Justice Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing *DISCUSSION AND LIVE COMMENTARY*

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Unfortunately, the hands of the FBI are very much tied here - since there is no potential federal crime here, they cannot investigate without an official white house directive - and in this day and age, no president, especially not this president, is going to throw the opposition a lifeline like that.

You are factually incorrect. See the Tower hearings when info came to light late in the hearings and Chairman Nunn referred the matter for FBI investigation.

They do more than criminal work, Wulfric.

It was likely their view that there was a potential federal crime in that case. There is no such potential in this case because of statute of limitations, so without the blessing of the white house, the FBI has no role here.

[Badger]

Patrick J. Smyth, who Ford claims was in the room during the incident, has now said it never happened: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/3rd-person-room-kavanaugh-attack-comes-forward-blows-story-apart/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-09-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

So now we have the word of 3 people vs. the word of 1 person. NOT saying Beet is correct about this being some decades long revenge plot (in fact Beet shouldn't even be allowed to be a mod), but unless there's some material evidence, which there likely isn't, this is looking kind of fishy. Maybe Ford is misremembering who assaulted her?

"Well, both the alleged gunman and his two accomplices say they didn't do it, and we only have the word of one surviving victim, so guess that's that."

Patrick J. Smyth wouldn't be considered an accomplice, especially since according to what Ford has said, he wasn't in the room.

But, assuming he is a good friend of Kavanaugh- he is certainly more inclined to just say "he has no recollection of the incident, etc" ... especially since he is not under oath or anything.

Why would some make up a lie about kavanaugh ... and include 3 of his friends in the lie (knowing they would likely deny, or support their friend by not remembering.  If it was a total lie- seems like she would just say Kavanaugh did this in a room when they were by themselves.  Not to mention she passed a polygraph performed by an ex FBI agent. (in August- so it was almost certainly done at the request of Feinstein... to make sure this wasn't an empty accusation.  So the FBI agent was most likely looking for the truth at the behest of a 3rd party trying to verify the veracity of her claim.

Polygraphs are garbage, that's a known fact.

Not reliable in court & being garbage ... are 2 entirely different things. 

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Your citation refers to polygraphs not being reliable to prove criminality in court.

My, you are really going out of your way to not admit the evidence against Kavanaugh is quite bad, aren't you?

[fhtagn]

Patrick J. Smyth, who Ford claims was in the room during the incident, has now said it never happened: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/3rd-person-room-kavanaugh-attack-comes-forward-blows-story-apart/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-09-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

So now we have the word of 3 people vs. the word of 1 person. NOT saying Beet is correct about this being some decades long revenge plot (in fact Beet shouldn't even be allowed to be a mod), but unless there's some material evidence, which there likely isn't, this is looking kind of fishy. Maybe Ford is misremembering who assaulted her?

"Well, both the alleged gunman and his two accomplices say they didn't do it, and we only have the word of one surviving victim, so guess that's that."

Patrick J. Smyth wouldn't be considered an accomplice, especially since according to what Ford has said, he wasn't in the room.

But, assuming he is a good friend of Kavanaugh- he is certainly more inclined to just say "he has no recollection of the incident, etc" ... especially since he is not under oath or anything.

Why would some make up a lie about kavanaugh ... and include 3 of his friends in the lie (knowing they would likely deny, or support their friend by not remembering.  If it was a total lie- seems like she would just say Kavanaugh did this in a room when they were by themselves.  Not to mention she passed a polygraph performed by an ex FBI agent. (in August- so it was almost certainly done at the request of Feinstein... to make sure this wasn't an empty accusation.  So the FBI agent was most likely looking for the truth at the behest of a 3rd party trying to verify the veracity of her claim.

Polygraphs are garbage, that's a known fact.

Not reliable in court & being garbage ... are 2 entirely different things. 

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Your citation refers to polygraphs not being reliable to prove criminality in court.

My, you are really going out of your way to not admit the evidence against Kavanaugh is quite bad, aren't you?

Currently there is no evidence that actually proves that Kavanaugh was the one who actually attacked her. There's enough to suggest Ford very likely experienced sexual assault, but she has provided nothing that suggests he was the one who did it.

Until she decides she decides she wants to actually cooperate and we know more information, I'm not going to label someone a rapist when there is no proof he is one.

[Badger]

Patrick J. Smyth, who Ford claims was in the room during the incident, has now said it never happened: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/3rd-person-room-kavanaugh-attack-comes-forward-blows-story-apart/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-09-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

So now we have the word of 3 people vs. the word of 1 person. NOT saying Beet is correct about this being some decades long revenge plot (in fact Beet shouldn't even be allowed to be a mod), but unless there's some material evidence, which there likely isn't, this is looking kind of fishy. Maybe Ford is misremembering who assaulted her?

"Well, both the alleged gunman and his two accomplices say they didn't do it, and we only have the word of one surviving victim, so guess that's that."

Patrick J. Smyth wouldn't be considered an accomplice, especially since according to what Ford has said, he wasn't in the room.

But, assuming he is a good friend of Kavanaugh- he is certainly more inclined to just say "he has no recollection of the incident, etc" ... especially since he is not under oath or anything.

Why would some make up a lie about kavanaugh ... and include 3 of his friends in the lie (knowing they would likely deny, or support their friend by not remembering.  If it was a total lie- seems like she would just say Kavanaugh did this in a room when they were by themselves.  Not to mention she passed a polygraph performed by an ex FBI agent. (in August- so it was almost certainly done at the request of Feinstein... to make sure this wasn't an empty accusation.  So the FBI agent was most likely looking for the truth at the behest of a 3rd party trying to verify the veracity of her claim.

Polygraphs are garbage, that's a known fact.

Not reliable in court & being garbage ... are 2 entirely different things. 

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Your citation refers to polygraphs not being reliable to prove criminality in court.

My, you are really going out of your way to not admit the evidence against Kavanaugh is quite bad, aren't you?

Currently there is no evidence that actually proves that Kavanaugh was the one who actually attacked her. There's enough to suggest Ford very likely experienced sexual assault, but she has provided nothing that suggests he was the one who did it.

Until she decides she decides she wants to actually cooperate and we know more information, I'm not going to label someone a rapist when there is no proof he is one.

You mean no evidence other than the fact she knew both Kavanaugh quite well, as well as the sacrificial goat Kavanaugh's friend is suggesting was the "real" assailant, but she consisetently identified Kavanaugh as her assailant, and recently just as emphatically said she'd know if it was the other guy only but it wasn't?

Got it. "No evidence". A sexual assault occurred, but her ID of someone she knew very well, saw ALL too up close and personal, not a SCRAP of evidence suggesting why she might be mistaken beyond "reasons" and "maybe", and you still have the obstinance to pavlovian respond "no evidence".

[fhtagn]

Patrick J. Smyth, who Ford claims was in the room during the incident, has now said it never happened: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/3rd-person-room-kavanaugh-attack-comes-forward-blows-story-apart/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-09-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

So now we have the word of 3 people vs. the word of 1 person. NOT saying Beet is correct about this being some decades long revenge plot (in fact Beet shouldn't even be allowed to be a mod), but unless there's some material evidence, which there likely isn't, this is looking kind of fishy. Maybe Ford is misremembering who assaulted her?

"Well, both the alleged gunman and his two accomplices say they didn't do it, and we only have the word of one surviving victim, so guess that's that."

Patrick J. Smyth wouldn't be considered an accomplice, especially since according to what Ford has said, he wasn't in the room.

But, assuming he is a good friend of Kavanaugh- he is certainly more inclined to just say "he has no recollection of the incident, etc" ... especially since he is not under oath or anything.

Why would some make up a lie about kavanaugh ... and include 3 of his friends in the lie (knowing they would likely deny, or support their friend by not remembering.  If it was a total lie- seems like she would just say Kavanaugh did this in a room when they were by themselves.  Not to mention she passed a polygraph performed by an ex FBI agent. (in August- so it was almost certainly done at the request of Feinstein... to make sure this wasn't an empty accusation.  So the FBI agent was most likely looking for the truth at the behest of a 3rd party trying to verify the veracity of her claim.

Polygraphs are garbage, that's a known fact.

Not reliable in court & being garbage ... are 2 entirely different things. 

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Your citation refers to polygraphs not being reliable to prove criminality in court.

My, you are really going out of your way to not admit the evidence against Kavanaugh is quite bad, aren't you?

Currently there is no evidence that actually proves that Kavanaugh was the one who actually attacked her. There's enough to suggest Ford very likely experienced sexual assault, but she has provided nothing that suggests he was the one who did it.

Until she decides she decides she wants to actually cooperate and we know more information, I'm not going to label someone a rapist when there is no proof he is one.

You mean no evidence other than the fact she knew both Kavanaugh quite well, as well as the sacrificial goat Kavanaugh's friend is suggesting was the "real" assailant, but she consisetently identified Kavanaugh as her assailant, and recently just as emphatically said she'd know if it was the other guy only but it wasn't?

Got it. "No evidence". A sexual assault occurred, but her ID of someone she knew very well, saw ALL too up close and personal, not a SCRAP of evidence suggesting why she might be mistaken beyond "reasons" and "maybe", and you still have the obstinance to pavlovian respond "no evidence".

There really isn't anything put out that suggests they knew each other very well. They're two teenagers who attended different schools and are two years apart. That alone would suggest it's unlikely they spent time in the same circles, at least not very often.

And as pointed out by myself and a couple other posters, memory is a tricky thing. She held onto this for 30+ years, and it's pretty likely her account might not be exactly the same as she remembered it the night it happened. Yes, she provided a name, but she provided nothing that actually proves her named assailant was actually at the small gathering, and that he was the one who attacked her. It's literally just her word.

As a lawyer, you really should know better than to seriously think that there is enough evidence that proves Kavanaugh did this.

[Sestak]

Note:

It now seems likely that Sen. Hatch's office was involved in the creation of Ed Whelan's conspiracy theory, or at least had advance notice of it.

Kavanaugh may or may not have been involved himself, though he is close to Whelan.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Note:

It now seems likely that Sen. Hatch's office was involved in the creation of Ed Whelan's conspiracy theory, or at least had advance notice of it.

Kavanaugh may or may not have been involved himself, though he is close to Whelan.

Can we just get Senator Mitt Romney already? ExtremeRepublican would arguably be a better senator than Hatch at this point.

[Badger]

Patrick J. Smyth, who Ford claims was in the room during the incident, has now said it never happened: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/3rd-person-room-kavanaugh-attack-comes-forward-blows-story-apart/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-09-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

So now we have the word of 3 people vs. the word of 1 person. NOT saying Beet is correct about this being some decades long revenge plot (in fact Beet shouldn't even be allowed to be a mod), but unless there's some material evidence, which there likely isn't, this is looking kind of fishy. Maybe Ford is misremembering who assaulted her?

"Well, both the alleged gunman and his two accomplices say they didn't do it, and we only have the word of one surviving victim, so guess that's that."

Patrick J. Smyth wouldn't be considered an accomplice, especially since according to what Ford has said, he wasn't in the room.

But, assuming he is a good friend of Kavanaugh- he is certainly more inclined to just say "he has no recollection of the incident, etc" ... especially since he is not under oath or anything.

Why would some make up a lie about kavanaugh ... and include 3 of his friends in the lie (knowing they would likely deny, or support their friend by not remembering.  If it was a total lie- seems like she would just say Kavanaugh did this in a room when they were by themselves.  Not to mention she passed a polygraph performed by an ex FBI agent. (in August- so it was almost certainly done at the request of Feinstein... to make sure this wasn't an empty accusation.  So the FBI agent was most likely looking for the truth at the behest of a 3rd party trying to verify the veracity of her claim.

Polygraphs are garbage, that's a known fact.

Not reliable in court & being garbage ... are 2 entirely different things. 

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Your citation refers to polygraphs not being reliable to prove criminality in court.

My, you are really going out of your way to not admit the evidence against Kavanaugh is quite bad, aren't you?

Currently there is no evidence that actually proves that Kavanaugh was the one who actually attacked her. There's enough to suggest Ford very likely experienced sexual assault, but she has provided nothing that suggests he was the one who did it.

Until she decides she decides she wants to actually cooperate and we know more information, I'm not going to label someone a rapist when there is no proof he is one.

You mean no evidence other than the fact she knew both Kavanaugh quite well, as well as the sacrificial goat Kavanaugh's friend is suggesting was the "real" assailant, but she consisetently identified Kavanaugh as her assailant, and recently just as emphatically said she'd know if it was the other guy only but it wasn't?

Got it. "No evidence". A sexual assault occurred, but her ID of someone she knew very well, saw ALL too up close and personal, not a SCRAP of evidence suggesting why she might be mistaken beyond "reasons" and "maybe", and you still have the obstinance to pavlovian respond "no evidence".

There really isn't anything put out that suggests they knew each other very well. They're two teenagers who attended different schools and are two years apart. That alone would suggest it's unlikely they spent time in the same circles, at least not very often.

And as pointed out by myself and a couple other posters, memory is a tricky thing. She held onto this for 30+ years, and it's pretty likely her account might not be exactly the same as she remembered it the night it happened. Yes, she provided a name, but she provided nothing that actually proves her named assailant was actually at the small gathering, and that he was the one who attacked her. It's literally just her word.

As a lawyer, you really should know better than to seriously think that there is enough evidence that proves Kavanaugh did this.

Retweeted by our own Kyle Griffin, courtesy of the WaPo.

Christine Blasey Ford shoots down the Whelan conspiracy theory to WaPo: "I knew them both, and socialized with Chris Garrett. I even visited Chris Garrett when he was in the hospital. There is zero chance that I would confuse them."

If by "proves" if you mean beyond a reasonable doubt. If you mean by a preponderance, certainly. The standard for saying someone is unfit to serve on the SCOTUS is definitely towards the former, if even that high, as a SCOTUS justice should be beyond reproach.

So go back to dutifully "triggering the libs".

[fhtagn]

Patrick J. Smyth, who Ford claims was in the room during the incident, has now said it never happened: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/3rd-person-room-kavanaugh-attack-comes-forward-blows-story-apart/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-09-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

So now we have the word of 3 people vs. the word of 1 person. NOT saying Beet is correct about this being some decades long revenge plot (in fact Beet shouldn't even be allowed to be a mod), but unless there's some material evidence, which there likely isn't, this is looking kind of fishy. Maybe Ford is misremembering who assaulted her?

"Well, both the alleged gunman and his two accomplices say they didn't do it, and we only have the word of one surviving victim, so guess that's that."

Patrick J. Smyth wouldn't be considered an accomplice, especially since according to what Ford has said, he wasn't in the room.

But, assuming he is a good friend of Kavanaugh- he is certainly more inclined to just say "he has no recollection of the incident, etc" ... especially since he is not under oath or anything.

Why would some make up a lie about kavanaugh ... and include 3 of his friends in the lie (knowing they would likely deny, or support their friend by not remembering.  If it was a total lie- seems like she would just say Kavanaugh did this in a room when they were by themselves.  Not to mention she passed a polygraph performed by an ex FBI agent. (in August- so it was almost certainly done at the request of Feinstein... to make sure this wasn't an empty accusation.  So the FBI agent was most likely looking for the truth at the behest of a 3rd party trying to verify the veracity of her claim.

Polygraphs are garbage, that's a known fact.

Not reliable in court & being garbage ... are 2 entirely different things. 

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Your citation refers to polygraphs not being reliable to prove criminality in court.

My, you are really going out of your way to not admit the evidence against Kavanaugh is quite bad, aren't you?

Currently there is no evidence that actually proves that Kavanaugh was the one who actually attacked her. There's enough to suggest Ford very likely experienced sexual assault, but she has provided nothing that suggests he was the one who did it.

Until she decides she decides she wants to actually cooperate and we know more information, I'm not going to label someone a rapist when there is no proof he is one.

You mean no evidence other than the fact she knew both Kavanaugh quite well, as well as the sacrificial goat Kavanaugh's friend is suggesting was the "real" assailant, but she consisetently identified Kavanaugh as her assailant, and recently just as emphatically said she'd know if it was the other guy only but it wasn't?

Got it. "No evidence". A sexual assault occurred, but her ID of someone she knew very well, saw ALL too up close and personal, not a SCRAP of evidence suggesting why she might be mistaken beyond "reasons" and "maybe", and you still have the obstinance to pavlovian respond "no evidence".

There really isn't anything put out that suggests they knew each other very well. They're two teenagers who attended different schools and are two years apart. That alone would suggest it's unlikely they spent time in the same circles, at least not very often.

And as pointed out by myself and a couple other posters, memory is a tricky thing. She held onto this for 30+ years, and it's pretty likely her account might not be exactly the same as she remembered it the night it happened. Yes, she provided a name, but she provided nothing that actually proves her named assailant was actually at the small gathering, and that he was the one who attacked her. It's literally just her word.

As a lawyer, you really should know better than to seriously think that there is enough evidence that proves Kavanaugh did this.

Retweeted by our own Kyle Griffin, courtesy of the WaPo.

Christine Blasey Ford shoots down the Whelan conspiracy theory to WaPo: "I knew them both, and socialized with Chris Garrett. I even visited Chris Garrett when he was in the hospital. There is zero chance that I would confuse them."

If by "proves" if you mean beyond a reasonable doubt. If you mean by a preponderance, certainly. The standard for saying someone is unfit to serve on the SCOTUS is definitely towards the former, if even that high, as a SCOTUS justice should be beyond reproach.

So go back to dutifully "triggering the libs".

I'm not even trying to "trigger the libs", I'm providing valid discussion on the topic and you seem to have a hard time handling that. But hey, I'm glad you are finally being honest about yourself when you act so triggered.

[Badger]

Patrick J. Smyth, who Ford claims was in the room during the incident, has now said it never happened: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/3rd-person-room-kavanaugh-attack-comes-forward-blows-story-apart/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-09-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

So now we have the word of 3 people vs. the word of 1 person. NOT saying Beet is correct about this being some decades long revenge plot (in fact Beet shouldn't even be allowed to be a mod), but unless there's some material evidence, which there likely isn't, this is looking kind of fishy. Maybe Ford is misremembering who assaulted her?

"Well, both the alleged gunman and his two accomplices say they didn't do it, and we only have the word of one surviving victim, so guess that's that."

Patrick J. Smyth wouldn't be considered an accomplice, especially since according to what Ford has said, he wasn't in the room.

But, assuming he is a good friend of Kavanaugh- he is certainly more inclined to just say "he has no recollection of the incident, etc" ... especially since he is not under oath or anything.

Why would some make up a lie about kavanaugh ... and include 3 of his friends in the lie (knowing they would likely deny, or support their friend by not remembering.  If it was a total lie- seems like she would just say Kavanaugh did this in a room when they were by themselves.  Not to mention she passed a polygraph performed by an ex FBI agent. (in August- so it was almost certainly done at the request of Feinstein... to make sure this wasn't an empty accusation.  So the FBI agent was most likely looking for the truth at the behest of a 3rd party trying to verify the veracity of her claim.

Polygraphs are garbage, that's a known fact.

Not reliable in court & being garbage ... are 2 entirely different things. 

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Your citation refers to polygraphs not being reliable to prove criminality in court.

My, you are really going out of your way to not admit the evidence against Kavanaugh is quite bad, aren't you?

Currently there is no evidence that actually proves that Kavanaugh was the one who actually attacked her. There's enough to suggest Ford very likely experienced sexual assault, but she has provided nothing that suggests he was the one who did it.

Until she decides she decides she wants to actually cooperate and we know more information, I'm not going to label someone a rapist when there is no proof he is one.

You mean no evidence other than the fact she knew both Kavanaugh quite well, as well as the sacrificial goat Kavanaugh's friend is suggesting was the "real" assailant, but she consisetently identified Kavanaugh as her assailant, and recently just as emphatically said she'd know if it was the other guy only but it wasn't?

Got it. "No evidence". A sexual assault occurred, but her ID of someone she knew very well, saw ALL too up close and personal, not a SCRAP of evidence suggesting why she might be mistaken beyond "reasons" and "maybe", and you still have the obstinance to pavlovian respond "no evidence".

There really isn't anything put out that suggests they knew each other very well. They're two teenagers who attended different schools and are two years apart. That alone would suggest it's unlikely they spent time in the same circles, at least not very often.

And as pointed out by myself and a couple other posters, memory is a tricky thing. She held onto this for 30+ years, and it's pretty likely her account might not be exactly the same as she remembered it the night it happened. Yes, she provided a name, but she provided nothing that actually proves her named assailant was actually at the small gathering, and that he was the one who attacked her. It's literally just her word.

As a lawyer, you really should know better than to seriously think that there is enough evidence that proves Kavanaugh did this.

Retweeted by our own Kyle Griffin, courtesy of the WaPo.

Christine Blasey Ford shoots down the Whelan conspiracy theory to WaPo: "I knew them both, and socialized with Chris Garrett. I even visited Chris Garrett when he was in the hospital. There is zero chance that I would confuse them."

If by "proves" if you mean beyond a reasonable doubt. If you mean by a preponderance, certainly. The standard for saying someone is unfit to serve on the SCOTUS is definitely towards the former, if even that high, as a SCOTUS justice should be beyond reproach.

So go back to dutifully "triggering the libs".

I'm not even trying to "trigger the libs", I'm providing valid discussion on the topic and you seem to have a hard time handling that. But hey, I'm glad you are finally being honest about yourself when you act so triggered.

"providing valid discussion"

(insert Indigo Montoya gif--again)

[Virginiá]

So, uhm, this is semi-related, but, I wonder what the OTHER justices think about this. They might have to serve for decades with a guy that might have tried to rape a girl. Even if they rationalize it away, it's still lingering there in the back of their heads.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Not quoting the long train because that is ridiculous at this point, but the testimony of one person + random rumors against the testimony of three + Kavanaugh's long reputation of being an extraordinarily nice person /=/ 51%+ chance Kavanaugh did this. (The polygraph is not admissible in court and so should not be admissible in the Senate either). Indeed, the evidence is in Kavanaugh's favor at this specific point in time.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So, uhm, this is semi-related, but, I wonder what the OTHER justices think about this. They might have to serve for decades with a guy that might have tried to rape a girl. Even if they rationalize it away, it's still lingering there in the back of their heads.

They seem to manage serving with Clarence Thomas okay, and the evidence against him was much stronger than the evidence against Kavanaugh.

[Badger]

Honestly, Virginia? Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are thrilled that they'll have an ally. Little more, little less.

Roberts, similar, but more tempered due to the scandal tarnishing the Court's image, which he cares about deeply.

Bryer will be none too happy.

Ginsberg, Sotomeyer, and Kagen all probably have very similar feelings compared to what you're suggesting.

[Devout Centrist]

So, uhm, this is semi-related, but, I wonder what the OTHER justices think about this. They might have to serve for decades with a guy that might have tried to rape a girl. Even if they rationalize it away, it's still lingering there in the back of their heads.

They seem to manage serving with Clarence Thomas okay, and the evidence against him was much stronger than the evidence against Kavanaugh.

LMAO, never chance Wulfric

[Sestak]

WUT.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1042965763613777921

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Literally trying to frame a middle school teacher? Wow, Sen. Hatch, Wow.

Still more likely than not that there is misidentification going on here, but LOLOLOLOL at this epic fail theory.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Literally trying to frame a middle school teacher? Wow, Sen. Hatch, Wow.

Still more likely than not that there is misidentification going on here, but LOLOLOLOL at this epic fail theory.

Never change, Wulfric.

[7,052,770]

WUT.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1042965763613777921

They really need to have him testify next week too.

[SCNCmod]

So, uhm, this is semi-related, but, I wonder what the OTHER justices think about this. They might have to serve for decades with a guy that might have tried to rape a girl. Even if they rationalize it away, it's still lingering there in the back of their heads.

Well Gorsuch was at Georgetown prep with Kav.. and was the same age as Dr. Ford- so he probably knows both of them.  And Kav helped get Roberts on the court and has know him for a long time.

I know it shouldn't matter... but having 2 consecutive white male judges- who both clerked for the same justice & who both went to the same- very elite, small all boys prep school (at the same time)... strikes me as a completely lack of a variety of life experience to add to (and consume 2/9th of) the most powerful court in the world.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So, uhm, this is semi-related, but, I wonder what the OTHER justices think about this. They might have to serve for decades with a guy that might have tried to rape a girl. Even if they rationalize it away, it's still lingering there in the back of their heads.

Well Gorsuch was at Georgetown prep with Kav.. and was the same age as Dr. Ford- so he probably knows both of them.  And Kav helped get Roberts on the court and has know him for a long time.

I know it shouldn't matter... but having 2 consecutive white male judges- who both clerked for the same justice & who both went to the same- very elite, small all boys prep school (at the same time)... strikes me as a completely lack of a variety of life experience to add to (and consume 2/9th of) the most powerful court in the world.

It's like the 2004 election, where both candidates were members of the same secret society (Skull and Bones) at Yale at the same time.

[ProudModerate2]

CNN's Randi Kaye speaks to Republican women in Florida about Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Please watch video here: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/21/gop-women-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-florida-kaye-pkg-ac-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

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

Some of the video highlights ....

Women#1: "But in the grand scheme of things, my goodness. There was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Can we ... really ... thirty-six years later? She is still stuck on that?"

Women#2: "But we are talking about a 17 year-old boy in high school, (with) testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn't done this in high school? Please, I would like to know?"

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

Jesus Christ! Are these f***ing people for real? What planet do they live on, because it cant be Earth.
I seriously wanted to vomit after seeing this video.

[pbrower2a]

CNN's Randi Kaye speaks to Republican women in Florida about Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Please watch video here: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/21/gop-women-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-florida-kaye-pkg-ac-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

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

Some of the video highlights ....

Women#1: "But in the grand scheme of things, my goodness. There was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Can we ... really ... thirty-six years later? She is still stuck on that?"

Women#2: "But we are talking about a 17 year-old boy in high school, (with) testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn't done this in high school? Please, I would like to know?"

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

Jesus Christ! Are these f***ing people for real? What planet do they live on, because it cant be Earth.
I seriously wanted to vomit after seeing this video.

1. Attempted rape is a serious crime.

2. When I was 17, I would have never attempted to rape someone. There is dating and courtship. (I also obeyed laws about underage drinking).

[Koharu]

This is not surprising in the least. This is what excuses rape. This is rape culture. It's reprehensible, but it's nothing new. This is what has to change.

[JA]

This is not surprising in the least. This is what excuses rape. This is rape culture. It's reprehensible, but it's nothing new. This is what has to change.

And social conservatives/reactionaries will be the last ones to change in it because they refuse to believe rape culture is real. They’re determined to preserve the status quo and make excuses for the privileged, even sheltering them from the consequences of their actions while shifting blame to the victims.