Doesn't matter if he's confirmed

His vote against liberalism is absolute

Macarthur said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Actually, if he's lied about it, which it appears he has...then he prob should not keep his gig

---

How do you know he has lied about it? You said he "appears" to have lied about it. How do you know that? Based on what facts presented?

---

If she is telling the truth, then he has lied. I don't know if she is telling the truth.

---

You just said he lied, which means you believe she is telling the truth.

You can't even keep your posts straight.

Macarthur said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Actually, if he's lied about it, which it appears he has...then he prob should not keep his gig

---

How do you know he has lied about it? You said he "appears" to have lied about it. How do you know that? Based on what facts presented?

---

If she is telling the truth, then he has lied. I don't know if she is telling the truth.

---

Ok. But you said he "appears" to have lied.

So you're saying maybe SHE lied? Is that right?

Macarthur said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Actually, if he's lied about it, which it appears he has...then he prob should not keep his gig

---

How do you know he has lied about it? You said he "appears" to have lied about it. How do you know that? Based on what facts presented?

---

If she is telling the truth, then he has lied. I don't know if she is telling the truth.

---

Right now the score is two words against one.

You might be right. You might be wrong.

Macarthur said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Gotta love the Libs

"As long as there's doubt...even doubt created by an obviously biased party with no proof at the eleventh hour 40 years later....then we just can't go forward!

Eff off Libs

Either produce real evidence or get ready for Kav to go full Clarence Thomas on your ass for the next 40 years

---

Good grief you guys are insane

---

Oh?

You think that it's reasonable to not confirm
Based on an obviously biased person coming forward for the first time 40 years later with no evidence to corroborate her story?

Quote:

---

Feinstein is one of the more reasonable Dems. She came out a while back and said there was no Russia evidence. I recall there was another issue where she, although a dem, was more objective and I recall thinking how I respect that. I know she is very anti-gun, but she's not as looney as the other Dems.

---

Context. She has simply hung around long enough to be surpassed by others much more looney than her! (Witness Kamala Harris, who replaced B. Boxer, a certifiable loon, Fauxcahantis Warren, Gillibrand, NY, yada, yada) But when Feinstein joined the Senate, she WAS the far Left! It's just gotten so much farther Left that she seems somewhat reasonable. It's only an illusion.

ducks... just posting the news...

Nails it

Painfully obvious attempt by the Dems to stall/derail

Dems have proven they will lie without compunction or reservations in such matters. They are not to be believed. At all.

Good. Have her show up and provide evidence. I'm all for it.

The age of the allegations are irrelevant to me for a number of reasons. There's plenty of discussion out there now with the recent movement that explains why it's not always reasonable to take the "they should have brought the allegations immediately" argument.

A lady named Helane Olen has a good thread on Twitter about this very subject if anyone is interested in knowing why many allegations come to light much later.

Macarthur said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Gotta love the Libs

"As long as there's doubt...even doubt created by an obviously biased party with no proof at the eleventh hour 40 years later....then we just can't go forward!

Eff off Libs

Either produce real evidence or get ready for Kav to go full Clarence Thomas on your ass for the next 40 years

---

Good grief you guys are insane

---

You said it "appears" he lied. That's insane without proof.

That statement by graham, a truly moderate and reasonable senator, tells you all you need to know.

Kavanaughs confirmation will move forward.

Why does it appear more likely he lied than her?

Liberals:

Macarthur said:

---

The age of the allegations are irrelevant to me for a number of reasons. There's plenty of discussion out there now with the recent movement that explains why it's not always reasonable to take the "they should have brought the allegations immediately" argument.

A lady named Helane Olen has a good thread on Twitter about this very subject if anyone is interested in knowing why many allegations come to light much later.

---

Don't hide behind feigned concern. We all understand why victims wait years and fear reporting. I was a SHARP rep with the Army and have spent more hours dealing with real situations like this than you could imagine.

But I have also learned to smell a lot of BS in those hours and this one before us is covered in flies.

Macarthur said:

---

The age of the allegations are irrelevant to me for a number of reasons. There's plenty of discussion out there now with the recent movement that explains why it's not always reasonable to take the "they should have brought the allegations immediately" argument.

A lady named Helane Olen has a good thread on Twitter about this very subject if anyone is interested in knowing why many allegations come to light much later.

---

Still waiting for you to provide literally any evidence that your girl isn't a lying registered Dem making **** up to stall/derail the process

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

Actually, if he's lied about it, which it appears he has...then he prob should not keep his gig

---

WTF is this garbage? How can you make that statement? You are the deceiver. A registered Democrat who has donated to Democrats has made a completely unsupported allegation from 35 years ago. The fact that Feinstein sat on this for weeks gives even more credence to the thinking that this is simply a stunt and not serious. Your party is scum and you are pathetic for accusing Kavanaugh of lying.

---

"Questioning her makes you insane" - Concerned Moderate Macarthur

As far as "appearances" go, he's had far more step forward on his behalf than her. What makes it appear he lied?

Macarthur said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

JAS61 said:

---

F what this country has turned into.

Thanks Democrats.

---

What if she's telling the truth?

---

She very well could be telling the truth. Teenage boys are idiots, and some of them have to learn how to behave like human beings the hard way. If this really happened Does this mean he is not capable of sitting on the Supreme Court as a 50-year-old adult?

Beto got a DWI and a criminal trespassing violation, and they were both forgiven. Some people think he ought to be a Senator.

---

If this is true, then he absolutely should not sit on the highest court in the land. No issue w him keeping his current gig.

---

So, being on the SCOTUS is an absolute no go, but one step before it, when the VAST majority of appeals cases never go past it, is perfectly fine with you.

Yeah. Ok...

Quote:

---

The Legal Advisor for Kavanaugh's Accuser Is a Big Time Democratic Donor, Thinks People Who Work for Trump Are 'Miscreants'

But, readers should remember that Katz treated Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment against President Bill Clinton very differently in the 1990s.

<snip>

Jones claims she initially kept the incident to herself for fear of workplace retribution since Clinton knew her boss. Katz dismissed Jones' assertions on March 30th,1998 on CNN's "Talkback Live" saying that, "Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak. She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace."

Likewise, Katz again said on CBS' Evening News on April 2nd, 1998 that Jones' allegation could not hold up in court because, "Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim."

Katz continued to argue throughout the 90s that because Jones could not show that the harassment was "severe and pervasive," she did not have a case. In 1998, Katz told the media that, "If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment. I would probably tell her that I'm sorry, it's unfair, but you don't have a case.' Katz said that courts have generally held that a one-time proposition does not constitute harassment. If it's one time, it has to be severe, almost a sexual assault, not just a touching of somebody's breast or buttocks or even forceful kissing."

Yet, Katz continued to dismiss certain episodes of sexual misconduct throughout the years. Fast forward to 2017 and Katz defended then Sen. Al Franken after a photo appeared of him mock groping a female colleague while working as a comedian. At the time Katz said, "Context is relevant. He did not do this as a member of the U.S. Senate. He did this in his capacity of someone who was still functioning as an entertainer," and dismissed concern it was sexual harassment.

Since 2004, Katz has donated at least $26,000 to Democratic politicians including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Kerry. She also donated to groups such as MoveOn.org, the DNC Services Corp, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Likewise, in March 2017 Katz declared via Facebook that, "These people are all miscreants. The term 'basket of deplorables' is far too generous a description for these people who are now Senior Trump advisors," after a report surfaced that Department of Homeland Security advisor Frank Wuco made anti-Islamic remarks which prompted his resignation.

---

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2018/09/16/kavanaugh-accusers-lawyer-part-of-resistance-big-democrat-donor-and-has-trashed-paula-jones-n2519525

Is there any evidence whatsoever that this is going to delay the vote?

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Is there any evidence whatsoever that this is going to delay the vote?

---

So far, no.

General question--how is this the "eve" or "11th hour" of anything? The committee vote is Thursday, full vote will follow, and First Monday is weeks away. Also, what is the rush? Last time there was a vacancy it was no problem to have an 8 member Court for a year. Even if you want to confirm before the elections, that is several weeks away.

A serious charge has been made against the nominee. It is not "unsubstantiated" but there is little evidence to support the claim at this point. Isn't Sen. Graham right that the Committee should hear from the alleged victim of what would be at least an assault to assess her credibility and then make a judgment?

The fact that many of this board instantly reject the claims shows that they could care less and just want the win. I guess that is fine, but don't act like the "dems" are any more unprincipled than yourself.

(Maybe the other thread is where we can discuss what Sen. Feinstien should've done with the letter in July.)

Hmm..
1. Tells therapist in 2012 but the therapists notes say 4 boys not 2.
2. Names a second person that would likely be dismissed as biased because is a known conservative.
3. Claims both were drunk so can easily use that as a reason they don't remember the incident.

May be true but sounds fishy.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Is there any evidence whatsoever that this is going to delay the vote?

---

Democrat senator Doug Jones has come out and said he doesn't think it will.

This issue is the last thing red state dems wanted before the midterms. They are probably pissed at Feinstein and her safe seat.

Quote:

---

It's clear from the responses here that there is zero interest in the truth.

---

That's not clear at all! What IS clear is there's no way to determine the whole truth. How do ever expect to prove the allegations?

Personally, I find her story plausible, and say, "so what"? It's a scenario that's been repeated countless times in the past, and will continue. Who's to say, assuming an incident occurred just as she described, that an actual rape would have ever occurred? I find that highly doubtful.

Now, I never behaved in such a manner, and as the father of two adult daughters, would have boxed the ears of any punk I caught behaving as described, but this is clearly the action of a partisan trying to sway history, perhaps even motivated to some extent by revenge. Not a good mix nor sufficient reason to derail the nomination of a brilliant and highly qualified jurist. It rivals the Anita Hill fiasco for desperation.

Quote:

---

It is not "unsubstantiated" but there is little evidence to support the claim at this point.

---

It is 100% unsubstantiated. There is absolutely no proof or evidence.

I could accuse you of murder and it would have as much evidence as this woman's accusation does.

If we use this standard no one will ever be appointed to the Supreme Court ever again. You will no longer need proof of any allegation. This is just silly.