I mean, who better for a lifetime appointment of stripping women of their reproductive rights? If anything, this should burnish his qualifications.
Legal innocence has nothing to do with this. If anything, the exact opposite applies here. People should only be confirmed if we have very, very high confidence in their moral character. In this case it looks at least reasonably likely that Kavanaugh is a sex criminal. That doesn't cross the 'very very high' bar for me.
He has the magic R after his name so I'm sure it does for you, but you're not an honest broker so who cares what you think?
Legal innocence has nothing to do with this. If anything, the exact opposite applies here. People should only be confirmed if we have very, very high confidence in their moral character. In this case it looks at least reasonably likely that Kavanaugh is a sex criminal. That doesn't cross the 'very very high' bar for me.
Her testimony is evidence. Records of her talking to her therapist about the attempted rape is evidence. There is evidence. Perhaps the question you're asking is how much evidence is necessary to axe a nomination, but you cannot in all the seriousness say there is no evidence.35+ years ago, a minor who was likely drunk, but still had enough sense to stop before... going too far?
I don't know, how much of an assault was it? We don't appear to know how bad it was.
And if this is the standard we should expect accusations for anyone seeking office. If that's all it takes to tip the balance of power in this nation, then you know that's what people will do to fight for it. Even if her account is accurate, there will be another nomination and another accuser. At what point have we violated due process by ending people without evidence?
35+ years ago, a minor who was likely drunk, but still had enough sense to stop before... going too far?
I don't know, how much of an assault was it? We don't appear to know how bad it was.
And if this is the standard we should expect accusations for anyone seeking office. If that's all it takes to tip the balance of power in this nation, then you know that's what people will do to fight for it. Even if her account is accurate, there will be another nomination and another accuser. At what point have we violated due process by ending people without evidence?
Legal innocence has nothing to do with this. If anything, the exact opposite applies here. People should only be confirmed if we have very, very high confidence in their moral character. In this case it looks at least reasonably likely that Kavanaugh is a sex criminal. That doesn't cross the 'very very high' bar for me.
He has the magic R after his name so I'm sure it does for you, but you're not an honest broker so who cares what you think?
35+ years ago, a minor who was likely drunk
but still had enough sense to stop before... going too far?
I don't know, how much of an assault was it? We don't appear to know how bad it was.
Her testimony is evidence. Records of her talking to her therapist about the attempted rape is evidence. There is evidence. Perhaps the question you're asking is how much evidence is necessary to axe a nomination, but you cannot in all the seriousness say there is no evidence.
35+ years ago, a minor who was likely drunk, but still had enough sense to stop before... going too far?
I don't know, how much of an assault was it? We don't appear to know how bad it was.
And if this is the standard we should expect accusations for anyone seeking office. If that's all it takes to tip the balance of power in this nation, then you know that's what people will do to fight for it. Even if her account is accurate, there will be another nomination and another accuser. At what point have we violated due process by ending people without evidence?
And yet at least two credibly accused sex criminals have occupied the White House in my lifetime. This seems like a tribalistic standard only applied when politically opportunistic.I feel strongly that we as a society can find plenty of people who are not credibly accused sex criminals. There is no due process for a nomination to a federal job. That doesn't exist.
35+ years ago, a minor who was likely drunk, but still had enough sense to stop before... going too far?
I don't know, how much of an assault was it? We don't appear to know how bad it was.
And if this is the standard we should expect accusations for anyone seeking office. If that's all it takes to tip the balance of power in this nation, then you know that's what people will do to fight for it. Even if her account is accurate, there will be another nomination and another accuser. At what point have we violated due process by ending people without evidence?
Her testimony is evidence. Records of her talking to her therapist about the attempted rape is evidence. There is evidence. Perhaps the question you're asking is how much evidence is necessary to axe a nomination, but you cannot in all the seriousness say there is no evidence.
And yet at least two credibly accused sex criminals have occupied the White House in my lifetime. This seems like a tribalistic standard only applied when politically opportunistic.
To me, an accusation is not evidence. There is nothing to substantiate the claim.
Mark Judge, Key Witness To Alleged Brett Kavanaugh Assault, Refuses To Testify
Mark Judge, the man who Christine Blasey Ford has said was in the room while Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her when they were in high school, has declined to speak before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident,” he added. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the matter Dr. Ford describes.”
35+ years ago, a minor who was likely drunk, but still had enough sense to stop before... going too far?
I don't know, how much of an assault was it? We don't appear to know how bad it was.
And if this is the standard we should expect accusations for anyone seeking office. If that's all it takes to tip the balance of power in this nation, then you know that's what people will do to fight for it. Even if her account is accurate, there will be another nomination and another accuser. At what point have we violated due process by ending people without evidence?
Al Franken was a blood sacrifice. The Keith Ellison thread is certainly quiet.Tell that to Al Franken.
Oh, the therapy sessions where no names were given in 2012? Those you mean?
So is the theory that she was discussing another individual from a local, elitist boys school who went on to become a high ranking figure in Washington?
Hahaha, I mean come on.
Al Franken was a blood sacrifice. The Keith Ellison thread is certainly quiet.
Maybe it was actually Bart O'Kavanaugh.
Ok, so you're arguing that her being drunk then nullifies it? So if he raped her, and they were drunk it didn't happen? I don't know if you realize how truly fucking stupid your argument is.
Ah, yes, well he didn't full on rape her, so its all good? Plus she was drunk so she was asking for it! And she was wearing a bathing suit, that fucking hussy. I bet she said yes yes yes yes, and then was like...maybe? And then she just regretted it later. Let's see what other rape enabling bullshit arguments can you add?
Uh, are you fucking joking? "If someone being accused of something horrible can get them disqualified from being one of a very select few for that position, then oh my god, what has happened to our country?" Granted I guess you feel enabled because you were able to get one in as President so you're probably wondering why sexual assault would matter at all for any position.
What? What the fuck? So now you're arguing well it won't matter because they'll keep nominating possible rapists and you think that actually supports the people nominating the possible rapists? What, the, fuck? Seriously, what, the, fuck? Which, yes, I realize you're trying to argue that is all made up and that they'll just keep making it up about any new candidate, but just wow. That you don't care about potential sexual assault, or apparently any of the other valid issues with this guy...
How have we violated due process? He's not being charged with anything (but that you think that somehow means it shouldn't fucking matter...just wow...). Jesus fucking christ. You need to actually read what you posted because if you can't recognize how incredibly fucked up borderline insane it is, you need to seek a doctor immediately.
So is the theory that she was discussing another individual from a local, elitist boys school who went on to become a high ranking figure in Washington?
Hahaha, I mean come on.
So is the theory that she was discussing another individual from a local, elitist boys school who went on to become a high ranking figure in Washington?
Hahaha, I mean come on.
It was certainly convenient to the Presidential ambitions of certain Senators. A party is capable of eating its own.No, Al Franken was a party applying the principle you said they only applied when convenient when it was most certainly not convenient.
wut?As for Keith Ellison, I find the comparison of dragging a woman off a bed to attempted rape to be a bit ridiculous.