It's clear Kavanaugh's people knew this was out there. How could you have a letter ready of 65 women vouching for him back then when he went to an all boys high school? at least his people had the sense not to get 69 signatures.
It's clear Kavanaugh's people knew this was out there. How could you have a letter ready of 65 women vouching for him back then when he went to an all boys high school? at least his people had the sense not to get 69 signatures.I have no idea and I frankly don’t care. It’s quite clear the republicans knew of the accusation as well so they could have cleared it up then too and chose not to.
The only thing that matters is if it is credible. It is. Therefore we need to get to the bottom of this. It’s not about Feinstein, it’s about Kavanaugh.
She has notes made from 2012 on this douchbag. Clearly she knew in advance this guy was going to be nominated for SC. /sShe didn't name him in 2012, but nice lie.
No, she made notes on someone. She never mentioned him by name according to the story. but hey change it as it's needed.She has notes made from 2012 on this douchbag. Clearly she knew in advance this guy was going to be nominated for SC. /s
HIs name wasn't in the original notes but her husband corroborated her story and said she named him in 2012No, she made notes on someone. She never mentioned him by name according to the story. but hey change it as it's needed.
Ford’s husband, Russell Ford, told The Post that in their 2012 therapy sessions, she recounted the attack and that she used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that he might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court. Ford also took a polygraph test, administered by a former FBI agent, on the advice of her attorney in early August, the paper said. The test concluded she was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.
HIs name wasn't in the original notes but her husband corroborated her story and said she named him in 2012
lol, thanks.HIs name wasn't in the original notes but her husband corroborated her story and said she named him in 2012
If it's not this one then there will be another one and maybe one after that. Whatever is needed is what the Democrats will do and digging up a fake crime 36 or 37 years later is just an example."We need to investigate".
A drunk teenage party 35+ years ago, where NOTHING was said or done at the time. What sort of evidence do you think can exist?
I'm sure if you damaged somebody's life 37 years ago and never faced any consequences you would want that matter brought to light if it could now damage your own life. That's taking personal responsibility and the way to atonement for guilt. Without that you can never ever be real. You really don't know there is a hell?If it's not this one then there will be another one and maybe one after that. Whatever is needed is what the Democrats will do and digging up a fake crime 36 or 37 years later is just an example.
Is it a place where people that bear false witness go?I'm sure if you damaged somebody's life 37 years ago and never faced any consequences you would want that matter brought to light if it could now damage your own life. That's taking personal responsibility and the way to atonement for guilt. Without that you can never ever be real. You really don't know there is a hell?
Is it a place where people that bear false witness go?
She didn't name him in 2012, but nice lie.
Feinstein is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was her job and responsibility to get to the bottom of it when the accusations first surfaced and to raise these concerns as part of the hearings that exist for the sole purpose of evaluating a SCOTUS nominee. Her decision not to is relevant to the discussion.
As I said earlier in the thread, even Ginsburg is on record lamenting the tribalism now surrounding SCOTUS appointments.If that is the case then the decision of all the Republicans to similarly not raise these concerns is also relevant to the discussion. If anything, she acted most appropriately of all members of the committee so you should be praising her, not attacking her.
I get how your complaint is that she saved it until the end to delay or derail the nomination. That’s reasonably likely to be true. The thing is the Republicans weren’t going to bring it up at all because Kavanaugh is part of their political sports team. That’s far, far worse.
Ladies and gentleman, exhibit A. Most of us fair minded people are not jumping to conclusions and just want this investigated.If it's not this one then there will be another one and maybe one after that. Whatever is needed is what the Democrats will do and digging up a fake crime 36 or 37 years later is just an example.
Mike Pence: "I'd be willing to take a lie detector test to prove I didn't write that op-ed."
GOP: "That's good enough for us!"
Christine Blasey Ford: "I've taken a lie detector test, and passed."
GOP: "That's not good enough!"
Magic like a second woman comes forward? That would pretty much kill it.Per her attorney, Christine Ford is willing to testify to the Senate judiciary committee.
More than enough R senators are waffling on the nom to kill it. There will be no red state Democratic votes for confirmation. My advice would be to stop before something truly tragic transpires.
Magic like a second woman comes forward? That would pretty much kill it.
Republicans have nothing to worry about, Roy Moore is available to take Brett's place.
Kavanaugh should get the same treatment he gave to Bill Clinton. His sexual history needs to be examined in every painful detail.
Democrats and their hypocrisy really have no bounds. Much like racism and bigotry they don't really care about alleged acts Only when it's against people they don't like. Proof? Keith Ellison, who happened to be the DNC deputy chairman. Credibly accused this year, of acts of only 2 years ago, and he still got recently elected. If Dems were really interested in protecting women from alleged acts like this, he would not have been elected and been called out. Except that never happened.
Instead the Dems go back to the old play book and resort to allegations of 3 decades or more, at literally the last second. After sitting on the alleged abuse for months.
Not surprisingly, lots of people here eating it up and claiming guilt with zero proof. That's not the way its supposed to work. And certainly doesn't work when it's a Democrat accused of such things. Again, Keith Ellison. No outrage found by Dems. Just gets a pass like they have been doing to their own for decades.
well I mean, it's not like the GOP gives a shit about sexual abusers. Remember Clarence Thomas?