Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[VinyVango 694]

Not reporting criminal activity doesn't mean it never happened.  Many victims or traumatic / humiliating crimes do avoid going through the formalities of filing charges and such to avoid having to deal with the intense emotions / anxiety / depression and other stressors involved with publicizing and revisiting the crimes.  There is a reason why certain crimes have very limited statutes of limitations and others have no statute of limitations.

 People cope in different ways.  However, would it not make sense for Congress, regardless of who it is vetting, impeaching, hiring etc... to request/require that any accuser voicing public  allegations of criminal activity be required to formally report said activity to the relevant State / Federal authorities if that allegation is going to be presented and considered as evidence in the vetting/impeachment/hiring... proceeding?

Also, deciding to report a crime for pure political purposes doesn't negate the fact that the criminal activity occurred.  The motive for a victim reporting a crime doesn't negate the intent and conduct of the person who committed the crime when it occurred. 

It's definitely an interesting phenomenon when the accuser decides to come forward and face reliving the demons all over again for a very limited purpose, like preventing someone from getting a job when the outcome of the allegations, if true, would certainly justify a criminal charge with possible sentencing, fines, etc...

In this case, I think it is a good idea for the FBI to get statements from the parties and do a very short investigation before this goes before some of biased minds who are more interested in reelection than fact-finding on the Judiciary Committee.  And, if the evidence shows that any member of congress had credible information about the alleged criminal conduct earlier and chose not to timely present it after the reporting source was substantiated, he or she should be sanctioned significantly, just as I think the persons who voice frivolous / bogus objections and privileges to properly requested, discoverable documents about the candidate should be sanctioned significantly.

(end of rant)

[FondrenRoad 4378]

17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

There is photo evidence of what Franken was accused of.

The smiling fair photo?  Thats what he quit over. No evidence of anything but a picture with a fan.

He didnt resign over the USO thing even though it was worse. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

God, fuck Trump for that tweet this morning.

My sister is two years younger than me. When she was a sophomore and I was a senior, she was date raped after a fraternity date party.

She called me at 4:37 AM - I looked at my alarm clock before I answered the phone, the time is burned in my mind.

My now husband, then boyfriend, and I went to her house. She lived with 6 of our sorority sisters.

We took care of her. She didn’t want to go to the police. She didn’t want to tell our parents, especially our dad.

That was 25 years ago. As far as I know, my parents still don’t know. They were and are loving parents.

I’ve thought a lot about this since Dr. Ford came forward. What if the shitface who raped my sister was about to be appointed to the Supreme Court? What would she do? What would I do? I just don’t know.

I haven’t really commented on all this till now because - as the tired Surly meme goes - this hits close to home for me.

But that tweet by Trump is absolutely infuriating.

Fuck you, you orange shitgibbon.

[Incredulity 11683]

11 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The smiling fair photo?  Thats what he quit over. No evidence of anything but a picture with a fan.

He didnt resign over the USO thing even though it was worse. 

Yes he did.  He resigned over the entire body of evidence.

Just like if there were photos of Kavanaugh playing touchy feely to reinforce the assault accusation he would be done.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

15 minutes ago, VinyVango said:

Not reporting criminal activity doesn't mean it never happened.  Many victims or traumatic / humiliating crimes do avoid going through the formalities of filing charges and such to avoid having to deal with the intense emotions / anxiety / depression and other stressors involved with publicizing and revisiting the crimes.  There is a reason why certain crimes have very limited statutes of limitations and others have no statute of limitations.

 People cope in different ways.  However, would it not make sense for Congress, regardless of who it is vetting, impeaching, hiring etc... to request/require that any accuser voicing public  allegations of criminal activity be required to formally report said activity to the relevant State / Federal authorities if that allegation is going to be presented and considered as evidence in the vetting/impeachment/hiring... proceeding?

Also, deciding to report a crime for pure political purposes doesn't negate the fact that the criminal activity occurred.  The motive for a victim reporting a crime doesn't negate the intent and conduct of the person who committed the crime when it occurred. 

It's definitely an interesting phenomenon when the accuser decides to come forward and face reliving the demons all over again for a very limited purpose, like preventing someone from getting a job when the outcome of the allegations, if true, would certainly justify a criminal charge with possible sentencing, fines, etc...

In this case, I think it is a good idea for the FBI to get statements from the parties and do a very short investigation before this goes before some of biased minds who are more interested in reelection than fact-finding on the Judiciary Committee.  And, if the evidence shows that any member of congress had credible information about the alleged criminal conduct earlier and chose not to timely present it after the reporting source was substantiated, he or she should be sanctioned significantly, just as I think the persons who voice frivolous / bogus objections and privileges to properly requested, discoverable documents about the candidate should be sanctioned significantly.

(end of rant)

This is so true especially going back into the 80's and before. Embarrassment, and ridicule kept so many from coming forward.  Having a family member tell me it happened to her as a kid makes it all come home very personally.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

39 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Rape is hilarious.

Yeah sure, that's what I was referring to you. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.  Try looking up the word absurd, you're pic is right next it it after all.

[DDD Dad 14352]

Jesus the aggie-baylor is strong in this thread today.

Onboard you should be ashamed of yourself.  

[MixtyMotions 102]

Which Senator on the Judiciary Committee might change their vote because of a hearing?  Answer: none.  This will go to a vote in the Senate.

Which Senator in the full Senate might change their vote because of a hearing?  Answer: possibly Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly and Tester.  The hearing will decide whether Kavanaugh gets 51 votes, 55 votes or something in between.

 

Which races in the midterm will be affected by the hearing?  Now we're getting to the real question. 

[bad_teammate 13225]

4 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

Which Senator on the Judiciary Committee might change their vote because of a hearing?  Answer: none.  This will go to a vote in the Senate.

But Anastasis assured us that if Ford was telling the truth the Senators were acting in good faith and that it would influence their votes

MR. BOTH SIDES PROMISED!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[seven 1368]

Known racist Onboard is really really obsessed with the Clintons, yikes 

[Chuckie Finster 22754]

Politically, the worst move for the Republicans is to confirm someone with public, credible allegations of sexual assault.  I don't think the hearings will alter any votes in the Senate, but if her claims seem legit during testimony, it will absolutely carryover into November.  It is astonishing how short-sighted Republican leadership is being with this.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

19 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Yes he did.  He resigned over the entire body of evidence.

Just like if there were photos of Kavanaugh playing touchy feely to reinforce the assault accusation he would be done.

No, he wouldn't be done.  You would support him using the "but Franken!, but Clinton!" model even if there was a video of him raping her.  Your favorite President has been caught paying off multiple women for inappropriate contact and got caught on tape saying he grabbed women in the pussy.  This is behavior you condone.  In fact, you support Kavanaugh largely because you long for an era when women had fewer rights and you want this behavior to be okay.  This is why you actually dislike Franken.  It isn't because Franken did inappropriate things.  Its because he found fault in himself and stepped down.  You want someone who both does and approves of doing inappropriate things.

Again, Franken was jettisoned as quickly as possible even though he was otherwise a champion of women's rights in Congress.  So its time for you to jettison Kavanaugh in favor of another judge with stone age social ideals who hasn't been accused of rape.  

[PW119 167]

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

 

 

 

Pretty sure these weren't the reactions EMAverage was thinking he'd get.

And I'm pretty sure that if rape charges were now pursued against Bill everyone one of these posters would loose their minds.  This is whole charade is political bullshit.  If Kavanaugh's stance on Roe v Wade was different, none of this would be going on.

(and I don't doubt that the Republicans would behave any different if the shoe were on the other foot)

[Brisketexan 105449]

Politically, the worst move for the Republicans is to confirm someone with public, credible allegations of sexual assault.  I don't think the hearings will alter any votes in the Senate, but if her claims seem legit during testimony, it will absolutely carryover into November.  It is astonishing how short-sighted Republican leadership is being with this.

Why? You think they’ll suffer for this? They won’t. It’s what their fans want - sweet lib tears. And the opposition can’t make it up at the ballot box.

Bad people are in charge of things.
Bad people do bad things.
Bad people hold onto power a lot longer than they should.

That’s the way of the world.

[jimmyjazz 46245]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

No, he wouldn't be done.  You would support him using the "but Franken!, but Clinton!" model even if there was a video of him raping her.  Your favorite President has been caught paying off multiple women for inappropriate contact and got caught on tape saying he grabbed women in the pussy.  This is behavior you condone.  In fact, you support Kavanaugh largely because you long for an era when women had fewer rights and you want this behavior to be okay.  This is why you actually dislike Franken.  It isn't because Franken did inappropriate things.  Its because he found fault in himself and stepped down.  You want someone who both does and approves of doing inappropriate things.

Again, Franken was jettisoned as quickly as possible even though he was otherwise a champion of women's rights in Congress.  So its time for you to jettison Kavanaugh in favor of another judge with stone age social ideals who hasn't been accused of rape.  

This.  All of this.  Modern Republicans are corrupt, irredeemable, and deplorable.  Fuck.  Them.  All.

[Brisketexan 105449]

And I'm pretty sure that if rape charges were now pursued against Bill everyone one of these posters would loose their minds.  This is whole charade is political bullshit.  If Kavanaugh's stance on Roe v Wade was different, none of this would be going on. (and I don't doubt that the Republicans would behave any different if the shoe were on the other foot)

 

Why would I flip out if 1) sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge was presented, 2) a prosecutor decided to bring charges (and its within the statute of limitations) and 3) the defendant happened to be Bill Clinton?

 

The standard of justice should be the same. It should be about the crime and the victim, period.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

25 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

This is so true especially going back into the 80's and before. Embarrassment, and ridicule kept so many from coming forward.  Having a family member tell me it happened to her as a kid makes it all come home very personally.

Of course. Adult women become terrified when it happens.  Teenage women even moreso.  The US gymnastics case tells you all you need to know.  A trusted man sexually abused nearly every girl coming through the program for decades.  Some of these girls even achieved a position of relative "power" where Olympic success would have given them sympathetic ears had they come forward.  Yet they were still afraid. 

Its laughable that a prep school asshole like Trump says a prep school girl should have filed a sexual assault report on a prep school boy.  She would have had almost no avenue for justice and would have likely damaged her own future by doing so.  Trump also knows that his own family would have buried any girl that would have done the same to him when he was in high school.  And if America's sweethearts like US gymnasts don't talk when they have relative power, for sure, a girl with zero power isn't going to talk about a boy who has actual leverage over her future.

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

Where did ‘ol Brett get all that money? What happened between 2005 and Feb 2006? Maybe he placed a wager on a certain college football team in the Rose bowl? Maybe his bookies were going to break his legs and then it was 4th and 5 and then he was saved. Maybe this is all Mack Brown’s fault. 

[Captainant 27835]

11 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Maybe this is all Mack Brown’s fault. 

Well that just scares me to death.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Again, Franken was jettisoned as quickly as possible even though he was otherwise a champion of women's rights in Congress.  So its time for you to jettison Kavanaugh in favor of another judge with stone age social ideals who hasn't been accused of rape.  

Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?  Most of the disagreements on this seem to boil down to misunderstandings on truth vs proof.  For example, it will be stated "it doesn't matter if he only raped one woman 35 years ago with no corroborating evidence; rape is still rape" or "it's perfectly normal for women who have been assaulted to not speak about it for years."  While both of these statements are correct, they are only meaningful to this case if we assume that the allegations are true.  What would be useful is evidence, not assumptions on what matters if the allegations are true. If we are going to make assumptions on what matters if the allegations are true then we should also be considering what matters if the allegations are not true.  This is the basic concept behind the burden of proof, which is a fundamental concept in our legal system. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Why? You think they’ll suffer for this? They won’t. It’s what their fans want - sweet lib tears. And the opposition can’t make it up at the ballot box.

Bad people are in charge of things.
Bad people do bad things.
Bad people hold onto power a lot longer than they should.

That’s the way of the world.

If the Republicans confirm Kavanaugh they will further galvanize the Democratic base and independents for a national election that is 46 days away.  Republican voters are not going to be more inspired to reward the GOP for confirming Kavanaugh.  Perhaps Kavanaugh is worth the risk of the political damage in November? I don’t know.

However, if the Republicans pull Kavanaugh and make him a martyr, they can use that to their advantage for the midterms.

There is a political fireball being cooked with this Kavanaugh/Dr. Ford fiasco.  Whichever side wins this battle will be more likely to pay a price in November.

[bad_teammate 13225]

19 minutes ago, PW119 said:

And I'm pretty sure that if rape charges were now pursued against Bill everyone one of these posters would loose their minds.

This is someone who has sold his soul making himself feel better by pretending everyone else has, too.

A criminal investigation of Bill Clinton would be hilarious and awesome. "Lock her up" is the one campaign promise I'm mad at Trump for not keeping.

[bad_teammate 13225]

2 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

This is the basic concept behind the burden of proof, which is a fundamental concept in our legal system.

This isn't a legal matter.

[Brisketexan 105449]

Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?  Most of the disagreements on this seem to boil down to misunderstandings on truth vs proof.  For example, it will be stated "it doesn't matter if he only raped one woman 35 years ago with no corroborating evidence; rape is still rape" or "it's perfectly normal for women who have been assaulted to not speak about it for years."  While both of these statements are correct, they are only meaningful to this case if we assume that the allegations are true.  What would be useful is evidence, not assumptions on what matters if the allegations are true. If we are going to make assumptions on what matters if the allegations are true then we should also be considering what matters if the allegations are not true.  This is the basic concept behind the burden of proof, which is a fundamental concept in our legal system.   

 

In short, a mere allegation shouldn’t be enough. Anyone can say anything. There has to be SOME additional corroboration/evidence.

 

But the burden of proof for THIS decision isn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is a hiring decision. For a lifetime job. At the highest level of a government that rules 350 million people.

 

I have refused to hire a Secretary candidate who just came off as shady. If I had a candidate who was accused of a serious crime, and there was ANY additional corroboration/evidence, I would take a hard pass.

 

If we’d apply that standard to hiring a secretary, I can’t see how that’s too harsh to apply to a candidate for a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land. And by the way, he’s not entitled to any seat, anywhere. He is being considered to serve US. We get to decide, and we owe him nothing other than to be decent human beings, which is our basic obligation to each other in all cases.

 

But whatever. ®, That’s all that matters.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This isn't a legal matter.

 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In short, a mere allegation shouldn’t be enough. Anyone can say anything. There has to be SOME additional corroboration/evidence.

But the burden of proof for THIS decision isn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is a hiring decision. For a lifetime job. At the highest level of a government that rules 350 million people.

I have refused to hire a Secretary candidate who just came off as shady. If I had a candidate who was accused of a serious crime, and there was ANY additional corroboration/evidence, I would take a hard pass.

If we’d apply that standard to hiring a secretary, I can’t see how that’s too harsh to apply to a candidate for a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land.

But whatever. ®. That’s all that matters.

 

Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?

Edited September 21, 2018 by Guest

[bad_teammate 13225]

Just now, Aphelion said:

Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?

It depends on the type of office and what its terms for removal are.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Kavanaugh isn't being threatened with removal from office. He is being examined as a potential appointee.

Stop dissembling. Be an honest person.

[jimmyjazz 46245]

5 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?  Most of the disagreements on this seem to boil down to misunderstandings on truth vs proof.  For example, it will be stated "it doesn't matter if he only raped one woman 35 years ago with no corroborating evidence; rape is still rape" or "it's perfectly normal for women who have been assaulted to not speak about it for years."  While both of these statements are correct, they are only meaningful to this case if we assume that the allegations are true.  What would be useful is evidence, not assumptions on what matters if the allegations are true. If we are going to make assumptions on what matters if the allegations are true then we should also be considering what matters if the allegations are not true.  This is the basic concept behind the burden of proof, which is a fundamental concept in our legal system. 

 

The standard for being removed from the court SHOULD be higher than the standard for being seated on the court in the first place.  The latter requires little more than a sense that this might not be the best candidate.  Options exist at that time.  Going back and impeaching for removal is a huge step and should be done with full confidence that the accusations are legitimate.  </still not a legal scholar, just winging it here> 

[retread 2951]

The lying and the questionable financial dealings would be more than enough to disqualify BK if he were nominated by a D.

Edited September 21, 2018 by retread

[Brisketexan 105449]

 
Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?

Refuse to hire.

Fire.

Two different decisions, two different standards.

And in the political context, removal happens through impeachment. So, a different standard. You asked the wrong question.

[SubliminalHorn 6811]

4 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?

I think an accusation warrants an investigation before someone is placed in one of the most important positions in our government, yes

[bad_teammate 13225]

- Highly suspect financial dealings

- Multiple instances of dishonesty under oath

- Credible accusation of sexual assault

Normal GOP voter: "Don't see a problem here!"

[FondrenRoad 4378]

6 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?  Most of the disagreements on this seem to boil down to misunderstandings on truth vs proof.  For example, it will be stated "it doesn't matter if he only raped one woman 35 years ago with no corroborating evidence; rape is still rape" or "it's perfectly normal for women who have been assaulted to not speak about it for years."  While both of these statements are correct, they are only meaningful to this case if we assume that the allegations are true.  What would be useful is evidence, not assumptions on what matters if the allegations are true. If we are going to make assumptions on what matters if the allegations are true then we should also be considering what matters if the allegations are not true.  This is the basic concept behind the burden of proof, which is a fundamental concept in our legal system. 

 

No, I think the accuser should be heard completely so that the public and the Senate can assess his moral character.  You, like many others, keep conflating this with a trial.  It isn't.  Your last sentence is only relevant in that we are choosing someone to uphold that "basic concept" for all of us.  That's why the standard here should be much higher that it would be if Kavanaugh was a defendant in a courtroom.  We aren't deciding whether to take away his liberty.  We are deciding whether we should give him a job where he has the ability to take away the liberty of others.  If he was interviewing for a job at a private company, we'd already have told him "thanks, but no thanks" based on this.

[hayden_horn 11365]

8 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?

is being pulled over for suspected dwi enough for someone to lose their job? because that happens all the time. without a guilty verdict; merely the accusation and arrest is enough. you cool with that?

[sachick 1189]

8 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?  Most of the disagreements on this seem to boil down to misunderstandings on truth vs proof.  For example, it will be stated "it doesn't matter if he only raped one woman 35 years ago with no corroborating evidence; rape is still rape" or "it's perfectly normal for women who have been assaulted to not speak about it for years."  While both of these statements are correct, they are only meaningful to this case if we assume that the allegations are true.  What would be useful is evidence, not assumptions on what matters if the allegations are true. If we are going to make assumptions on what matters if the allegations are true then we should also be considering what matters if the allegations are not true.  This is the basic concept behind the burden of proof, which is a fundamental concept in our legal system. 

 

1. We're not talking about ANY judge or politician. We're talking about a life time appointment to the highest court. Their conduct in all areas should be beyond reproach. If an accusation is made, it should most definitely be considered.

 

2. This is not a legal proceeding. Guilt does not have to be proven without a doubt. If accusation is credible and it "probably" occurred then he should not be confirmed because of #1. I'm sure there are plenty of other eligible candidates.

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

I realize I'm six pages or so behind, but...

 

18 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I laughed. The one Johnny Sack-ism of his that I like is him calling her Darth Bader.

rape jokes are hilarious!

 

18 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

What is her endgame? Let’s put ourselves in her shoes. Did she offer up this story out of a concern that he was a sexual predator as a teen and might still be as a 53 year old man? Was she looking for an acknowledgment and apology from Kavanaugh for her emotional and mental health? Was she looking for a way to do it publically in the wake of #me too. Let’s say he gave a mea culpa and admitted it and that’s the only incidence of this type of behavior. Would that be satisfactory to clear this and for him to be confirmed? I think we all know the answer. So my liberal friends you don’t think there is any possibility that she was politically motivated to pursue this? 

 

Damn dude, you just don't get it. Her motivations are irrelevant.

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

7 minutes ago, retread said:

The lying and the questionable financial dealings would be more than enough to disqualify BK if he were nominated by a D.

Being nominated by a D would be more than enough to disqualify a candidate being nominated by a D.

[DixonHur 11395]

Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

Being nominated by a D would be more than enough to disqualify a candidate being nominated by a D.

*See Merrick Garland

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It depends on the type of office and what its terms for removal are.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Kavanaugh isn't being threatened with removal from office. He is being examined as a potential appointee.

Stop dissembling. Be an honest person.

I will be as honest as I can.  I never even heard of Kavanaugh before this recent SC nomination.  Frankly, I don't care if he gets appointed or not.  I think the alarming thing is the fact that someone can write a letter from a 35 year old event with no corroborating evidence and no plausible way to provide any additional evidence and that is enough to remove a SC nominee.  So all it takes is one accusation with no supporting evidence as long as the person doesn't seem crazy.   

 

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Refuse to hire.

Fire.

Two different decisions, two different standards.

And in the political context, removal happens through impeachment. So, a different standard. You asked the wrong question.

Do you think a single accusation from a 35 year old event with no corroborating evidence is sufficient to withdraw a SC nomination?

 

5 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I think an accusation warrants an investigation before someone is placed in one of the most important positions in our government, yes

Agreed.

 

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- Highly suspect financial dealings

- Multiple instances of dishonesty under oath

- Credible accusation of sexual assault

Normal GOP voter: "Don't see a problem here!"

Why do you think she is credible?  You haven't heard her testimony yet.  Seems a bit like a witch hunt.

[pyrohornIII 4823]

6 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

 

 

Do you think merely being accused is sufficient for any judge or politician to be removed from office?

I do when that accusation is credible enough for objective people to ask for an investigation and the investigation then proves the accusation true. 

But he is not on trial for this, the need for concrete evidence is not necessary here.

What this is, or should be, is a judgement on his character and this accusation and things brought to light because of it add to the narrative that describes his character, including the lying, the hiding of documents, and the questionable financials.  This is gathering data to do our best to determine his character.

Another piece of this puzzle falls into place when we see how he addresses these personal adversities. 

[hayden_horn 11365]

1 minute ago, Aphelion said:

Why do you think she is credible?  You haven't heard her testimony yet.  Seems a bit like a witch hunt.

a rigged witch hunt!

[MixtyMotions 102]

Committee will likely propose Wednesday for hearing with Ford

From CNN's Dana Bash and Phil Mattingly

Two sources say the Senate Judiciary Committee will likely send a proposal to Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer proposing a Wednesday hearing, with Ford testifying first and Brett Kavanaugh second.

The proposal would have outside counsel asks the questions.

Ford had asked that Kavanaugh testify first, but congressional aides, said that is a non-starter. It’s not how the committee works, they said, and given Kavanaugh would need to respond to Ford’s testimony, it will not occur. 

[Captainant 27835]

Breaking now: GOP is offering to move the hearing to Wednesday and have an independent (read: probably a woman since every GOP senator on the committee is a man) lawyer question each of them, and they will not have them both in the same room. Looks like she's gonna talk, or at least is far more likely to talk now.

[Brisketexan 105449]

Aphelion is trolling.

I said quite clearly that an allegation alone - with no corroboration or other evidence - is not enough to derail a nomination.

But if there IS corroboration/other evidence, it may be.

Aphelion keeps repeating a straw man. Which is a logical fallacy. Which is a lie. Which makes aphelion a liar.

[sachick 1189]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Breaking now: GOP is offering to move the hearing to Wednesday and have an independent (read: probably a woman since every GOP senator on the committee is a man) lawyer question each of them, and they will not have them both in the same room. Looks like she's gonna talk, or at least is far more likely to talk now.

Is this supposed to a public hearing?

[Captainant 27835]

1 minute ago, sachick said:

Is this supposed to a public hearing?

reporting hasn't said one way or the other yet

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It looks like Elizabeth Warren will be a NO on Kavanaugh.

 

[HenryJames 66189]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Aphelion is trolling.

I said quite clearly that an allegation alone - with no corroboration or other evidence - is not enough to derail a nomination.

But if there IS corroboration/other evidence, it may be.

Aphelion keeps repeating a straw man. Which is a logical fallacy. Which is a lie. Which makes aphelion a liar.

[Aphelion]Ten thousand words asking what it means to 'lie.'[/Apheliion]

[Dertyberd 394]

"Breaking now: GOP is offering to move the hearing to Wednesday and have an independent (read: probably a woman since every GOP senator on the committee is a man) lawyer question each of them, and they will not have them both in the same room. Looks like she's gonna talk, or at least is far more likely to talk now."

 

Keeps the bad optics out of play from R Senators going after Ford.  This is a great move by the R's if they can get her to agree to it.  

Edited September 21, 2018 by Dertyberd
Forgot to quote above

[Chuckie Finster 22754]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Breaking now: GOP is offering to move the hearing to Wednesday and have an independent (read: probably a woman since every GOP senator on the committee is a man) lawyer question each of them, and they will not have them both in the same room. Looks like she's gonna talk, or at least is far more likely to talk now.

So pretty much nothing she asked for, aside from not in the same room?

Edited September 21, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[jimmyjazz 46245]

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

a rigged witch hunt!