Maccabe memos about Rosenstein

[RiverDog]

Judge's ex from college has said that "Judge once told her about an occasion when he and other boys took turns having sex with a drunken woman when he was in high school" and has offered to testify to that effect.

Thing is, that's what accounts to third person testimony, which wouldn't fly in a hearing or trial. But it may well be exactly the sort of the the FBI will be looking into when they investigate the matter, which the Senate has just agree to a one week delay to allow for.

I suppose that I don't have a problem with a week's delay if it makes people happy, but I still don't see what is to be gleaned from interviewing more witnesses. An ex girlfriend testifying to what her former boyfriend once told her? A textbook example of he said, she said, and the very thing I was referring to when I said that nothing conclusive could ever be reached by interviewing more witnesses.

[Hawktawk]

Update. While Jeff Flake has voted to send the nomination to the full senate he has come out saying he will not support him without another FBI investigation looking at these allegations being completed.

And ID Hawkman you are out of it man. The president is the guy who has to order the investigation which Bush did in the Thomas matter. They absolutely have jurisdiction over this and you're just making stuff up. If the crazy orange witches hunters have proven one thing it's that you better not lie to the FBI. Nobody's going to jail over this but if a guy is going to sit in judgement of americans for 4 decades he should have a lot more character than this lying drunken molesting weasel has, sorry....But Oh well follow the groper in chief right? Who gives a sh#+

Another update. The Republican panel has now agreed to another investigation. We shall see. Now 5 women and maybe many more with the cover and protection of professional truth seekers instead of partisan corrupt senators on both sides will have their say to the G men. getcha popcorn

[RiverDog]

Update. While Jeff Flake has voted to send the nomination to the full senate he has come out saying he will not support him without another FBI investigation looking at these allegations being completed.

Blake also said that the investigation shouldn't take "more than a week", which is undobutedly why Grassley agreed to delay the vote. But don't get your hopes up that Blake will vote against the nomination. He's already said that he would support him unless something "conclusive" comes out of the allegations. The FBI is not going to draw any conclusiuons, all they will do is present the committee with evidence, ie testimonies of those that have already sounded off such as the ex girlfriend that Cbob referred to. Each side will then draw their own conclusions, so it's doubtful that this delay will change anyone's mind, just give them some cover to tell their consitituants that they investigated the claims.

[idhawkman]

Update. While Jeff Flake has voted to send the nomination to the full senate he has come out saying he will not support him without another FBI investigation looking at these allegations being completed.

And ID Hawkman you are out of it man. The president is the guy who has to order the investigation which Bush did in the Thomas matter. They absolutely have jurisdiction over this and you're just making stuff up. If the crazy orange witches hunters have proven one thing it's that you better not lie to the FBI. Nobody's going to jail over this but if a guy is going to sit in judgement of americans for 4 decades he should have a lot more character than this lying drunken molesting weasel has, sorry....But Oh well follow the groper in chief right? Who gives a sh#+

Another update. The Republican panel has now agreed to another investigation. We shall see. Now 5 women and maybe many more with the cover and protection of professional truth seekers instead of partisan corrupt senators on both sides will have their say to the G men. getcha popcorn

You better hope that you never get accused of something like this. As you've pointed out, without any evidence you are guilty. Now prove you aren't.

Also, the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction over this. All the president can do is ask the FBI to update the background check of the nominee. They won't be investigating a crime in any way.

[idhawkman]

Blake also said that the investigation shouldn't take "more than a week", which is undobutedly why Grassley agreed to delay the vote. But don't get your hopes up that Blake will vote against the nomination. He's already said that he would support him unless something "conclusive" comes out of the allegations. The FBI is not going to draw any conclusiuons, all they will do is present the committee with evidence, ie testimonies of those that have already sounded off such as the ex girlfriend that Cbob referred to. Each side will then draw their own conclusions, so it's doubtful that this delay will change anyone's mind, just give them some cover to tell their consitituants that they investigated the claims.

Actually, Grassley didn't agree to the extension because he can't. As Lindsay Graham pointed out, the only people who can do that is McConnell and Shumer. All the committe could do is recommend the nominee out of their committee which they did today. The delay is for the floor vote of the entire senate which is why it has to be agreed to by McConnell and Shumer.

That all said, thank goodness the dog and pony show of this committee is now over for this nominee.

[idhawkman]

So even though the President just asked the FBI to update the background on the judge, McConnell just stated on the floor of the Senate that they will start considering the nomination of the judge starting today. So it don't look like McConnell is going along with the delay.

I'm thinking that the FBI may come back with the update by Monday interviewing or not if the interviewees refuse to be interviewed (remember this is a background update not a criminal investigation and they are not obligated to say anything or they could even claim the 5th). There's only a total of 5 or 6 people to get statements from. They don't need Ford's or Kavanaugh's statements since they just had hearings in the committee. We know that Mark Judge is a recovering alcoholic, cancer survivor and suffers from depression and doesn't want to be interviewed. We also know that Ford's girlfriend who stated that she was sorry she couldn't back Ford's story has psychological problems. So that leaves the other people named at the party which is only 3 or 4 people who already stated they don't remember the party in question. All of them live in the suburban Maryland area and could be available tomorrow for the FBI to ask them the questions I previously stated.

So as River has pointed out, this is probably heading to a big nothing burger and still have the vote by Tuesday on the floor of the full senate.

[Aseahawkfan]

The most we ever hear about any SCOTUS judge is in their confirmation hearing. After that, they fade into obscurity as an individual. I'll bet you that 75%+ of adults can't name more than a couple of the current SCOTUS justices. Clarence Thomas is a good example. His nomination was very contentious, the most so that I can recall up until our current nominee, but people have long since forgotten about him and his chief accuser, Anita Hill. Occasionally they will write an opinion for or against a SCTOTUS decision that gets published, but beyond that, we never hear from them.

Being a conservative, I do want justices that will interpet the Consititution rather than try to re-write it or legislate from the bench. Kavanaugh seems to be that kind of individual. There's going to be other SCOTUS openings in the near future. Ginsberg is 85, Bryer 80, so you may get your wish sooner rather than later.

I don't know that I love any of these justices. They tend to interpret the Constitution in a very free way to support whatever policy they lean towards. The Commerce Clause being one of the most abused clauses in The Constitution. Then the way Roberts interpreted Obamacare as a tax was pathetic and that judge was supposed to lean conservative. Americans have no control over judge appointments. Thus our chance of getting someone that isn't in someone's pocket or driven by some agenda is pretty low. There are few if any justices that won't rewrite the Constitution if pressured to do so. With the way precedent law works, you can almost always find some legal support for any viewpoint.

I'm not going to cry if Kavanaugh gets confirmed. I'd prefer a different candidate. I hope at least some good comes out of this that sends a clear message to the women of this nation to report these assaults when they happen. There cannot be an expectation that you can bring this up 30 plus years later, scream about men hiding it all or society being hard on you, then expect society to lynch these people. That is not justice, that's a tyrannical mob.

[idhawkman]

I don't know that I love any of these justices. They tend to interpret the Constitution in a very free way to support whatever policy they lean towards. The Commerce Clause being one of the most abused clauses in The Constitution. Then the way Roberts interpreted Obamacare as a tax was pathetic and that judge was supposed to lean conservative. Americans have no control over judge appointments. Thus our chance of getting someone that isn't in someone's pocket or driven by some agenda is pretty low. There are few if any justices that won't rewrite the Constitution if pressured to do so. With the way precedent law works, you can almost always find some legal support for any viewpoint.

I'm not going to cry if Kavanaugh gets confirmed. I'd prefer a different candidate. I hope at least some good comes out of this that sends a clear message to the women of this nation to report these assaults when they happen. There cannot be an expectation that you can bring this up 30 plus years later, scream about men hiding it all or society being hard on you, then expect society to lynch these people. That is not justice, that's a tyrannical mob.

The reason Kavanaugh is being resisted so hard is because he will make the 5th predominently constitutionalist on the court. This is what is freaking the dems out so much. They want constructionist and they are losing that.

[Aseahawkfan]

Smart politics to do the investigation. The Republicans have made it clear they have taken every step to check Kavanaugh's background. They have been transparent. If the Democrats push back now, they will look very, very bad. If nothing else, the Republicans are making the smart play as far as public relations go. I will be better with the nomination if the FBI looks into the drunken partying that may have taken place. At least we are now getting a real investigation. Hopefully this will send a clear message to women young and old that they won't be glossed over. I do not want any women young or old thinking conservative means don't care about women. That should not be a political issue at all for either side.

[Aseahawkfan]

The reason Kavanaugh is being resisted so hard is because he will make the 5th predominently constitutionalist on the court. This is what is freaking the dems out so much. They want constructionist and they are losing that.

I don't buy that BS for a minute. Gorsuch made it through. Roberts made it through. Neither man had such accusations. Fact is Kavanaugh has some dirt on him. They are exploiting it prior to the midterms as a power play for votes. This is all a game and Kavanaugh has some targets in his past that the Dems are taking shots at. Republicans are countering intelligently and I commend them for it. This is still all about the man in the White House, the timing of the midterm elections, and the dirt in Kavanaugh's past. We'll see what they find and if the Dems can weaponize it for the midterms.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Asea, a bit of a tangent to this topic, but I saw in one of your recent posts where you said:

There cannot be an expectation that you can bring this up 30 plus years later, scream about men hiding it all or society being hard on you, then expect society to lynch these people. That is not justice, that's a tyrannical mob.

I don't refute this, but I've seen more than a few instances on my FB newsfeed of comparisons to adults coming forward with sexual abuse allegations against Catholic clergymen 20-30 years later and no one is blasting those individuals. I see it as a vastly different scenario. We are talking about children who were abused by grown men of faith who were supposed to care for and guide them and be completely trustworthy. Not the same as two drunk teenagers at a party and not the same as the timing of Democrat backed allegations against a Republican SCOTUS appointment. Just curious about your take (and anyone else's) on the comparison.

[RiverDog]

Actually, Grassley didn't agree to the extension because he can't.

You're exactly right, I misspoke. The committee has given the nominee their blessing by a 11-10 strict party line vote and sent it to the Senate floor, although the committee vote is advisory and doesn't really mean anything. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has approved Jeff Flake's request that the vote be delayed by not more than 1 week.

That all said, thank goodness the dog and pony show of this committee is now over for this nominee.

Agreed. It was a shameless spectacle, not fitting of our guiding principles of fair play and presumption of innocence. It was a setup, as the Dems withheld information from the committee chairman under the guise of protecting the witness then allowed her identity to be leaked to the press.

[RiverDog]

I don't know that I love any of these justices. They tend to interpret the Constitution in a very free way to support whatever policy they lean towards. The Commerce Clause being one of the most abused clauses in The Constitution. Then the way Roberts interpreted Obamacare as a tax was pathetic and that judge was supposed to lean conservative. Americans have no control over judge appointments. Thus our chance of getting someone that isn't in someone's pocket or driven by some agenda is pretty low. There are few if any justices that won't rewrite the Constitution if pressured to do so. With the way precedent law works, you can almost always find some legal support for any viewpoint.

I'm not going to cry if Kavanaugh gets confirmed. I'd prefer a different candidate. I hope at least some good comes out of this that sends a clear message to the women of this nation to report these assaults when they happen. There cannot be an expectation that you can bring this up 30 plus years later, scream about men hiding it all or society being hard on you, then expect society to lynch these people. That is not justice, that's a tyrannical mob.

SCOTUS is a strange institution. Judges are very unpredictable. Eisenhower once said of his appointment of Earl Warren to SCOTUS was the "stupidest damn thing I've ever done." Justice Souter was appointed by a Republican (Bush 41) but he sided with the liberal wing. Because of their independence, they don't always act in the way they were expected to when they were nominated.

I'm not going to cry if Kavanaugh doesn't get in, either. My angst is with this process, with this character assassination...going back to high school and a person's teenage years? Give me a frigging break!...and in what seems to be a steady progression towards the notion that any man accused of sexual misconduct is presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

[Aseahawkfan]

SCOTUS is a strange institution. Judges are very unpredictable. Eisenhower once said of his appointment of Earl Warren to SCOTUS was the "stupidest damn thing I've ever done." Justice Souter was appointed by a Republican (Bush 41) but he sided with the liberal wing. Because of their independence, they don't always act in the way they were expected to when they were nominated.

I'm not going to cry if Kavanaugh doesn't get in, either. My angst is with this process, with this character assassination...going back to high school and a person's teenage years? Give me a frigging break!...and in what seems to be a steady progression towards the notion that any man accused of sexual misconduct is presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

I'm about where you're at. I'm wondering if that many sexual assaults haven't been reported. Are men doing this that often? What the heck is going on. Why would women think it was acceptable to not report such instances if they are sure at the time that it was wrong and sexual assault. Are we not teaching young women what sexual assault Is? What's going on here? This movement is crazy. In my own life, I've never done anything what I've heard. I've never seen it. I've never had it told to me save a story later on in life. If someone did these things to a female I know, I would address it on the spot. I'm not seeing how all this behavior is swept under a seemingly very dirty, huge carpet.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't refute this, but I've seen more than a few instances on my FB newsfeed of comparisons to adults coming forward with sexual abuse allegations against Catholic clergymen 20-30 years later and no one is blasting those individuals. I see it as a vastly different scenario. We are talking about children who were abused by grown men of faith who were supposed to care for and guide them and be completely trustworthy. Not the same as two drunk teenagers at a party and not the same as the timing of Democrat backed allegations against a Republican SCOTUS appointment. Just curious about your take (and anyone else's) on the comparison.

There is the difference in positions of power.

Also, some of these allegations were brought forward at the time they occurred, but the Catholic Church covered it up by moving the priest and settling out of court without criminal charges being brought. The Catholic problem they don't talk about is a lot of the parents were culpable in the cover up. They show the enraged parents on the specials, but they don't talk about the methods the Catholics used to cover up the abuse paying parents to keep quiet and moving priests around. This idea that the kids are only reporting it later gets the headlines, but the institutional corruption in the Catholic Church including Catholic parents was ridiculous.

The earlier Catholic viewpoint was that abuse of a child was only a breach of their vow of celibacy, not the evil crime of corruption that normal society would see it as. The coverup was much different than this situation. No one is calling out the children because then you have to call out the parents, since they were often part of the cover up.

You go down the rabbit hole of what happened in the Catholic Church and you'll start to question even the parents and why they chose not to pursue criminal action in many cases.

[Hawktawk]

Where theres smoke theres fire. This man Should never sit on the highest court in the land. he's a lying weasel, a sh11ty drunk and an abuser of women....Pick another conservative candidate who hasn't raped women and he will be confirmed.


Boy this lifetime republican stalwart can't wait to vote for democrats this november. drain the swamp

[Aseahawkfan]

Where theres smoke theres fire. This man Should never sit on the highest court in the land. he's a lying weasel, a sh11ty drunk and an abuser of women....Pick another conservative candidate who hasn't raped women and he will be confirmed.


Boy this lifetime republican stalwart can't wait to vote for democrats this november. drain the swamp

I don't like this confirmation either. Kavanaugh might not even know what he's done if he were drinking heavy and partying. I don't see why they can't find a better candidate.

[RiverDog]

I'm about where you're at. I'm wondering if that many sexual assaults haven't been reported. Are men doing this that often? What the heck is going on. Why would women think it was acceptable to not report such instances if they are sure at the time that it was wrong and sexual assault. Are we not teaching young women what sexual assault Is? What's going on here? This movement is crazy. In my own life, I've never done anything what I've heard. I've never seen it. I've never had it told to me save a story later on in life. If someone did these things to a female I know, I would address it on the spot. I'm not seeing how all this behavior is swept under a seemingly very dirty, huge carpet.

I understand rape victims being reluctant to testify, and to a lesser degree, report other sexual assaults. Not having personally experienced being a female in this world, I can't comprehend the psychological impact being a sexual assault victim entails, but I take other's word that it is horrifying. But it can't be used as a reason to trump another's individual rights.

There are some true scum out there, like Cosby and Weissman, but people are getting painted with the same brush stroke and are having their lives altered by unsupported claims from decades ago by allegations without any supporting evidence. Take Matt Patricia. He nearly had his career destroyed because of an unsupported allegation from nearly 2 decades ago, and there wasn't even an accusor that was willing to come forward. It all came about because of a newspaper reporter out on a fishing expedition looking for a story that would net him some readers.

True sexual predators are seldom one and done. Most, like Cosby and Weismann, or going back to Jerry Sandusky, have multiple, repeated encounters that in those cases, stretched over decades. I had a boss at work that was rumored for years to have accosted women while on the job, rumors that circulated at two completely different work environments, and finally, someone turned him in, claiming that he exposed himself to her. It was bascically a his word against hers, but there had been so many rumors over a very long period of time and from different groups of workers that I believed the accusation. He lost his job, and probably should have stood trial.

That's not the case with Kavanaugh. I'm not saying that I necessarily believe his denials, just that it's not enough to make the accusation believable, requiring more evidence, at least in my mind, before I reach a conclusion.

[RiverDog]

I don't like this confirmation either. Kavanaugh might not even know what he's done if he were drinking heavy and partying. I don't see why they can't find a better candidate.

The problem is the process. Trump knew nothing about the accusations when he nominated Kavanaugh. Dianne Feinstein withheld the letter from the Republicans. She should have immediately shared it with the committee chairman so they could have ferreted out the rumor before it got to the hearing, but it was more valuable to her to keep it a secret then unleash it as a weapon to cause the process to bog down, like it has. It was the very first complaint that Chuck Grassley mentioned in his opening remarks. They claimed that they wanted to protect the witness, who initally did not want her idenity disclosed, but the Dems were careless with the information and it leaked out to the press.

I realize that I have a partisan view as I'm a confirmed conservative, but it's blatantly clear to me that the blame for this kangaroo court of a hearing rests solely on the shoulders of the Democrats.

[c_hawkbob]

The problem isn't the process, the problem is rushing the process for political reasons.

[RiverDog]

The problem isn't the process, the problem is rushing the process for political reasons.

I agree that the process was rushed due to political reasons, ie to get the nomination ran through before the midterms. The Dems would have dome the same thing had the shoe been on the other foot. Perhaps they should agree to a more finite process, but right now, the R's hold the power and it was their prerogative to schedule the hearings as they desired.

But regardless of what you think of the R's rushing the nomination through, two wrongs don't make a right. It was not acceptable under any circumstances for any committee member to withhold critical information essential to the confirmation from the committee chairman. It's what led to this 3 ring circus and caused such a nation wide uproar that has further widened the gulf between liberal and conservative, men and women.

[idhawkman]

The reason Kavanaugh is being resisted so hard is because he will make the 5th predominently constitutionalist on the court. This is what is freaking the dems out so much. They want constructionist and they are losing that.

I don't buy that BS for a minute. Gorsuch made it through. Roberts made it through. Neither man had such accusations. Fact is Kavanaugh has some dirt on him. They are exploiting it prior to the midterms as a power play for votes. This is all a game and Kavanaugh has some targets in his past that the Dems are taking shots at. Republicans are countering intelligently and I commend them for it. This is still all about the man in the White House, the timing of the midterm elections, and the dirt in Kavanaugh's past. We'll see what they find and if the Dems can weaponize it for the midterms.

You dont have to "Buy It". Shumer announced it on July 10th in a press conference

[idhawkman]

SCOTUS is a strange institution. Judges are very unpredictable. Eisenhower once said of his appointment of Earl Warren to SCOTUS was the "stupidest damn thing I've ever done." Justice Souter was appointed by a Republican (Bush 41) but he sided with the liberal wing. Because of their independence, they don't always act in the way they were expected to when they were nominated.

I'm not going to cry if Kavanaugh doesn't get in, either. My angst is with this process, with this character assassination...going back to high school and a person's teenage years? Give me a frigging break!...and in what seems to be a steady progression towards the notion that any man accused of sexual misconduct is presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

Couple of things that I think add to the Justices not being one way or the other or at least going a different direction than what was thought. One of the issues is that President Bush didn't have the Senate so he had to pick a moderate in order to be confirmed. So souter was more a moderate than a conservative. Remember the Borking of Bork and the side show of Thomas? PIcking a constitutionalist has been very difficult if not almost impossible since the 90s.

Regarding the party line vote out of committee, that was going to happen from day one. So this whole dog and pony show has been just that, a show. Disgraceful at that.

This is one of the rare times in the recent history of justices that a conservative president has a conservative Senate and that is why they are fighting tooth and nail against Kavanaugh. He's the second one and now the swing vote is just a senate confirmation away from being on this court for a very long time. Watch what happens to a more conservative nominee if Kavanaugh fails or if the old hag finally croaks.

[RiverDog]

Couple of things that I think add to the Justices not being one way or the other or at least going a different direction than what was thought. One of the issues is that President Bush didn't have the Senate so he had to pick a moderate in order to be confirmed. So souter was more a moderate than a conservative. Remember the Borking of Bork and the side show of Thomas? PIcking a constitutionalist has been very difficult if not almost impossible since the 90s.

Regarding the party line vote out of committee, that was going to happen from day one. So this whole dog and pony show has been just that, a show. Disgraceful at that.

This is one of the rare times in the recent history of justices that a conservative president has a conservative Senate and that is why they are fighting tooth and nail against Kavanaugh. He's the second one and now the swing vote is just a senate confirmation away from being on this court for a very long time. Watch what happens to a more conservative nominee if Kavanaugh fails or if the old hag finally croaks.

Bush 41 was trying to slide Souter in under the radar. Indeed, he was known as a stealth candidate of which little was known about him. He was supposed to be a moderate, but turned out to side with the liberal wing nearly all the time.

Agreed about the Dems gamble at trying to derail or impede the selection process. There's a good chance that the R's will increase their majority in the Senate this November, and with Flake and Corker gone, we could be looking at a more conservative R contingent. The two oldest SCOTUS justices, Ginsberg and Bryer, are both liberals and both in their 80's. We could see at least one more retirement within the next two years, which would give Trump 3 appointments in 4 years.

[Hawktawk]

[

You better hope that you never get accused of something like this. As you've pointed out, without any evidence you are guilty. Now prove you aren't.

Also, the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction over this. All the president can do is ask the FBI to update the background check of the nominee. They won't be investigating a crime in any way.

I never will be accused Id, just like Gorsuch wasn't, Roberts wasn't, Souter wasn't. GW bush wasn't. You get the point?

Clinton was because he did it. Crazy orange witch on the run in hiding admitted it on tape with 22 corroborating witnesses.

Ill never be accused because even though in my younger years I've partied all night, done about every drug you could put in your body except a needle, been sexually promiscuous I've never come close to sexually assaulting a woman. I've NEVER held a woman down against her will and attempted to rape her like Trump,Clinton and IMO Kavanaugh have. I always took no for an answer.

This false reporting thing, especially with celebrities and politicians and law enforcement people is actually the reverse. Why come out against wealthy powerful men? Why risk everything, get death threats from the trump fanatical 37% base, be forced to leave your home,ridiculed and intimidated by a hundred million people? Because you don't want the right wing court to replace one conservative but open minded republican appointee with a more conservative one? It is a ridiculous assertion by the defenders of this zit faced stone cold liar.

And now that she came forward as is almost always the case with powerful sexual predators more women have joined her in spite of seeing how she has been treated. Its because the dude was bad actor especially when drunk, a sexual predator with the most recent allegation being only 20 years ago when he was in the judiciary and actually part of Ken Starr's whitewater team, the man who wrote the articles of impeachment. The irony is rich.Hes accused because he did it and these women who have dealt with this prison in their mind for decades don't want their perp sitting in judgement of us all for decades to come.


Look man i know your a good dude and a few years ago we would have disagreed about not much at all but i have this thing called a conscience and I have a good sense of character and this guy is a phony scumbag just like guy who nominated him. Although Trump yesterday actually called Dr Blase Ford "credible" a compelling witness" "a fine person" and ultimately ordered the FBI investigation. IMO even trump is becoming aware of how flawed the guy is and wishes he would just withdraw. You will get your conservative Justice either way , just not a frat boy drunken rapist liar providing the Dems dont take the senate. Ill be doing my part in the ballot box for sure.

[Hawktawk]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/ka ... vi-BBNGPDE
The guys yearbook proves hes lying about the amount of drinking he did in high school and college and here come the witnesses. Hes lied about the drinking age making him legal to drink as a senior in HS.

And why lie? He could say I drank way too much growing up and I don't anymore . Corroborating witnesses to his drunken aggressive behavior are coming forward and its reported the Ramires lady is already being contacted by the FBI.

He's lied about his drinking under oath....Isn't that a crime, at a minimum impeachable from the judiciary?Perjury is perjury.And a liar is a liar.

[idhawkman]

I never will be accused Id, just like Gorsuch wasn't, Roberts wasn't, Souter wasn't. GW bush wasn't. You get the point?

That's just an idiotic thing to say. Anyone can come out and claim that you accosted them in your youth. No proof is needed.

Gorsuch wasn't attacked because he was replacing Scalia another constitutionalist. After the left had an uproar against the dems, they have to show maximum opposition to this next one because it turns the court from constructionist to constitutionalist.

Clinton was because he did it. Crazy orange witch on the run in hiding admitted it on tape with 22 corroborating witnesses.

Ill never be accused because even though in my younger years I've partied all night, done about every drug you could put in your body except a needle, been sexually promiscuous I've never come close to sexually assaulting a woman. I've NEVER held a woman down against her will and attempted to rape her like Trump,Clinton and IMO Kavanaugh have. I always took no for an answer.

See, that's your problem. Its not up to you to determine what was attempted rape. Its up to whomever accuses you to interpret your intentions.

This false reporting thing, especially with celebrities and politicians and law enforcement people is actually the reverse. Why come out against wealthy powerful men? Why risk everything, get death threats from the trump fanatical 37% base, be forced to leave your home,ridiculed and intimidated by a hundred million people? Because you don't want the right wing court to replace one conservative but open minded republican appointee with a more conservative one? It is a ridiculous assertion by the defenders of this zit faced stone cold liar.

Oh, name calling. You may claim to be conservative but it is quite clear you are not.

[RiverDog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/kavanaughs-college-friends-say-he-lied-under-oath-about-drinking/vi-BBNGPDE
The guys yearbook proves hes lying about the amount of drinking he did in high school and college and here come the witnesses. Hes lied about the drinking age making him legal to drink as a senior in HS.

And why lie? He could say I drank way too much growing up and I don't anymore . Corroborating witnesses to his drunken aggressive behavior are coming forward and its reported the Ramires lady is already being contacted by the FBI.

He's lied about his drinking under oath....Isn't that a crime, at a minimum impeachable from the judiciary?Perjury is perjury.And a liar is a liar.

There is no "proof" in yearbooks.

There is no way to prove or disprove any of these allegations. They're all based on opinions and recollections of something that happened 35 years ago. Same goes for your claim that Kavanaugh "lied under oath." He was asked a subjective question and he answered it by giving them his opinion based on his own 35 year old recollections. He was not being asked to give a definitive answer, like how many beers in how many hours.

I swear, Hawktalk, I don't know why you have such a hard on for Kavanaugh. Is it because he was nominated by Trump?

[c_hawkbob]

Oh, name calling. You may claim to be conservative but it is quite clear you are not

Yeah right, cause only liberals call names ... that's rich with you championing this president.

[Aseahawkfan]

I understand rape victims being reluctant to testify, and to a lesser degree, report other sexual assaults. Not having personally experienced being a female in this world, I can't comprehend the psychological impact being a sexual assault victim entails, but I take other's word that it is horrifying. But it can't be used as a reason to trump another's individual rights.

There are some true scum out there, like Cosby and Weissman, but people are getting painted with the same brush stroke and are having their lives altered by unsupported claims from decades ago by allegations without any supporting evidence. Take Matt Patricia. He nearly had his career destroyed because of an unsupported allegation from nearly 2 decades ago, and there wasn't even an accusor that was willing to come forward. It all came about because of a newspaper reporter out on a fishing expedition looking for a story that would net him some readers.

True sexual predators are seldom one and done. Most, like Cosby and Weismann, or going back to Jerry Sandusky, have multiple, repeated encounters that in those cases, stretched over decades. I had a boss at work that was rumored for years to have accosted women while on the job, rumors that circulated at two completely different work environments, and finally, someone turned him in, claiming that he exposed himself to her. It was bascically a his word against hers, but there had been so many rumors over a very long period of time and from different groups of workers that I believed the accusation. He lost his job, and probably should have stood trial.

That's not the case with Kavanaugh. I'm not saying that I necessarily believe his denials, just that it's not enough to make the accusation believable, requiring more evidence, at least in my mind, before I reach a conclusion.

The sex predator crap is sickening. You usually catch some of people that don't deserve it when you're casting a wide net. You have to do it on occasion to get rid of the real sickos like Cosby and Weinstein. I'm still shocked Cosby was a predator, but you can't deny the number of accusers. What the hell was Mr. Jello-Pudding Pop thinking? All those people he disappointed. He was the face of a better way to to do things for so long.

I don't think Kavanaugh's a rapist or any of that trash. I think he was a drunk frat boy type that isn't sure whether he did what he is accused of. I think he's starting to lie about his drinking and I don't like the willingness to cover up the truth. I think the evidence clearly supports a young man that engaged in some heavy drinking and can no longer be sure of his actions while drinking heavy like so many other young guys I used to hang around. Ford is exaggerating what happened into something much bigger than it likely was. And the other lady Ramirez was teabagged which I don't consider sexual assault. It's rude and gross.

I don't like the willingness to lie under oath and during testimony. The guy drank a lot when younger. It happens. Admit to it and get it done with. Then let the Senate decide if that is reason to deny a promotion of this nature. The willingness to lie is bothering me more at this point.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't buy that BS for a minute. Gorsuch made it through. Roberts made it through. Neither man had such accusations. Fact is Kavanaugh has some dirt on him. They are exploiting it prior to the midterms as a power play for votes. This is all a game and Kavanaugh has some targets in his past that the Dems are taking shots at. Republicans are countering intelligently and I commend them for it. This is still all about the man in the White House, the timing of the midterm elections, and the dirt in Kavanaugh's past. We'll see what they find and if the Dems can weaponize it for the midterms.

You dont have to "Buy It". Shumer announced it on July 10th in a press conference[/quote]

And one guy decides everything for all of them. Give me a break. Why didn't Gorsuch or Roberts experience this level of attack? Kavanaugh has dirt. That's why he's under attack. More dirt than the previous nominee.

[RiverDog]

Why didn't Gorsuch or Roberts experience this level of attack? Kavanaugh has dirt. That's why he's under attack. More dirt than the previous nominee.

Maybe, maybe not. There is a motive for the Dems now that wasn't present in previous hearings.

I am not defending Kavanaugh. Perhaps he's not the right man for the job given the circumstances the country is in today, with all the emphasis on even the perception of inappropriate behavior. Maybe we should eliminate from consideration any male that has ever taken a sip of alcohol. Maybe we should send the FBI to all the prospective male nominees' grade schools and interview their teachers and make sure that they didn't peek through any keyholes or pull on little girl's pigtails. Or better yet, let's eliminate all men from consideration and only consider females for SCOTUS appointments. That seems to be the only thing that would insure us that we would not have to put someone else through the process that we're putting Kavanaugh and his family through.

[c_hawkbob]

There is a motive for the Dems now that wasn't present in previous hearings.

I think the same motive has pretty much always been there for whichever party is not making the nomination.

[Aseahawkfan]

Now some USA Today reporter is going after Kavanaugh coaching his daughter's basketball team. This is so vile. Everything about it from the sexual assault material to trying to destroy so many aspects of this man's life for alleged drunken misbehavior over three decades ago. It's one thing to not support a nomination to the Supreme Court, but this has reached a level of disgusting behavior by those assaulting Kavanaugh like he is some kind of serial sex offender. I wonder how many people could withstand an investigation into their High School and college age behavior and not be made to look bad by the press if someone wanted to smear them. This has reached such a scumbag level.

This whole thing is unbelievable and foul. And people wonder why I so often state this is a ruthless and cruel nation at times, but I'm sure someone like burrrton would say at least he wasn't killed. This is no longer about stopping a nomination. This is a public sacrifice of one man's reputation and livelihood by a mob.

[RiverDog]

I think the same motive has pretty much always been there for whichever party is not making the nomination.

The motive I'm speaking of is the SCOTUS nomination occuring so close to an election, with the party out of power being two seats away from re-taking the Senate in which just a small delay could result in a new Senate make-up after the election and thus alter the nomination.

Perhaps you recall such a situation, but I don't.

And BTW, I do think you would agree with me in that there should be some rules in the Senate regarding the scheduling of hearings after a SCOTUS nomination has been made, perhaps that they jointly agree to a schedule rather than the majority dictating it. But of course, there's such a divide nowadays that any cooperation whatsoever is virtually impossible.

[RiverDog]

Now some USA Today reporter is going after Kavanaugh coaching his daughter's basketball team. This is so vile. Everything about it from the sexual assault material to trying to destroy so many aspects of this man's life for alleged drunken misbehavior over three decades ago. It's one thing to not support a nomination to the Supreme Court, but this has reached a level of disgusting behavior by those assaulting Kavanaugh like he is some kind of serial sex offender. I wonder how many people could withstand an investigation into their High School and college age behavior and not be made to look bad by the press if someone wanted to smear them. This has reached such a scumbag level.

This whole thing is unbelievable and foul. And people wonder why I so often state this is a ruthless and cruel nation at times, but I'm sure someone like burrrton would say at least he wasn't killed. This is no longer about stopping a nomination. This is a public sacrifice of one man's reputation and livelihood by a mob.

Burrton can speak for himself, but it seems to me that he's expressed a similar degree of outrage over the manner in which this nomination is being handled that both you and I have expressed.

There is such a thing as a person learning from their mistakes and bad behavior during their youth as part of a growing up process and became a better, more understanding person than they would have had they not gone through such a metamorphous. It would certainly give them a better perspective of life. I would venture to guess that the majority of us (and I include myself in this) that went through such a time in our young adulthood did not become alcoholics and/or sexual predators.

The USA Today piece is despicable, and they ought to be sued for slander.

[idhawkman]

And one guy decides everything for all of them. Give me a break. Why didn't Gorsuch or Roberts experience this level of attack? Kavanaugh has dirt. That's why he's under attack. More dirt than the previous nominee.

Have you not been paying attention to the democratic operations over the last couple decades. YES, one person decides how all of them act and vote in the Senate. One person does the same for them in the house. That's why they vote as a block. Its why the tax cut bill didn't have one single democrat vote for it. Gorsuch had the votes on the republican side and only after the 50 repubs voted for him did Shumer cut the 3 most vulnerable senators loose to vote for him. I really can't believe you even said the above and can't even imagine you did it with a straight face.

[burrrton]

The president is the guy who has to order the investigation which Bush did in the Thomas matter. They absolutely have jurisdiction over this and you're just making stuff up.

*sigh*

1. No, they don't- there has been no Federal crime even alleged here.

2. Hill and Thomas were two adults working for the Federal gov, not two kids at a kegger.

[burrrton]

And people wonder why I so often state this is a ruthless and cruel nation at times, but I'm sure someone like burrrton would say at least he wasn't killed.

I can't even tell what the hell you're talking about, asea.

This is one party having decided to throw any and all decency to the wind in pursuit of base, political goals. It's sick, and just knee-capped our already ailing system, and I have no idea why you think I might defend it in any manner, Democrat or Republican.

[burrrton]

And BTW, I do think you would agree with me in that there should be some rules in the Senate regarding the scheduling of hearings after a SCOTUS nomination has been made, perhaps that they jointly agree to a schedule rather than the majority dictating it.

For the record, I wouldn't be against this, but let's be clear: if the majority party decides they're not going to confirm a nominee, holding 'kangaroo court' hearings on them only serves to subject them (potentially) to the same adolescent BS we're seeing here.

Garland was spared this by McConnell's decision. Dems should be thanking him after watching this two-week sht-show (but they can't, because they're the @ssholes causing it).