they're gonna fill their seat with their guy and nothing else matters.

 

[83fan]

That's a ridiculous statement, and really is the epitome of political bullshit. It's the kind of thing people say when they run out of rational arguments.

Well we all have our opinions, don't we. That's yours.

 

[oneforthebus]

Well we all have our opinions, don't we. That's yours.

Mine is at least based in reality. Saying republicans would put a proven rapist on the Supreme Court is not.

 

[83fan]

Mine is at least based in reality. Saying republicans would put a proven rapist on the Supreme Court is not.

LOL yeah, no kidding, there's that literal word thing again. Ok let me rephrase, slowly and literally....they want to put in their guy no matter what. I could have said murderer and still made the same point. Does that mean literally? Gee I don't know.....