BWD06 said:

---

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.)

---

Or we have two brain cells to rub together and see this for what it is.

Unsubstatined means there's no proof. Fyi.

Jeff Flake just said he will vote against Kavanaugh.

No surprise, his last **** you to Trump.

Sid Farkas said:

---

Quote:

---

A serious charge has been made against the nominee.

---

Stopped reading

---

i guess that is another point. You can conclude that whatever he did in high school doesn't matter and people can change or does represent his true character, which would be at least a reasoned decision.

I am saying find out the best that you can and then let people make a decision.

Macarthur said:

---

I agree w this.

I think the allegations have enough credibility that things should slow down.

I do find itntintersting that this is a guy the right is willing to fall on their sword for. There's plenty of qualified conservative judges out there is this guy is passed up.

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

---

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 fools think he ought to be a Senator.

---

FIFY

BWD06 said:

---

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.)

---

Have you even been paying attention to the lies the dems have been coming up with since trump was elected?

Mtn_Guide said:

---

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.

---

Not true. Only one party plays this way.

Macarthur said:

---

I think the allegations have enough credibility that things should slow down.

---

Are you an honest political novice or troll? Everything indicates that is the entire strategy with the allegation and specific timing of its release. Hearings complete. Wow, no time to consider this thoughtfully after months of a process and days before the scheduled vote and start of the USSC session. We need to delay (oh, and til after the election). We have all played this game before. It is 100% predictable and anyone who falls for this and the decades old uncorroborated "allegations" is nothing more than a fool.

Fine, bring her out, grill her, and it's still "he said, she said". But, do it before the election because that's why this **** was brought up.

In the mean time, let's look at the other 35 women who've signed a written statement stating their respect for Kavanaugh, and the multiple FBI investigations. Don't do the drive-by bull**** that Macarthur, and other dems do, and present no evidence.

If that doesn't work, then I'm sure it's time to start name calling, etc.. However, if the past actions are a predictor of the fitness of a Supreme Court Judge, and every single thing up to 35 years ago is acceptable, then it's highly unlikely this is an issue. OTOH, maybe he took meth every day, and bath salts to rape this woman, but his entire life doesn't sugges this is correct.

So, bring it, but get it done. If she didn't want to be identified, tough ****, she brought it up, so it's time to talk!

aginlakeway said:

---

Unsubstatined means there's no proof. Fyi.

---

It means not supported by evidence, and there is some minimal amount evidence as noted in a post above.

BWD06 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Unsubstatined means there's no proof. Fyi.

---

It means not supported by evidence, and there is some minimal amount evidence as noted in a post above.

---

What evidence?

Rapier108 said:

---

Jeff Flake just said he will vote against Kavanaugh.

No surprise, his last **** you to Trump.

---

Just another pr*ck in the wall.

Nothing worse than a grandstanding, self-loathing Republican.

Rapier108 said:

---

Jeff Flake just said he will vote against Kavanaugh.

No surprise, his last **** you to Trump.

---

I'm reading that he thinks the committee needs to investigate. What's the source for saying he will vote against kavanaugh?

Huge difference between what you're saying and what is being reported.

JAS61 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Jeff Flake just said he will vote against Kavanaugh.

No surprise, his last **** you to Trump.

---

Just another pr*ck in the wall.

Nothing worse than a grandstanding, self-loathing Republican.

---

Flake didn't say that. Settle down.

aginlakeway said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Jeff Flake just said he will vote against Kavanaugh.

No surprise, his last **** you to Trump.

---

I'm reading that he thinks the committee needs to investigate. What's the source for saying he will vote against kavanaugh?

---

It's been updated to he will vote against him unless the committee investigates.

Still flipping the bird to Trump by doing this.

biobioprof said:

---

ducks... just posting the news...

---

if I'm reading that correctly, which I am, this is being called out as an extremely dirty political hit job and confirmation will continue as scheduled.

I always pegged Kavenaugh as a center right judge. Since he was a Kennedy clerk, i figured the apple wouldn't fall far from the tree.

As a judge on the DC Circuit, his work has been impeccable.

So why the historionics followed by extremely dirty political tactics for this guy?

Are the democrats just not thinking about the very real risk of the republicans keeping the senate and Ginsburg croaking?

Rapier108 said:

---

BWD06 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Unsubstatined means there's no proof. Fyi.

---

It means not supported by evidence, and there is some minimal amount evidence as noted in a post above.

---

What evidence?

---

Yeah I'm also waiting for this evidence.

BWD06 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Unsubstatined means there's no proof. Fyi.

---

It means not supported by evidence, and there is some minimal amount evidence as noted in a post above.

---

What evidence?

Rapier108 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Jeff Flake just said he will vote against Kavanaugh.

No surprise, his last **** you to Trump.

---

I'm reading that he thinks the committee needs to investigate. What's the source for saying he will vote against kavanaugh?

---

It's been updated to he will vote against him unless the committee investigates.

Still flipping the bird to Trump by doing this.

---

The committee is going to do a quick token investigation and maybe even an interview of the "victim" if she agrees to it. I don't think that's an issue.

Rapier108 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Jeff Flake just said he will vote against Kavanaugh.

No surprise, his last **** you to Trump.

---

I'm reading that he thinks the committee needs to investigate. What's the source for saying he will vote against kavanaugh?

---

It's been updated to he will vote against him unless the committee investigates.

Still flipping the bird to Trump by doing this.

---

He might as well being voting no, as there's no way this can be fully investigated in time for this week's vote.

Of course, being a self-loathing RINO, he won't say anthing negative about his Democrat colleagues who sat on it for three months, during which time it could have been properly investigated.

What can the committee possibly come up with other than he said she said? It's stupid and a delay tactic.

Rapier108 said:

---

Jeff Flake just said he will vote against Kavanaugh.

No surprise, his last **** you to Trump.

---

**** Jeff Flake

Bo Darville said:

---

BWD06 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Unsubstatined means there's no proof. Fyi.

---

It means not supported by evidence, and there is some minimal amount evidence as noted in a post above.

---

What evidence? There is zero.

---

1. Her attributed statement to the Washington Post is evidence
2. She took a polygraph
3. She told her spouse about a potentially similar incident 16 years ago
4. She spoke about it with her therapist and there are notes with some corroboration in 2012 but conflicting information

I said it was there was minimal proof, but it is wrong to say there is nothing.

ladies, always come forward immediately.

According to a report from NBC the person who supposedly pulled Kavanaugh off of Ms. Ford called the report by Ms. Ford nuts and said it never happened.


Quote from NBC report:


"Ford escaped after a friend, Mark Judge, found them and pulled them apart, she told the newspaper. Ford said she locked herself in a bathroom before leaving the house.

According to the Weekly Standard, Judge was named in the letter sent to Feinstein and Eshoo and denied that the incident occurred, telling the outlet, "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.""

If a libtard organisation like NBC is reporting an eyewitness called the report nuts, there is less than nothing there.

Quote:

---

A serious charge has been made against the nominee.

---

What's the charge? Even if these allegations weren't 35 years old, where are you going to find a grand jury to indict with no evidence, and no corroborating witness? Likewise a trial jury, much less a judge who would allow it to even go to trial! You people are pathetic in your desperation!

BWD06 said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

BWD06 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Unsubstatined means there's no proof. Fyi.

---

It means not supported by evidence, and there is some minimal amount evidence as noted in a post above.

---

What evidence? There is zero.

---

1. Her attributed statement to the Washington Post is evidence
2. She took a polygraph
3. She told her spouse about a potentially similar incident 16 years ago
4. She spoke about it with her therapist and there are notes with some corroboration in 2012 but conflicting information

I said it was there was minimal proof, but it is wrong to say there is nothing.

---

So his "evidence " is just as strong as hers.

The libs bending themselves into pretzels to defend this has any shred of legitimacy is truly pathetic

fasthorses05 said:

---

Fine, bring her out, grill her, and it's still "he said, she said". But, do it before the election because that's why this **** was brought up.

In the mean time, let's look at the other 35 women who've signed a written statement stating their respect for Kavanaugh, and the multiple FBI investigations. Don't do the drive-by bull**** that Macarthur, and other dems do, and present no evidence.

If that doesn't work, then I'm sure it's time to start name calling, etc.. However, if the past actions are a predictor of the fitness of a Supreme Court Judge, and every single thing up to 35 years ago is acceptable, then it's highly unlikely this is an issue. OTOH, maybe he took meth every day, and bath salts to rape this woman, but his entire life doesn't sugges this is correct.

So, bring it, but get it done. If she didn't want to be identified, tough ****, she brought it up, so it's time to talk!

---

Subpoena the other people named as being at the party too?

The mistake made by BK handlers is that they took the Trump approach to their defense: Friday Kavanaugh "categorically and unequivocally" denied doing "this" in HS or any other time, and apparently he's repeated that after the WaPo story.

That undermines the "we all do stupid stuff when we're young" defense. If she testifies, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't if he comes back to rebut. There's a whole bunch of stupid questions that make bad TV soundbites that I can imagine if there are additional hearings: Did you engage in underaged drinking? Did you go to parties like the one described? etc.

My view is that I find it credible that 17 yo private school students party with 15 yo private school girls in the hope of getting laid on both sides, and that being young and stupid with a boost from beer, signals get misinterpreted. And sadly, if that's what really happened, it was followed by selective memory leading to her reconstruction of events turning herself into St Ebbe the Younger, while he remembers himself into Jimmy Stewart's character from Philadelphia story.

Sorry bio. Another swing and a miss.

BWD06 said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

BWD06 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Unsubstatined means there's no proof. Fyi.

---

It means not supported by evidence, and there is some minimal amount evidence as noted in a post above.

---

What evidence? There is zero.

---

1. Her attributed statement to the Washington Post is evidence
2. She took a polygraph
3. She told her spouse about a potentially similar incident 16 years ago
4. She spoke about it with her therapist and there are notes with some corroboration in 2012 but conflicting information

I said it was there was minimal proof, but it is wrong to say there is nothing.

---

Nothing you listed is evidence.

Tom Hagen said:

---

There is no way that a high school boy was trying to hit this:

---

He must have been reallly, really drunk .