HawkShack.com

This topic needs its own thread.

The final vote isn't until tomorrow, but Bret Kavanaugh is likely to going to be confirmed as our latest Supreme Court justice. There was a 51-49 procedural vote to end the debate and proceed to the actual up or down vote to be held tomorrow. It's a strong indication of how each Senator will vote.

Additionally, Susan Collins, a key Republican moderate, just came out and signaled that she would vote for confirmation. Sen. Murkowski, R-Alaska, announced that she will oppose the nomination.

Supposedly the FBI report did not contain any information that would corroborate the key witness's testimony. Predictably, the Democrats are crying foul, saying that the report was limited in scope by the White House and thus inconclusive.

This has been one of the most disgusting two weeks in American politics that I can remember, from Sen. Feinstein withholding information from the committee chairman to that ass clown Donald Trump mocking a witness's testimony.

Hey River, I think you accidentally posted this is the wrong forum. Maybe an admin can move it for you.

idhawkman wrote:Hey River, I think you accidentally posted this is the wrong forum. Maybe an admin can move it for you.

Ooops! Sorry about that. I'll send Yoder a PM.

No worries, moved it for ya!

Thanks, Yoder!

Susan Collins (R-Senator from Maine) gave one of the most significant speeches on the floor of the Senate yesterday when she announced her support for Kavanaugh. If you haven't had a chance to see the whole speech, please go listen to it. I am not a huge Collins fan because she waffles on many conservative issues over the years. That said, she blew me away with how thorough she addressed every question and issue to include temperment in her speech.

R-Senator Murkowski from Alaska also made a speech addressing many of the questions around Kavanaugh and decided to vote "Present" in today's vote which will allow that other R Senator from Montana or one of those states up that way to attend his daughter's wedding today.

This should confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court. I wonder how many other D senators will join Manchin in voting to confirm.

I would suggest everyone listen to both Murkowski's and Collins' speeches. I don't agree with the final decision of Murkowski but she does passionately address the issues around Kavanaugh.

It's too bad the process is so ugly.
It's no wonder some people who might otherwise be excellent choices decide it's not worth the trouble.
I guess my question is how can the politics be removed from the process?
I suppose it can't in its current form.

idhawkman wrote:Susan Collins (R-Senator from Maine) gave one of the most significant speeches on the floor of the Senate yesterday when she announced her support for Kavanaugh. If you haven't had a chance to see the whole speech, please go listen to it. I am not a huge Collins fan because she waffles on many conservative issues over the years. That said, she blew me away with how thorough she addressed every question and issue to include temperment in her speech.

The speech was 45 minutes long. I saw clips of it, but if I won't listen to Tony Kornheiser talk football for 45 minutes, I sure as hell aren't going to listen to some politician for that long. It's also noteworthy that former POTUS George W. Bush placed a phone call to Collins to speak with her about Kavanaugh.

R-Senator Murkowski from Alaska also made a speech addressing many of the questions around Kavanaugh and decided to vote "Present" in today's vote which will allow that other R Senator from Montana or one of those states up that way to attend his daughter's wedding today.

Steve Daines, R-MT. He's prepared to fly via private jet if necessary to cast his vote.

This should confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court. I wonder how many other D senators will join Manchin in voting to confirm.

Flake is still a little wobbly, saying that he "supposes" that he'll vote for confirmation, but I'd peg the chances that Kavanaugh gets nominated at 20-1 for confirmation. It's certainly a possibility that one or two red state Dems might jump ship if key undecided Sens like Flake go before them and vote to affirm., but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I would suggest everyone listen to both Murkowski's and Collins' speeches. I don't agree with the final decision of Murkowski but she does passionately address the issues around Kavanaugh.

Sorry, I'm not that big of a political junkie. It's Saturday, and time for some football. I'll read about it tomorrow morning.

I didn't figure too many dem senators would jump and vote yes even if the vote was going to confirm him. I think the Dems hold out hope to impeach him if they win the house and that would be much more difficult if more dems voted for him other than Manchin.

I'm not to listen to speeches justifying votes that shouldn't even need this level of justification. This shouldn't even have been such an issue. I will wait until the election to see if this is the standard of evidence the left wants for labeling someone a sex offender and attempting to destroy someone's life. If that is the standard the left wants for "justice", then we have a real disagreement in this nation that may be worse than can be settled by voting. If someone 30 years from your past can write a letter making allegations against you and have that destroy your life with threadbare evidence, then the left is so deluded that they can't be trusted to govern. This is a real problem given the idiot we have in The White House who can't even keep his mouth shut in a difficult political situation and doesn't know the difference between political correctness and manners. Between the idiot in the White House and the left's utter morally corrupt attempts to destroy a man's life and career using an evidence standard that wouldn't convict a jaywalker, I'd say we're in pretty bad situation as far as rational governance goes. I don't know how this gets fixed, but it won't likely be until the idiot in the White House that continues to stir people up with his idiotic talk is out. I'd bet money this wouldn't have nearly been as bad if Trump wasn't himself such a scumbag and wouldn't have spent time mocking and tweeting about this trash case. I'm so damn fed up with Trump and the Democratic lefts morally corrupt, pathetic, and low character attempts to bring him down that I really despise the lot of them.

If there is a hell, I hope Trump, his apologist supporters, and all the left wing scum engaging in as many lies and garbage behavior as him end up there together. May they all rot there for turning this nation into a circus of pathetic behavior.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm not to listen to speeches justifying votes that shouldn't even need this level of justification. This shouldn't even have been such an issue. I will wait until the election to see if this is the standard of evidence the left wants for labeling someone a sex offender and attempting to destroy someone's life. If that is the standard the left wants for "justice", then we have a real disagreement in this nation that may be worse than can be settled by voting. If someone 30 years from your past can write a letter making allegations against you and have that destroy your life with threadbare evidence, then the left is so deluded that they can't be trusted to govern. This is a real problem given the idiot we have in The White House who can't even keep his mouth shut in a difficult political situation and doesn't know the difference between political correctness and manners. Between the idiot in the White House and the left's utter morally corrupt attempts to destroy a man's life and career using an evidence standard that wouldn't convict a jaywalker, I'd say we're in pretty bad situation as far as rational governance goes. I don't know how this gets fixed, but it won't likely be until the idiot in the White House that continues to stir people up with his idiotic talk is out. I'd bet money this wouldn't have nearly been as bad if Trump wasn't himself such a scumbag and wouldn't have spent time mocking and tweeting about this trash case. I'm so damn fed up with Trump and the Democratic lefts morally corrupt, pathetic, and low character attempts to bring him down that I really despise the lot of them.

If there is a hell, I hope Trump, his apologist supporters, and all the left wing scum engaging in as many lies and garbage behavior as him end up there together. May they all rot there for turning this nation into a circus of pathetic behavior.

Wow, nice rant! Hawktawk would be envious.

Sadly, what you say is true.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If there is a hell, I hope Trump, his apologist supporters, and all the left wing scum engaging in as many lies and garbage behavior as him end up there together. May they all rot there for turning this nation into a circus of pathetic behavior.

And you complain about his manners and keeping his mouth shut.

If you want to run an auto parts store or work in a factory or be a carpenter or a salesman or such then what you did in high school and college isn't really relevant or fair game. When you are a political hatchet man of a Judge with a partisan record selected by the most polarizing objectionable excuse for a human being alive to have a lifetime appointment sitting in judgement of us all everything is fair game.

I believe Kavanaugh's accusers, period. I don't think for one second that they made this up out of thin air to try to stop this honorable fine man from being confirmed. Wheres the libel suits BTW???

I believe Ms Blasey Ford watched her perp rise up and rise up until the man who had scarred her for life was about to attain the highest judicial office in the land and she finally wrote a letter anonymously to Dianne Feinstein.

The democrats bear some shame. I believe ms Ford when she said under oath she did not want to be publicly identified but wanted a private investigation. I don't believe feinstein when she says she had nothing to do with leaking the letter only she and a few others were aware of. But the bottom line is this. Someone lied to the Senate and the american people under oath and someone told the truth. Its like the Steele memo as I've said. It isn't who commissioned it. Its is it true? As is the case with high profile sexual abusers there are others who come out of the woodwork once the first one comes forward as was the case with the 22 current trump victims and likely hundreds more afraid to come forward when they see nothing happened to him at all.

This we know about Kavanaugh. He BLATANTLY and PROVABLY perjured himself regarding his amount of drinking and his demeanor and level of impairment while drinking and I've heard dozens of his former classmates make statements to that effect. He perjured himself about when he was made aware of the Ramirez assault allegations as texts held by associates show he was aware of it and trying to get a narrative down prior to its being reported by the New Yorker which is what he said was his first inkling in sworn testimony .The FBI was not allowed to investigate that and was not given permission to interview over 40 people who claimed to have relevant information. It was a cherry picked investigation directed by the WH all the while publicly denying it but there are leaks from the FBI making it clear their hands were tied.

Jeff Flake...I don't know what to think dude. You talk a good game about opposing Trump but in the end you really never do. There's whispers you might challenge trump in 2020 so maybe that's why you toed the line now. I dunno.Not sure Id support you now if you did.

Susan Collins you are the most nauseating sight i've ever seen trying to have it both ways talking about survivors, saying Ford was sincere and compelling but letting the zit faced rapist advance to the court anyway, giving him your feminist blessing. Should have saved your breath because your opposition in maine raised 5 million dollars against you just in the hour while you were flapping your pie hole.

Lisa Murkowski, Heidi Heitkamp and Claire McCaskill are the only Senators out of 100 to have any courage whatsoever. Joe Manchin must feel great sucking up to the president and announcing his support 5 minutes after Collins quit her bloviating only to be attacked by Trump Jr in a tweet moments later calling him a coward for waiting and endorsing his republican opponent. Mitch Mcconnell buddy I would really love to kick your nuts up into your windpipe pouch you abuse enabler POS. How your wife stomachs you or her boss is beyond me..despicable. Grand Old Perverts

All that said keep your eye on the prize. Ill be holding my nose and voting democrat for the first time in my 59 years of life this time around for a zillion reasons this most recent disgraceful appointment being one of them. No libtard but no TRUMPTARD either which is far worse of the two...

HawkTaWk

Thanks for the well thought out comments. I'll start by saying I respect your opinion, and I'm not trying argue because neither of us will sway eachother's opinion. Rather, I offer my position.

I too think something likely happened. Thirty five years ago. I have to wonder what our country would look like if we had the capability of instantly communicating throughout history. How many skeletons are in our forefathers closets?

Confirming Kavanaugh can be seen as a strong moment for the Republican party, standing up to a modern McCarthyism. Without bringing evidence and proof forward, there was yet again mud-slinging. The state of CT has a 5 year statute of limitations on sex crimes unless there is DNA evidence. Do we really want to start repealing statues of limitations? They exist for a reason. Culture changes with time. What was acceptable in 1985 isn't acceptable today. Take for instance Wisconsin's DUII laws. Up until the 1980s, their limit for DUII was 0.15. How would you like the state to retroactively issue DUIIs to people who blew a .09 35 years ago? I'm not making excuses for the type of reckless behavior Kavanaugh is accused of on any level. I'm merely saying that we look at things differently today. Speaking of laws, it disgusts me that Connecticut's age of consent is 16. Meaning, the 35yr old creeper at the grocery store could LEGALLY have sex with your 16 year old daughter on her lunch break from high school.

12 of the first 18 presidents were slave owners, some of them owning HUNDREDs of slaves. There are no less than 20 federal judges with documented DUIIs currently.

Where am I going with this? When an opponent can't attack a candidates position politically, they attack character. The only thing they could dig up was that this guy liked to party in high school and college, and may have fooled around with girls while he was drunk? Ted Kennedy committed murder and served in congress for almost 47 years.

McCarthyism is in full swing.

Hawktawk wrote:This we know about Kavanaugh. He BLATANTLY and PROVABLY perjured himself regarding his amount of drinking and his demeanor and level of impairment while drinking and I've heard dozens of his former classmates make statements to that effect. He perjured himself about when he was made aware of the Ramirez assault allegations as texts held by associates show he was aware of it and trying to get a narrative down prior to its being reported by the New Yorker which is what he said was his first inkling in sworn testimony .The FBI was not allowed to investigate that and was not given permission to interview over 40 people who claimed to have relevant information. It was a cherry picked investigation directed by the WH all the while publicly denying it but there are leaks from the FBI making it clear their hands were tied.

I agree that Kavanaugh more than likely misrepresented his drinking during his younger years, but that doesn't make it a lie. Everything that was said about his drinking was nothing more than opinions and characterizations. Had he said that he did not drink at all, then that would be a lie and made him subject to charges of perjury. It's no different than you saying that the Seahawks got their butts kicked by the Broncos vs. me saying that we lost a nail biter.

As far as the FBI investigation goes, bear in mind that Kavanaugh was already a federal judge and had previously been subjected to background checks performed by the FBI and/or other federal investigative services. The focus of the supplemental investigation was to corroborate the accusations made under oath during the hearing. This should have occurred much earlier, but the new information (Dr. Ford's testimony) was withheld from the committee chairman. As it was, the FBI talked to 10 additional witnesses in an attempt to corroborate Dr. Ford's allegations. The Democrats wouldn't have been satisfied if they talked to 100 witnesses unless they turned up something. The only thing that I would remotely criticize about the FBI investigation was that they did not interview Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh, but we already have their sworn testimony so there was no need to cover the same ground twice.

All that said keep your eye on the prize. Ill be holding my nose and voting democrat for the first time in my 59 years of life this time around for a zillion reasons this most recent disgraceful appointment being one of them. No libtard but no TRUMPTARD either which is far worse of the two...

The Dems lost me over their behavior during this confirmation process, both their politicians and their activits. I was prepared to vote D for a federal office for the first time in my life, but the combination of this hideous hearing and the protesters that are hounding the R solons at every turn have caused me to rethink my strategy. I do not want to be associated with people that think it's part of the democratic process to shout down others and harrass those you don't agree with. They need to pay a price, and the midterms is the perfect place to hold them accountable.

I believe Kavanaugh's accusers, period.

Yeah, a DC circuit judge of 12 years with 36 intervening years of exemplary behavior was a Teenage Druggy Rape Gang Leader at strangers' houses in high school.

Thanks for saying this early so I knew not to take you seriously on this subject anymore.

It's cliche now, but this is why Trump won.

The only thing that I would remotely criticize about the FBI investigation was that they did not interview Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh, but we already have their sworn testimony so there was no need to cover the same ground twice.

And to head off another bizarre line of whining about the FBI investigation, they didn't interview Judge because he already stated (officially) that he didn't know what Ford was talking about.

You don't interview "witnesses" who state under penalty of felony that they didn't witness anything.

burrrton wrote:And to head off another bizarre line of whining about the FBI investigation, they didn't interview Judge because he already stated (officially) that he didn't know what Ford was talking about.

You don't interview "witnesses" who state under penalty of felony that they didn't witness anything.

Actually the FBI did interview Judge:

The FBI questioned Mark Judge, a high school friend of Kavanaugh. Ford says Judge was in the room when Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s. Judge has said he did not recall the events described by Ford and that he never saw Kavanaugh act in the manner that she describes.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

People they didn't interview included those that made statements about Kavanaugh's drinking, primarily because there was no conflicting testimony during the hearing like there was with Ford's accusations vs. Kavanaugh's denials. Additionally, and as Hawktalk has a hard time grasping, the statements were extremely subjective. For example, the definition of "heavy" drinking varies greatly depending on who you talk to.

That wasn't in the last "investigation", I don't think. May be wrong, but if they did, they only interviewed Judge to satisfy some of the "OH SO YOU DIDN'T EVEN INTERVIEW SO-AND-SO" crowd. They knew his story.

For example, the definition of "heavy" drinking varies greatly depending on who you talk to.

BUT MY DEFINITION DIFFERS FROM HIS- PERJURY!

burrrton wrote:That wasn't in the last "investigation", I don't think. May be wrong, but if they did, they only interviewed Judge to satisfy some of the "OH SO YOU DIDN'T EVEN INTERVIEW SO-AND-SO" crowd. They knew his story.


BUT MY DEFINITION DIFFERS FROM HIS- PERJURY!

Kavanaugh said under oath " I never drank so much I could not remember what I did the night before". Those were the comments that drew a large number of his former classmates, roommates and drinking buddies into the discussion to say that the kind of shape he was in on many occasions it was virtually impossible that he had never blacked out. Of course it is not provable just like pinning a little 15 year old girl down and trying to rape her in a drunken stupor 35 years ago isn't either but it demonstrates dishonesty.

His buddy Mark Judge who wrote a book called "wasted, confessions of a teenage alcoholic" wrote a passage about a guy named "Bart Okavanaugh" puking and passing out in his car. Asked by a senator during the hearing about that passage and if it referred to him Kavanagh said it didn't and that Judge had written a fictional book to help him deal with his alcoholism . A letter has been produced written by Kavanaugh discussing renting a summer beach house and talking about all the partying and puking that was going to go on. It is signed "bart". Look I'm well aware its small potatoes but its clearly lying to the senate and why lie if what happened 35 years ago doesn't matter?

As i've said Burt I believe the women. I don't think for one minute that in this instance self respecting professional women would manufacture allegations of this serious nature simply to stop a conservative judge from reaching the bench. In the case of Ms Ford she passed a lie detector test. Her testimony had the ring of truth. He "tried" to tear off her swimsuit. Why not just say he raped her? Why put another man in the room who may not back up your story? The stereo turned up, the hand over her mouth. It just is too specific in my mind to be made up . As a survivor in a family of survivors of childhood sexual abuse i've got a pretty good sense of whose lying and who isn't . I believe the women. So insult me if you will burton knows best. I believe the women in this instance.One can clearly see the degree to which it was politicized and can debate the fairness of that but as a survivor I don't think its ever too late to tell your story.

Hawktawk wrote:Kavanaugh said under oath " I never drank so much I could not remember what I did the night before". Those were the comments that drew a large number of his former classmates, roommates and drinking buddies into the discussion to say that the kind of shape he was in on many occasions it was virtually impossible that he had never blacked out. Of course it is not provable just like pinning a little 15 year old girl down and trying to rape her in a drunken stupor 35 years ago isn't either but it demonstrates dishonesty.

But that doesn't make it perjury!

His buddy Mark Judge who wrote a book called "wasted, confessions of a teenage alcoholic" wrote a passage about a guy named "Bart Okavanaugh" puking and passing out in his car. Asked by a senator during the hearing about that passage and if it referred to him Kavanagh said it didn't and that Judge had written a fictional book to help him deal with his alcoholism . A letter has been produced written by Kavanaugh discussing renting a summer beach house and talking about all the partying and puking that was going to go on. It is signed "bart". Look I'm well aware its small potatoes but its clearly lying to the senate and why lie if what happened 35 years ago doesn't matter?

There's a difference between a bold faced lie and stretching the truth, ie little white lies. I am fairly certain that Kavanaugh probably understated his drinking, but we don't know that for sure. J/B he was puking and passed out in a car doesn't mean he couldn't remember what happened prior to passing out, so that statement, even if it is true, in no way contradicts Kavanaugh's testimony.

Besides, the questions of teenage drinking is not relevant to his application. The only reason why some Senators were asking it was to try to assess if his recollection of the night Dr. Ford was referring to was believable or not.

As i've said Burt I believe the women. I don't think for one minute that in this instance self respecting professional women would manufacture allegations of this serious nature simply to stop a conservative judge from reaching the bench. In the case of Ms Ford she passed a lie detector test. Her testimony had the ring of truth. He "tried" to tear off her swimsuit. Why not just say he raped her? Why put another man in the room who may not back up your story? The stereo turned up, the hand over her mouth. It just is too specific in my mind to be made up . As a survivor in a family of survivors of childhood sexual abuse i've got a pretty good sense of whose lying and who isn't . I believe the women. So insult me if you will burton knows best. I believe the women in this instance.One can clearly see the degree to which it was politicized and can debate the fairness of that but as a survivor I don't think its ever too late to tell your story.

Dr. Ford did appear credible, and I believe that something did, indeed, happen to her. But on the other hand, I have seen some very intelligent, level headed individuals go way off the reservation in recalling events, especially events years in their past. People can be talked into believing certain things, or talk themselves into it, that are completely illogical or contrary to known facts. The human brain is not a 100% fully accurate storage device and is subject to manipulation. That's why it's so important to coroborate the testimony of even the most reliable and believable source before we make any conclusions.

Some of the other stories, particularily Swetnik's, were so outlanish that they don't even deserve the courtesy of consideration, which is probably why the FBI didn't waste their time on her.

Hawktawk wrote:Kavanaugh said under oath " I never drank so much I could not remember what I did the night before". Those were the comments that drew a large number of his former classmates, roommates and drinking buddies into the discussion to say that the kind of shape he was in on many occasions it was virtually impossible that he had never blacked out. Of course it is not provable just like pinning a little 15 year old girl down and trying to rape her in a drunken stupor 35 years ago isn't either but it demonstrates dishonesty.

His buddy Mark Judge who wrote a book called "wasted, confessions of a teenage alcoholic" wrote a passage about a guy named "Bart Okavanaugh" puking and passing out in his car. Asked by a senator during the hearing about that passage and if it referred to him Kavanagh said it didn't and that Judge had written a fictional book to help him deal with his alcoholism . A letter has been produced written by Kavanaugh discussing renting a summer beach house and talking about all the partying and puking that was going to go on. It is signed "bart". Look I'm well aware its small potatoes but its clearly lying to the senate and why lie if what happened 35 years ago doesn't matter?

As i've said Burt I believe the women. I don't think for one minute that in this instance self respecting professional women would manufacture allegations of this serious nature simply to stop a conservative judge from reaching the bench. In the case of Ms Ford she passed a lie detector test. Her testimony had the ring of truth. He "tried" to tear off her swimsuit. Why not just say he raped her? Why put another man in the room who may not back up your story? The stereo turned up, the hand over her mouth. It just is too specific in my mind to be made up . As a survivor in a family of survivors of childhood sexual abuse i've got a pretty good sense of whose lying and who isn't . I believe the women. So insult me if you will burton knows best. I believe the women in this instance.One can clearly see the degree to which it was politicized and can debate the fairness of that but as a survivor I don't think its ever too late to tell your story.

Does drunken misbehavior from High School and college deserve this sort of treatment? Does the press get to rip you apart and destroy your reputation in front of the world for drunken misbehavior in your youth? If you believe that type of attack by the Democrats and the media is acceptable, how many could hold up under that level of scrutiny? If a woman did accuse you 30 years later and you felt sure you didn't do it, how do you defend yourself when an entire mob has convicted you on her word given 99.999999% of the mob don't know her or you or were there?

I don't like the idea of someone trying to destroy someone else with threadbare evidence from 30 years ago that sounded mostly like drunken frat High School or College behavior. They had this guy painted as some kind of serial rapist on the loosest of evidence. Are you really part of the believe what any women says crowd and guilty until proven innocent? What if someone did that to you with the majority of the press pounding over and over again to believe her regardless of the evidence? Would you hold up even if you were sure it wasn't?

It seemed to me that the majority of people including the press were projecting their hate on Kavanaugh. Their hate of whoever sexually assaulted them. Their hate of Trump. Their hate of men, specifically white men. They were just using Kavanaugh as battleground against Trump. Some celebrity compared the allegations against Kavanaugh to being raped for 5 hours. Another to molestation at the age 5. Even as a 5 year old now an adult she supplied more information about her attacker than Ford did.

I mostly didn't care one way or the other if Kavanaugh was confirmed. I sure did not like seeing the Democrats try to destroy this guy and paint him as some serial sex offender on threadbare evidence. I'm not sure why you would consider that ok yourself. I hope something like that never happens to you or anyone else where they are pretty much tried and convicted by a press less interested in facts or evidence and more interested in using you as a pinata to unleash all their hate and frustration on in front their children and family.

Dr. Ford did appear credible, and I believe that something did, indeed, happen to her.

Same, but I'd substitute "sincere" for "credible". I've said it many times, but to recap, she:

* Can't recall the date
* Can't recall the location
* Can't recall the time
* Can't recall the number of attendees
* Doesn't know how she got there
* Doesn't know how she got home
* Her four "witnesses" says they don't know what she's talking about
* and nobody has come forward to say "I drove her home" or corroborate any part of her story in any way

But I'm supposed to believe she CAN remember it was Kavanaugh with 100% certainty. Insultingly ridiculous.

I mostly didn't care one way or the other if Kavanaugh was confirmed.

At the start, I didn't really care, either, but when the ridiculous, transparent character assassination came out, and with so many Dems and lefty organizations announcing they would vote no and delay as long as possible before they even knew who the nominee was, his confirmation became a must. Dems were sickeningly dishonest and that can't be allowed to derail a Senate hearing, to say nothing of a man's life.

burrrton wrote:Dr. Ford did appear credible, and I believe that something did, indeed, happen to her.

Same, but I'd substitute "sincere" for "credible". I've said it many times, but to recap, she:

* Can't recall the date
* Can't recall the location
* Can't recall the time
* Can't recall the number of attendees
* Doesn't know how she got there
* Doesn't know how she got home
* Her four "witnesses" says they don't know what she's talking about
* and nobody has come forward to say "I drove her home" or corroborate any part of her story in any way

But I'm supposed to believe she CAN remember it was Kavanaugh with 100% certainty. Insultingly ridiculous.

She did sound believable, and I do think that there's a good possibility that something traumatic happened to her during her adolescene/early adulthood, and I do feel that she might honestly believe that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator.

However, I also know for a fact that intelligent, rational people can be talked into, or talk themselves into, believing the most outrageous of things and sound very credible in doing so even in the face of irrefutable evidence. Flat Earth society, fake moon landings, abducted by aliens, and so on. That's why a singular, personal recollection, especially one that has as much time elapsed as this one has, simply must be corroborated.

This is a thorough description of the situation for anyone still buying this, or thinks his reaction was disqualifying, or thinks he committed perjury, and so on:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/ ... explained/

Yeah, it's NRO, but it's a review of the facts, not an opinion piece, and French is a fierce "Never Trumper", so save the ad hom dismissives.

burrrton wrote:This is a thorough description of the situation for anyone still buying this, or thinks his reaction was disqualifying, or thinks he committed perjury, and so on:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/ ... explained/

Yeah, it's NRO, but it's a review of the facts, not an opinion piece, and French is a fierce "Never Trumper", so save the ad hom dismissives.

It's a good article, and I agree with everything...except for the last paragraph.

IMO Kavanaugh's partisan remarks were not appropriate, and I believe them to have been scripted. We know that he was coached by the White House regarding his response to the allegations, and I think that they planted certain things in his mind, such as the Dems retailating against him for their losing the 2016 election. I don't think that his partisan remarks were to such a degree for it to be a stand alone disqualifying attribute, but they were concerning to me.

But beyond that, I do think that Kavanaugh sounded every bit as credible as Ford, a classic he said, she said dilemma. I also believe in the preponderance of evidence civil trial standard when someone's freedom or way of life is not in jeapordy, and obviously, since no such evidene was produced, you can't withhold a job based simply on an accusation no matter how credible it sounds.

RiverDog wrote:We know that he was coached by the White House regarding his response to the allegations, and I think that they planted certain things in his mind, such as the Dems retailating against him for their losing the 2016 election. I don't think that his partisan remarks were to such a degree for it to be a stand alone disqualifying attribute, but they were concerning to me.

So that is your opinion and even though he says that he wrote his own rebuttal and that no one has seen his remarks you still think he is lying about that and that he got scripts from the White house?

IMO Kavanaugh's partisan remarks were not appropriate, and I believe them to have been scripted.

Scripted or not, I don't know or care, but consider:

* He was accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old
* He was accused of exposing himself
* He was accused of drugging and gang-raping girls
* He was getting death threats
* His *wife* was getting death threats
* His *DAUGHTERS* were getting death threats

With literally *zero* evidence, with a Senator who knew about the allegation having not asked him a thing about it in the hours upon hours of interviews and hearings, public and private.

If you say you'd have kept your cool, I'd say you're underestimating the absolutely appalling nature of it, and how it made him and his family feel.

If it gave you concern about his judicial temperament, there is over a decade of appellate hearings, hundreds of cases, that you can review and set your mind at ease.

burrrton wrote:Scripted or not, I don't know or care, but consider:

* He was accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old
* He was accused of exposing himself
* He was accused of drugging and gang-raping girls
* He was getting death threats
* His *wife* was getting death threats
* His *DAUGHTERS* were getting death threats

With literally *zero* evidence, with a Senator who knew about the allegation having not asked him a thing about it in the hours upon hours of interviews and hearings, public and private.

If you say you'd have kept your cool, I'd say you're underestimating the absolutely appalling nature of it, and how it made him and his family feel.

If it gave you concern about his judicial temperament, there is over a decade of appellate hearings, hundreds of cases, that you can review and set your mind at ease.

I agree with most all of his actions, and wouldn't have blamed him if he stood up and flipped over the table. They were outrageous, and any man or woman worth their weight would have reacted similarly had they felt they were being falsely accused of something as consequential as sexual assault. But the partisan remarks concern me, and I'm not the only one. Former SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by a Republican POTUS, flipped his support of the nomination because of Kavanaugh's partisan remarks, so don't pretend that my concerns aren't justified.

I'd tell Stevens the same thing. Partisanship isn't an odd thing coming from a judge outside the courtroom. Hell, Ginsburg is a legend on the left because of her outside-the-courtroom partisanship.

Again, you have over a decade of him on the DC circuit to refer to if you're curious about his courtroom temperament (and so does Stevens). Acting like him reacting aggressively in that situation should make us "concerned" about it is silly.

burrrton wrote:I'd tell Stevens the same thing. Partisanship isn't an odd thing coming from a judge outside the courtroom. Hell, Ginsburg is a legend on the left because of her outside-the-courtroom partisanship.

Again, you have over a decade of him on the DC circuit to refer to if you're curious about his courtroom temperament (and so does Stevens). Acting like him reacting aggressively in that situation should make us "concerned" about it is silly.

Dems have to do anything they can to make their BS political play seem relevant and worthwhile. That's why they want the FBI investigation released and are talking about impeachment if they take The House. We'll see how powerful the female vote is very soon.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Dems have to do anything they can to make their BS political play seem relevant and worthwhile. That's why they want the FBI investigation released and are talking about impeachment if they take The House. We'll see how powerful the female vote is very soon.

Demanding that the FBI files on Kavanaugh be released to the public is perposterous. Elected officials from both parties have looked at them and all agree that there wasn't any information in there that coroborated Ford's accusations. The Dems only complaint is that the investigation didn't go far enough.

Impeachment/removal of a SCOTUS judge is much more difficult than confirming one as it is the exact same process for impeachment/removal of a POTUS, ie simple majority in the House, 2/3 majority in the Senate. The Dems would be well advised to let this issue die, at least until 2020. Keeping the issue in front of voters could backfire on them.

RiverDog wrote:Demanding that the FBI files on Kavanaugh be released to the public is perposterous. Elected officials from both parties have looked at them and all agree that there wasn't any information in there that coroborated Ford's accusations. The Dems only complaint is that the investigation didn't go far enough.

Impeachment/removal of a SCOTUS judge is much more difficult than confirming one as it is the exact same process for impeachment/removal of a POTUS, ie simple majority in the House, 2/3 majority in the Senate. The Dems would be well advised to let this issue die, at least until 2020. Keeping the issue in front of voters could backfire on them.

Does it seem like the Dems and their base care about that? They think they are right. The press pushed it so hard I know Dems and liberals that think Bill Cosby or a serial sex offender was confirmed to the Supreme Court and that Republicans support rapists and sexual assault. Dems created a mess I hope it comes back to bite them and the Republicans attack this element of every Democrat they're against to turn their base against them.

burrrton wrote:
Same, but I'd substitute "sincere" for "credible". I've said it many times, but to recap, she:

* Can't recall the date
* Can't recall the location
* Can't recall the time
* Can't recall the number of attendees
* Doesn't know how she got there
* Doesn't know how she got home
* Her four "witnesses" says they don't know what she's talking about
* and nobody has come forward to say "I drove her home" or corroborate any part of her story in any way

But I'm supposed to believe she CAN remember it was Kavanaugh with 100% certainty. Insultingly ridiculous.

Well for starters your buddy trump called her "credible, compelling, a fine person". Then of course a few days later he was saying the same things you are now parroting, the party line if you will mr objectivity..A lot of it is bulls##t BTW.
I think the fact that she was totally honest about what she DOESN'T remember enhances her credibility as compared to the zit faced weasel who lied , obfuscated, stammered, was evasive about all things starting with judicial matters long before the allegations surfaced and right on through the bizarre behavior during the senate examination of his behavior towards women.

I know I wont change any minds but here's a little story from my youth. I was a labor foreman living in vancouver WA. A buddy and i had gone to his hometown of the tri cities. Not sure of the year, sometime between 1979 and 1981.Not sure why we were there, unlimited hydroplane races maybe but not sure. We wound up a huge party at someone's house. I have no idea whose house. Not sure whether it was pasco, richland or kennewick.

At some point my *buddy* who was married left me alone with 50 people I never met before to go get a horizontal favor. Shortly thereafter one of the partygoers informed me I needed to leave. I explained I had no idea where I was, my friend had left me and I needed to wait for him to give me a ride but that I would go outside of the house.
A few minutes later I was standing on the porch and felt a tap on my shoulder. I turned around and was sucker punched splitting my nose wide open and knocking me off the porch over a rail into a shrub bed.The man who hit me came down looking for more. I told him I wasn't the least bit afraid of him since he was a foot shorter and a cheap shot punk but I really needed to just take care of my injuries. Couldn't tell you the house other than it had a porch with a rail and a shrub bed. But I'll never forget going across the street and hiding in some bushes with blood streaming down my face. At some point a friend of my friend took pity on me and drove me back to the hotel we were staying at. Don't remember anything about his appearance, what he was driving, his name, none of that. But Ill never forget the assault or the man who committed it including his appearance or his name which I got from my friend after he asked the people at the party. I remember that incident like it was 10 minutes ago and I was drunk and high as a hippie a helicopter at the time.....But nothing else about the time frame, year, house etc...Ill bet nobody else except the guy who punched me remembers a damn thing about it either 37+ years later.

She's completely credible.

Now word surfaces that Kavanaugh received 13 separate complaints of judicial misconduct based on how his senate testimony stacked up with his actual record on the DC court. Justice Roberts has been aware of it since Sept 20 but sat on it till he was confirmed and now sent it to a colorado court. Probably a moot point since they have no jurisdiction over the scotus but again it demonstrates the fine moral and ethical character of your hero Kavanaugh...

Well for starters your buddy trump called her "credible, compelling, a fine person". Then of course a few days later he was saying the same things you are now parroting, the party line if you will mr objectivity..A lot of it is bulls##t BTW.

So Trump is Literally Hitler™ until he says something you like, then he's the dispositive argument for a laughably non-credible accuser.

It needs to be said again: up your meds and get a grip. You've obviously lost your marbles over your anger about a guy you don't like winning an election. It's a bad look.

Bye, tawk.

Hawktawk, I would imagine you being drunk and high would already put your credibility in question, and it seems you can only remember that an incident happened, but scant details. You had a friend tell you the name of the man that hit you but you couldn't pick him out of a line up if you had to. So, it might be possible that it was Kavanaugh who hit you, so you still have a chance to drop that one on your local Democrat representative and see if they can do something with it. Sarcasm aside, your account of what happened to you that night would be just as incredible as Ford's in court.

Hawktawk wrote:Well for starters your buddy trump called her "credible, compelling, a fine person". Then of course a few days later he was saying the same things you are now parroting, the party line if you will mr objectivity..A lot of it is bulls##t BTW.
I think the fact that she was totally honest about what she DOESN'T remember enhances her credibility as compared to the zit faced weasel who lied , obfuscated, stammered, was evasive about all things starting with judicial matters long before the allegations surfaced and right on through the bizarre behavior during the senate examination of his behavior towards women.

I know I wont change any minds but here's a little story from my youth. I was a labor foreman living in vancouver WA. A buddy and i had gone to his hometown of the tri cities. Not sure of the year, sometime between 1979 and 1981.Not sure why we were there, unlimited hydroplane races maybe but not sure. We wound up a huge party at someone's house. I have no idea whose house. Not sure whether it was pasco, richland or kennewick.

At some point my *buddy* who was married left me alone with 50 people I never met before to go get a horizontal favor. Shortly thereafter one of the partygoers informed me I needed to leave. I explained I had no idea where I was, my friend had left me and I needed to wait for him to give me a ride but that I would go outside of the house.
A few minutes later I was standing on the porch and felt a tap on my shoulder. I turned around and was sucker punched splitting my nose wide open and knocking me off the porch over a rail into a shrub bed.The man who hit me came down looking for more. I told him I wasn't the least bit afraid of him since he was a foot shorter and a cheap shot punk but I really needed to just take care of my injuries. Couldn't tell you the house other than it had a porch with a rail and a shrub bed. But I'll never forget going across the street and hiding in some bushes with blood streaming down my face. At some point a friend of my friend took pity on me and drove me back to the hotel we were staying at. Don't remember anything about his appearance, what he was driving, his name, none of that. But Ill never forget the assault or the man who committed it including his appearance or his name which I got from my friend after he asked the people at the party. I remember that incident like it was 10 minutes ago and I was drunk and high as a hippie a helicopter at the time.....But nothing else about the time frame, year, house etc...Ill bet nobody else except the guy who punched me remembers a damn thing about it either 37+ years later.

She's completely credible.

Now word surfaces that Kavanaugh received 13 separate complaints of judicial misconduct based on how his senate testimony stacked up with his actual record on the DC court. Justice Roberts has been aware of it since Sept 20 but sat on it till he was confirmed and now sent it to a colorado court. Probably a moot point since they have no jurisdiction over the scotus but again it demonstrates the fine moral and ethical character of your hero Kavanaugh...

You're a former cop, what would you do if someone brought that you evidence 36 years later? Tell us as a police officer what you would do with evidence brought to you 36 years later? Could you lock anyone up? Would you be able to find out if it was true? Would you be able to trust the recollection of witnesses that long later? Would you want the man's life destroyed if he has lead a clean life from that time he hit you 36 years ago? Let us know. I really want to know if you think it is ok to have someone's life messed up after 36 years of living clean. I want to know from a legal perspective if you were a former cop what you would do with evidence 36 years old?

As far as the judicial misconduct, once again I see nothing more than petty payback by Democrats as they try to destroy this man and everyone associated with Trump. Even now they are going after Nikki Haley trying to cast aspersions on her. It's one thing to go after Trump, but this is just general rottenness across the board. I suggest you don't participate in the acts of random slandering by the left.

I know you hate Trump. But this Kavanaugh situation was a standard of evidence and guilt I hope no one has to experience. It was crude and low.

Would you be able to trust the recollection of witnesses that long later?

Witness- singular. Her.

The rest of her "witnesses" explicitly said they didn't know what she was talking about. But that doesn't matter to lunatics because they Believe All Women™ or some nonsense.

burrrton wrote:Witness- singular. Her.

The rest of her "witnesses" explicitly said they didn't know what she was talking about. But that doesn't matter to lunatics because they Believe All Women™ or some nonsense.

Hawktawk is a former cop. He knows better than to go on evidence that thin. I know he wouldn't want his life messed up as badly as Kavanaugh for evidence 36 years old after he's been living clean for nearly that entire time. He' hates Trump so much he's taking it out on Kavanaugh like everyone else.

It's a pretty amazing transformation to watch [biHawktawk[/b] change to the degree he has based on his hatred of one man. Hawktawk used to make Idhawkman look like a moderate, now he's so focused on hating Trump he's given up on his previous values.