New liberal talking point:

"Trump and Republicans support a nominee who is under state investigation for rape."

The claim is that the Maryland AG has opened an investigation because Trump won't let the FBI do it.

Lincoln always had a thing for crazies.

Old Tom Morris said:

---

Lincoln always had a thing for crazies.

---

Thank you to those who starred my meme. The post (previous page) went blue quickly but has since stalled.

If you didn't star last night, it would be appreciated.

This just seems too appropriate

*****NSFW****

Should the Republicans move forward the the hearing on Monday to question Kavanaugh?

I'm kind of torn. The left would try to spin his answers and make him look insensitive to Ford (and women in general).

On the other hand it would give them a chance to say, "hey we heard his side and we're happy with his answers so we're going to move on."

I think Kavanaugh is way too smart (and not guilty) and would come across just fine. I tend to think they should have the hearing to hear Kavanaugh's side with or without Ford.

All he has to say to every question is "I categorically deny the allegations that have been made against me."

We know the Dems will ask the same question 50 different ways, but the answer should always be the same.

The Dems have no interest in "the truth". This is a Hail Mary pass to try and delay confirmation vote.

That's why they're calling for FBI investigation and the so called victim is balking at such a quick hearing. Their end game is delay the vote, not truth.

If she won't testify on Monday, there is no point for Kavanaugh to testify.

Redstone said:

---

---

FroWins said:

---

Should the Republicans move forward the the hearing on Monday to question Kavanaugh?

I'm kind of torn. The left would try to spin his answers and make him look insensitive to Ford (and women in general).

On the other hand it would give them a chance to say, "hey we heard his side and we're happy with his answers so we're going to move on."

I think Kavanaugh is way too smart (and not guilty) and would come across just fine. I tend to think they should have the hearing to hear Kavanaugh's side with or without Ford.

---

Dangerous for Kavanaugh to go into any kind of detail denying such an amorphous accusation. No date, no location, no other identified witnesses. Very hard to refute or provide an alibi when you don't have any identifying information. Unless he was at boarding school in Switzerland for the entire year she was 15.

Thomas at least got to hear the incidents of which Anita Hill was complaining before defending himself.

That being said, he's a very smart and articulate man. I feel confident he would be able to craft statements and answers that struck the right tone, sympathy for her situation while denying his personal involvement.

Where is Spartacus in all of this?

Yea, why should Kavanaugh have to provide testimony for something without many facts or detailed allegations on the table? If she is a no show, then just stand by the prior statement and move on.

CJS4715 said:

---

Yea, why should Kavanaugh have to provide testimony for something without many facts or detailed allegations on the table? If she is a no show, then just stand by the prior statement and move on.

---

this.

Unless the accuser testifies, he shouldn't testify.

I'm trying to understand the left's excuse about the hearing being so quick. Hmmmm. Why would FOrd need additional time to "prepare" for a hearing? The truth is the truth, right?

If Ford honestly thinks that going to a liberal politician would keep this private, she's a total dumbass.

Muy said:

---

I'm trying to understand the left's excuse about the hearing being so quick. Hmmmm. Why would FOrd need additional time to "prepare" for a hearing? The truth is the truth, right?

If Ford honestly thinks that going to a liberal politician would keep this private, she's a total dumbass.

---

To try and remember minor details like when and where it happened ...

Muy said:

---

I'm trying to understand the left's excuse about the hearing being so quick. Hmmmm. Why would FOrd need additional time to "prepare" for a hearing? The truth is the truth, right?

If Ford honestly thinks that going to a liberal politician would keep this private, she's a total dumbass.

---

Plus, she should be more prepared than Kavanaugh based off everything we know at this point. The quick turn should be in her favor.

Muy said:

---

Where is Spartacus in all of this?

---

Test fitting a ***** hat to wear this winter.

Grassley and the reupublicans are again showing no sign of a backbone at all and letting the democrats steer the ship. It's already on record that the democrats are voting against Kavanaugh - there is absolutely no need for additional time to weigh information or whatever excuse they are using. The vote has been done for all intents and purposes.

If the R's had a set of nuts, they would call the bluff and tell the D's that enough time has been wasted on all of this and the vote is proceeding Thursday as planned.

Muy said:

---

Where is Spartacus in all of this?

---

It is Sparky per Justice Thomas..

Disqualification worthy?

I don't believe that if the incident happened as described that those actions by a 16 year old person would disqualify him. I see no indication that those actions are indicative of the man's character 3 decades later.

If there was a history or indication of those actions continuing into and through adulthood (verifiable), I would consider that investigable and disqualification worthy.

If he lies about the incident now as an adult, I would consider that investigable and disqualification worthy.

If the actions of a minor were felonious, I would consider that investigable and disqualification worthy.

I would hold a democratic nominee to the same standard.

There is no winning in this situation. It is like fighting a cloud. My far left friends are saying 'how can he deny when he has no idea when' - really? Logic has left the building, and anything approaching clear and rational thought is victim blaming/shaming/you name it.

Nothing about this makes any sense whatsoever.

Yeah, Kavanaugh just needs to generically deny vs. getting into any detail about anything that long ago. It's the classic reason of why you don't talk to the police. Innocent inaccuracies of memory become "lies".

Always an entertaining watch and good advice:

88planoAg said:

---

There is no winning in this situation. It is like fighting a cloud. My far left friends are saying 'how can he deny when he has no idea when' - really?

---

I think the republicans already called the bluff and 'won.' They said, "wow, that is a big allegation and we need to get to the bottom of it. Please come testify before congress."

Her response was to run and hide. The statement about an FBI investigation is hilarious. They already declined to investigate.

This was a big bluff. It got called. And due to the way that Feinstein sat on it, they don't get to play another timing card.

The burden of proof is on the accuser not Kavenaugh who at this point seems like the victim of a progressive hatchet job.

Brock Landers said:

---

This has to be one of the worst examples of a political party overplaying its hand that I've ever seen.

---

Panic in DC.

Quote:

---

My far left friends are saying 'how can he deny when he has no idea when.

---

Your answer is this: The same way you don't need a precise date to know you didn't molest the accuser also.

From what I've read, the hands have been played. Republicans, even Flake, have said they are going to vote on Monday if the chick doesn't show up and there is going to be no FBI investigation.

The Dems, hoping that republicans would cave to #metoo pressure, wanted a full blown FBI investigation and claims they can't get the chick prepared for a Monday hearing.

Unless the Dems have more "victims" to throw out there this is a done deal. Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed.