Maccabe memos about Rosenstein

[Hawktawk]

Rosenstein according to 3rd hand accounts in early 2017 suggested wearing a wire and invoked discussions about the 25th amendment Id have expected Id Hawkman to be on this like a hobo on a ham sandwich by now . Any thoughts?

[idhawkman]

Its unclear if Rosenstein was being sarcastic or not. The bigger question is why were those 7 people in that meeting in the first place. No one will be fired before the mid terms but wait for the hammer to fall after it is over.

[Hawktawk]

Its unclear if Rosenstein was being sarcastic or not. The bigger question is why were those 7 people in that meeting in the first place. No one will be fired before the mid terms but wait for the hammer to fall after it is over.

Well IMO it simply validates what was written in the bob Woodward book and backed up by the anonymous letter supposedly written by a high ranking cabinet member released the following morning. I have a few observations. #1 the fake news failing NYT is now the fact of the matter and the fired and disgraced Andrew McCabe is no longer simply an "angry democrat" but a credible source according to DT. And his followers will go along with this utter contradiction.

And I have a question. What if it's true that Trump is unfit for office, crazy, unstable, asking illegal and unethical things of his cabinet?

That's my thought.It's not about Rosenstein's true frame of mind.He wouldn't utter it if he didnt at least believe it somewhat.

As a 59 year old man and lifelong republican I've never heard of multiple instances of high ranking officials invoking the 25th amendment, not in nixon's darkest days, not when Reagan was slipping mentally and dozing off in NSA meetings towards the end of his presidency, not when Clinton was basically caught in the act of committing statutory sexual abuse against a girl so young she was unable to truly give consent to his depraved impulses.

Same for the Steele memo. It's not as important who was paying for it which was first republicans opposed to trump, then HRCs campaign then the FBI for a brief period of time. Its is any of it true? Its not whether Mueller's appointment was fair or not fair.Its is any of it true? Its have real crimes been committed by the POTUS and his associates. Its has russia really tried to basically destroy our democratic form of government.

I don't think career law enforcement people like Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein, add in Chris Wray, people whose integrity and professionalism have never really been questioned before, have suddenly gone bonkers in their hatred of Trump personally or their opposition to his policies. I think they as people who know the most are truly frightened for our country.

[Aseahawkfan]

Trump's a scumbag. I'm sure lots of people in his party want him out just like lots of Democrats don't like Hilary. We need new blood in the White House. I will never vote for Trump. I'm at the point where I've come to actively dislike the man where I was mostly indifferent to his narcissistic tweeting.

I'm more unhappy with the idiot in the White House tweeting an attack on a citizen about sexual assault claims when he is supposed to be representing both citizens in a fair manner, not acting like some crass guy sitting on his couch playing armchair QB. He's the president. He should be doing everything in his power to make sure this Supreme Court nominee and the accuser Ford receive an investigation to the public. Instead the Idiot In Chief is tweeting biased comments while he's supposed to stand as an unbiased defender for both> Once again the Idiot in the Oval Office can't make a smart decision when it comes to twitter comments making an already chaotic and awful situation worse because he's a complete narcissistic fool given too much power by an electorate that were sold on his snake oil. He can't be out of office soon enough. I'm so tired of this guy. He just couldn't sit quietly and let the Judiciary Committee take care of it like every other halfway intelligent president would. He had to tweet and make his obnoxious comments.

Hard to believe America has come to love this crass narcissist, then again this is the nation that supported Slick Willy's BS and GW's agenda driven wars that were about anything but defending Americans and justice.

[Hawktawk]

Asea
I see your level of vitriol and venom for this utter slimeball is approaching that of mine for really about the last 2.5 years. When he first came down that escalator in Trump tower and uttered the proclamation he was running and was going to "make america great again" something inside me was revulsed. I gave him a chance until about halfway through his first primary debate, his first few stump speeches and it was clear what an angry, vulgar narcissistic small man he was. I am more bipolar than a two peckered billy goat but I've got a sixth sense when it comes to character. He has none.

I really dont get his supposed conservative america loving evangelical supporters. They have this guy named Pence, you know? a true lily white conservative who is the one who does the wrangling on capital hill, who won't be alone with any woman but his wife, who served his country with distinction, who once had so much integrity he cancelled all campaign events when Trump was caught on tape bragging about being able to molest women because he was a star. Hes of course soiled himself irreparably now like Giuliani and everyone else who comes within a mile of this steaming pile of excrement, or maybe hes one of the "adults in the room" described in the anonymous letter who stick around in a "horrible job" "crazytown". Maybe he's the author as some have speculated.

Bottom line though Trumpies is its not about HRC anymore. Its Trump vs Pence. That's what Rosenstein was saying, sarcastic or not, what the author of this letter was saying. Its not some administrative coup against this administration as the increasingly idiotic Trump c#ckholster Lindsey Graham said on Faux yesterday. It's those who are the closest to Trump being in fear for our safety, our sovereignty, our national security.

The bright point is that the dems are holding a massive 52% to 40% lead in the generic ballot preference in Nov, whereas a poll taken yesterday shows 59% favor a major change away from trump, 40 % favor some change and only 1% say no change. And I plan to vote democratic in the election as a lifelong Conservative and former lock stock and barrel member of the republican party. I'm not happy about being forced to do it as I really detest the identity politics,the overregulation,the whiny apologizing for our history and place in the world. But there are things more important than ideology or politics.

Country over party at least for the time of Trump and may it end soon...GO BOB MUELLER. DRAIN THE SWAMP

[burrrton]

He should be doing everything in his power to make sure this Supreme Court nominee and the accuser Ford receive an investigation to the public.

There is literally nothing to investigate. It's a vague memory from half a century ago, the location of which she can't recall, the date of which she can't recall, and all four of her named witnesses say they have no idea what she's talking about.

And this new accusation from Ramirez is worse than that, which says a lot.

This is no defense of Trump, but this circus surrounding Kavanaugh is embarrassing.

[Aseahawkfan]

There is literally nothing to investigate. It's a vague memory from half a century ago, the location of which she can't recall, the date of which she can't recall, and all four of her named witnesses say they have no idea what she's talking about.

And this new accusation from Ramirez is worse than that, which says a lot.

This is no defense of Trump, but this circus surrounding Kavanaugh is embarrassing.

I don't disagree that this Kavanaugh thing seems like a Democratic power player using the Metoo# movement as at least a stalling tactic to push out until midterms. It sure seems like that to me, but I don't know. The bottom line is that as President you don't tweet out a comment about a woman accusing someone of sex assault attempting to publically call her out as a liar or disregard her claims. It shows how scumbag and tone deaf Trump is. When your president, you're supposed to be the leader of all citizens of America, not just the people who voted for you. This is just a horrible message to send by this idiot. The fact that he can't stop tweeting when any sane man would know to stop further shows how unfit he is for the office.

George Bush Sr. handled the claims of Anita Hill much better than Trump handled this. He let the investigation play out. He ordered the FBI to assist when the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee asked. He made all the information public.

Trump made the situation worse for Kavanaugh and anyone in his party. He played right into Democrat hands with his tweets and they're piling on now because they can talk about how insensitive Trump is to assault victims. I don't even trust his ability to govern at this point. He doesn't know when to talk and when to quietly manage a hard situation.

[RiverDog]

There is literally nothing to investigate. It's a vague memory from half a century ago, the location of which she can't recall, the date of which she can't recall, and all four of her named witnesses say they have no idea what she's talking about.

And this new accusation from Ramirez is worse than that, which says a lot.

This is no defense of Trump, but this circus surrounding Kavanaugh is embarrassing.

I agree with this thought completely. Going all the way back to high school? Gimme a break! This is why in legal circles there exists an apparently little known thing called a statute of limitations.

That's not to say that I agree with how Trump is responding. The man can never shut his cake hole no matter what the issue is. He should allow the Senate Republicans do their jobs and let them be the ones to denounce these tactics by the Dems.

[burrrton]

This crap with Kavanaugh is literally making me *sick*.

If any of you support this character assasination BS, post here- I'd love to hear your thoughts and discuss them.

Absolutely, and literally, repulsive and enraging.

[RiverDog]

This crap with Kavanaugh is literally making me *sick*.

If any of you support this character assasination BS, post here- I'd love to hear your thoughts and discuss them.

Absolutely, and literally, repulsive and enraging.

For the past 4-5 days as we're watching the morning news, I'm treated to my non political wife going off on a 5 minute rant about high school kids copping a feel in a crowded room or something. I find it very telling that these witnesses did not go to law enforcement with their accusations, rather that their first instinct was to seek out Democratic politicians with their stories. You can't tell me that they don't have a political agenda that they're trying to advance.

But now that the accusations have surfaced, they must be dealt with in a fair and impartial manner absent Donald Trump's verbal diarrhea. The R Senators made an excellent call by hiring a professional, female prosecutor experienced in sexual assault investigations to interview these witnesses and deny the Dems and Me, too movement from playing the gender card during the hearings.

[idhawkman]

I think the dems know they can't stop this guy so they want to damage him as much as they can so that they have a reason to go back in the future to try and impeach him. Should they ever win the House back, that's what they will do.

I find it professionally irresponsible for the Dem Senators to say "they believe the survivor" when all they have is a written letter and a polygraph that was just yesterday shared with the republicans. The polygraph was so flawed that it is a literal joke (believe me, I've taken multiple polygraphs in my life). The letter we have no idea what is in it. So without hearing from the accuser, they are "believing" her? All her witnesses have refuted her claims. She doesn't remember when, where or how she got to or from the party. If that is the case, how does she remember him?

This is all a side show to delay the vote. Nothing more.

[RiverDog]

I think the dems know they can't stop this guy so they want to damage him as much as they can so that they have a reason to go back in the future to try and impeach him. Should they ever win the House back, that's what they will do.

I find it professionally irresponsible for the Dem Senators to say "they believe the survivor" when all they have is a written letter and a polygraph that was just yesterday shared with the republicans. The polygraph was so flawed that it is a literal joke (believe me, I've taken multiple polygraphs in my life). The letter we have no idea what is in it. So without hearing from the accuser, they are "believing" her? All her witnesses have refuted her claims. She doesn't remember when, where or how she got to or from the party. If that is the case, how does she remember him?

This is all a side show to delay the vote. Nothing more.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, which seems likely, the Dems aren't going to be foolish enough to try to impeach him. The bar for impeaching/removing a sitting SCOTUS is just as high as it is for impeaching/removing a POTUS. He'll take his seat and the controversy will go away just as it did with Clarence Thomas.

The vote will take place as scheduled no matter what happens in the hearings. I think that the Dems realize that they don't have much of a chance of stopping this nomination and that their prime motivation for all this crapola is to stir up their base in advance of the midterms.

[burrrton]

For the past 4-5 days as we're watching the morning news, I'm treated to my non political wife going off on a 5 minute rant about high school kids copping a feel in a crowded room or something.

And by her own account, it wasn't even that!

But now that the accusations have surfaced, they must be dealt with in a fair and impartial manner absent Donald Trump's verbal diarrhea.

Agree 100% about Trump, and don't disagree about "dealing" with the accusations, but even if we leave aside their flimsy nature (no time, date, or location, the number of people at the party has literally changed 5 times, etc), her accusations are non-disprovable.

I'm sorry she went through something, but you don't derail a good person's career over this, Democrat or Republican.

[RiverDog]

Agree 100% about Trump, and don't disagree about "dealing" with the accusations, but even if we leave aside their flimsy nature (no time, date, or location, the number of people at the party has literally changed 5 times, etc), her accusations are non-disprovable.

I'm sorry she went through something, but you don't derail a good person's career over this, Democrat or Republican.

I awoke this morning before my wife and had turned the channel on the only network station not carrying the hearings (we usually watch the Today show at 7:00am), but despite my pleas, she turned it onto NBC and started watching the testimony. A short while later, I was subjected to another 10 minute rant of hers, basically how Ms Ford was the biggest drama queen she's ever seen.

But my wife's attitude not withstanding and regardless of the flimsy nature of the testimony, the sensationalism of it (never mind if it's true or not) is going to draw a whole lot of attention from #Metoo, which is what the Dems have wanted all along.

This isn't about stopping a nomination, it's about getting voters to turn out in November.

[Aseahawkfan]

The only good point I've heard so far is that these accusations did not happen during Neil Gorsuch's nomination. So the argument that any male nominee will suffer the same fate is not supported by that fact.

I do believe it is a Democrat power play. If it works, I think many male Democrats will regret it as the Republicans will start paying to unearth any questionable behavior by them with females and turn their voting base on them. That's always fun to watch the Democrats eat their own.

Democrats tend to keep the female vote with the specter of Republican sexual harassment, glass ceiling for females, and attacks on their reproductive rights in this battle to win votes through fear. This seems to be an effort by the liberal female voting bloc to prevent this nomination. It doesn't ever matter to them that there are a great many highly successful and wealthy Republican females.

I think it was wise to let the investigation play out in public so the undecided voters can decide for themselves if they think alleged youthful indiscretions and allegations 35 years after the fact are enough to pillory another person. And they been piling on Kavanaugh like crazy. I've even talked to at least one liberal that seems set on the man raped the woman and he's a liar and his mind is not changing. I had to roll my eyes and leave it at that. The irrational way people engage in politics is pathetic. Evidence or wisdom are irrelevant. Emotionally driven response is everything to them. I leave glad that people elected to power can usually filter through the crap to get to the real nature of an occurrence.

I imagine we will see how it goes. This has been one of the strangest attacks on a Supreme court nominee and that opportunistic narcissist Avenatti only made it a bigger clown show with his "evidence."

Though I must admit this whole Metoo# movement has shown that males have covered up a lot of rotten behavior to females. That needed to be addressed. I knew that innocent or not reaching the same bar as certain scum like Weinstein would be caught up in the purging. It's better to get rid of some of these male scum, though so far Kavanaugh has not reached that bar for me. The evidence is too flimsy and long ago and not what I constitute as sex assault or I would be seeing quite a few more males claiming sexual assault towards other males. There is a term for setting your penis on someone called teabagging. If you teabag another male is it sex assault? It's gross and rude, but is it sex assault? If women were equal, you do goofy crap to them and it not be considered sex assault? I don't know. Something for society to answer. Drunk guys do crazy crap to other drunk guys. Seen it happen many times. Never seen them do it to girls as they were usually off limits. Then again gender equality, I don't know.

[RiverDog]

Wow, this hearing really exploded! I didn't watch it, but I just got through reading about the exchanges between Kavanaugh and some of the Democrats on the committee. They've really kicked up a hornet's nest. I've seen some bitter SCOTUS hearings, Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas come to mind, but this one takes the cake. This is going to drive people even further into their corners, liberal vs. conservative, women vs. men. The Dems achieved their goal of motivating their base just ahead of the midterms as this hearing will certainly do just that.

From what I've read, there are just 3 R Senators that are undecided and wanted to hear what the witness had to say: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Maine's Susan Collins. I can't see them taking something from this testimony that would cause them to flip, but I've been wrong before. I certainly wouldn't want to bet any money on it.

[idhawkman]

Wow, this hearing really exploded! I didn't watch it, but I just got through reading about the exchanges between Kavanaugh and some of the Democrats on the committee. They've really kicked up a hornet's nest. I've seen some bitter SCOTUS hearings, Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas come to mind, but this one takes the cake. This is going to drive people even further into their corners, liberal vs. conservative, women vs. men. The Dems achieved their goal of motivating their base just ahead of the midterms as this hearing will certainly do just that.

From what I've read, there are just 3 R Senators that are undecided and wanted to hear what the witness had to say: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Maine's Susan Collins. I can't see them taking something from this testimony that would cause them to flip, but I've been wrong before. I certainly wouldn't want to bet any money on it.

Corker of Tennessee was also a "lets wait and see" like the other three.

I don't think they are going to sway any votes either but this process is not only driving the dems to the polls. I think it is backfiring and many dems who are tired of the personal destruction politics will also see this for what it is. The blue wave is going to fizzle and already is.

[Aseahawkfan]

This certainly will make November more interesting. I'm still thinking we get some bombshell releases close to poll time from Mueller's team. Democrats are swinging for the fences in an all out assault on unchecked Republican power from the top down. If they lose in November, they will be absolutely screwed. All of the talk of the fall of the Republican Party under Trump will ring deaf if they can't unseat the House Republicans and their party is beaten. If the Dems can't win even with normal Republican supporters like myself, Riverdog.and Hawktawk not supporting Republican candidates, they'll definitely look stupid and like the Blue Wave was total crap. But if they win, the assaults on Trump we see right now will look like child's play.

Most interesting November in a long while.

[burrrton]

The Dems achieved their goal of motivating their base just ahead of the midterms as this hearing will certainly do just that.

Their problem is their base was already highly motivated- they've now succeeded in motivating the R base as well.

It was the most vile and nauseating type of attack, and now it has the added benefit of being a poor political play.

[Aseahawkfan]

Their problem is their base was already highly motivated- they've now succeeded in motivating the R base as well.

It was the most vile and nauseating type of attack, and now it has the added benefit of being a poor political play.

I haven't watched the testimony. This whole thing reeks like garbage. Was the woman's testimony that poorly received? Stories seem to be indicating she sounded credible, even Fox News indicates she sounded credible.

[RiverDog]

I thought that her testimony sounded credible, and I believe that something did, indeed, happen to her. But I have serious doubts about her "100% certainty" that it was Bret Kavanaugh, especially given the veracity of which he defended himself. I know if I were falsely accused of something, I'd be just as pissed off as he was. I don't think that kind of anger can be created without a sense of righteousness.

Either way, the process is completely unfair, bringing up an event, uncorroborated, from 30+ years ago when the two were in high school, for crissakes. It has absouletly no bearing on what kind of a justice he will be.

[Aseahawkfan]

I thought that her testimony sounded credible, and I believe that something did, indeed, happen to her. But I have serious doubts about her "100% certainty" that it was Bret Kavanaugh, especially given the veracity of which he defended himself. I know if I were falsely accused of something, I'd be just as pissed off as he was. I don't think that kind of anger can be created without a sense of righteousness.

Either way, the process is completely unfair, bringing up an event, uncorroborated, from 30+ years ago when the two were in high school, for crissakes. It has absouletly no bearing on what kind of a justice he will be.

I'm seriously interested in how this will play out at the polls if the Republicans confirm him. It's going to be a near party line vote I would think. How much will it energize the female vote? Part of me thinks not much given Trump has already energized the female vote as high as it can go, but you never know.

You have a daughter RD? How would you feel if your daughter told you Kavanagh did this to her 35 years ago and she kept it hidden all these years, but felt awful because of it? How would you react as a father?

[burrrton]

Stories seem to be indicating she sounded credible, even Fox News indicates she sounded credible.

I think she sounded sincere, which some take as credible (I don't, but reasonable people could), but I've heard many people tell me about their Bigfoot sighting and sound infinitely more so.

Point being: when there is literally no evidence, or a single corroborating witness, defying all logic, there's no way that's enough to derail a man's life, especially in the face of all that contradicts her.

That she came forward at all is a bit of a head shaker- that Dems ran with it like their lives depended on it is sickening, and that we now have half a country considering this man a rapist is miles beyond that, literally enraging.

I thought that her testimony sounded credible, and I believe that something did, indeed, happen to her.

Yep- same.

But I have serious doubts about her "100% certainty" that it was Bret Kavanaugh, especially given the veracity of which he defended himself.

Ignoring his veracity, she literally can't remember any other significant detail- she's vastly overstating her confidence because her lawyers have told her what can and what can't be proven to be perjury (that can't- ever).

How would you feel if your daughter told you Kavanagh did this to her 35 years ago and she kept it hidden all these years, but felt awful because of it? How would you react as a father?

Is this a serious question?

My daughters know to tell me *anything* that happens to them, because the perp's world would be crashing down around him physically and legally literally within minutes, and if they held it in for half a century, I'd tell them there's no way to tell how accurate their recollection was, especially if they could recall nothing else. We'd get therapy and be done with it like every other normal person.

However she "feels", she needs to look inward (like the 3rd accuser?) and "assess her feelings" and decide whether she really thinks it was this upstanding family man that raped her, and not something her mind has mistakenly pieced together in error over the last 36 years like every other 'memory' she has of that time.

[idhawkman]

I didn't find her credible at all. I found her flakey as hell.

She's afraid of flying except when it is for her hobbies and vacations. She took the polygraph in August but can't remember if it was the same day as her grand mother's funeral or the next day. The polygraph took a "very long time" but the poligrapher says he only asked her two questions. She didn't know if the polygrapher had been paid or not. She was getting advice to find a lawyer from "other beach goers". What the hell is that about? She can't remember which year it was, what house it was, how she got to the party or how she got home from the party but she remembers very clearly that she had only one beer and then went "Upstairs" to go to the bathroom? Why? Why not go to the bathroom downstairs? Its not like she had a six pack or anything and just couldn't hold it any longer. Then the two guys (Kavenaugh and his friend) were already pretty drunk when she got there but they somehow snuck up the stairs behind her without her knowing they were there and pushed her into a room and then locked it behind them. Then they turned up the radio so loud that no one could hear her scream as Kavenaugh jumped on top of her and then covered her mouth with his hand. Why? No one could hear her through the music. Then he got knocked off her and she ran to the bathroom and locked the door and waited to "hear them bounce off the walls because they were so drunk going down the stairs. Uh, through the music that is so loud? How did they sneak up behind you on the stairs if they can't go down the stairs without bouncing off the walls?

Then she leaves the bathroom and walks right by them to get out of the house. Now she remembers all that but not how she got there or how she got home? Hell she can't remember what day last month the polygrapher polygraphed her.

Bottom line I think she was handled from the beginning and that the political machine of the left has used this poor woman. She's obviously real dingy. Feinsteins office recommended the lawyers for her to hire. Beach goers were giving her advise to tell the media and to get a lawyer. Her lawyers never told her that the Senate committee would make the trip to her home in California if she was afraid to fly. Her lawyers are working pro bono but she has multiple Go-Fund-Me pages that she doesn't know how to collect the money from. Her lawyers paid for her polygraph. Her lawyers didn't want her discussing her medical records and the conversations about them she had with her lawyers. Somehow the medical records and her letter was leaked to the press when only her, her lawyers and Feinsteins office had the letter.

I really believe this woman has been traumatized at some point but I think the handlers have convinced her it is Kavenaugh when it wasn't.

On the flip side he had detailed calendar entries of his activities in 1982. His friends didn't live near the country club she says the house was close to but couldn't remember which house. He didn't have any friends in that area. None of the poeple she mentioned that were there cooberated her accounts and they did so in sworn statements under the penalty of a felony.

Its like one of the Republican senators said, someone who serially rapes women at 17 and 18 in high school, doesn't stop when they get older, they get bolder and do more of it. But nothing in his professional career or college has allegations of this.

So was she emotional, yes. Was she believeable, no. Not by a long shot.

[RiverDog]

I'm seriously interested in how this will play out at the polls if the Republicans confirm him. It's going to be a near party line vote I would think. How much will it energize the female vote? Part of me thinks not much given Trump has already energized the female vote as high as it can go, but you never know.

You have a daughter RD? How would you feel if your daughter told you Kavanagh did this to her 35 years ago and she kept it hidden all these years, but felt awful because of it? How would you react as a father?

Yes, I have a daughter (see my avatar), 32 years old and charge nurse in an urgent care facility. She's seen a lot of stuff, including sexual assault/domestic violence victims.

You're asking me a hypothetical question, one that my daughter will never put to me, but I'll try to answer it. It would be completely out of character for my daughter to keep something as traumatic as this person claims it has been hidden for 35 years. She would have confided with someone, a close friend or loved one, a long, long time before this lady did. As I mentioned, my daughter works in the medical field, is well educated and knows both her rights as well as the process for dealing with this type of emotional stress, so I am certain that she would have seeked out professional help long before this woman did. If my daughter would have told me a story like this, the very last thing I would have wanted her to do would have been to write a letter to a politician and expose herself to this media circus.

There's just too much uncertainty for a case to be based entirely on one individual's recollection of a supposed event that happened 3.5 decades ago. Memories fade and can be influenced by other external events. People can be talked into believing things, either by others or by themselves. I've seen some people completely convinced that a certain person committed a specific act, then when confronted with undeniable facts showing that they couldn't possibly have done it, suddenly say "well, I thought it was him." It's happened in court, with witnesses testifying under oath then having to change their story when certain facts come to their attention. Certainly the same can be said for Kavanaugh's denial...we all remember Bill Clinton's wagging his finger at the camera and saying with righteous conviction that he "did not have a sexual relationship with that woman"...but it would take months to ferret out the truth, and even then, absent even the most remote possibility of discovering any hard facts...as in the case with Clinton, the semen stained dress...it almost certainly would not be conclusive, just more he said-she said.

[Hawktawk]

Both Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch attended Georgetown prep. Both clerked for Anthony Kennedy. Both were federal Judges.Both worked for Ken Starr during the whitewater investigation.
One was opposed on Ideological grounds but eventually confirmed with support of as few democrats coupled with Mitch McConnell going "nuclear changing the senate rule for needing 60 votes to confirm to 51 to get him through. That move will haunt he and the republican party forever, perhaps as soon as the midterms. But Why weren't women coming out of the woodwork accusing him of impropriety and blotto drunkenness? why not Obama or his selection merrick garland who was ignored by the republican senate for nearly a year until the 2016 election? Why not GW, HW Bush, Reagan or any number of Scotus nominees of both parties?

Kavanagh has been accused of sexual impropriety by not one but FIVE people now. Blasi Ford, a woman named Rivera from his time in college who alleges he exposed himself to her while drunk at a party. Then there's the woman represented by Michael Avenatti who says Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were part of a group led by Judge who would get women blotto drunk and then take turns with them in a side room and that she was victimized at one point although she can't say Kavanaugh himself assaulted her, just that they were present and she was assaulted by numerous men.

Mark Judges ex girlfriend says he ashamedly admitted to her at one time that it was in fact something he had done in the past. His book "wasted, the confessions of a teenage alcoholic" talks about a friend named Kavanaugh passed out and puked in his car at one point. Kavanagh said under oath yesterday that he has never blacked out in his life, that his references to the "ralph" club in his yearbook were about the fact he has a weak stomach...

The 4th accuser is from 1998 who alleges after a night on the town drinking Kavanaugh pinned a female friend to a wall and groped her in front of several people. She contacted a REPUBLICAN congressman with her claims and asked to remain anonymous absent an FBI investigation. The fifth accuser allegations have not been shared in detail but she's out there also wishing to remain anonymous absent an FBI investigation. Even Blasey ford requested anonymity when she first wrote to Feinstein of whom she wears a constituent.

Are the Democrats using this as a weapon? Of course, politics ain't beanbag. If you want to sit in Judgement of 350 million people you better not have skeletons in your closet like being a bad blotto drunk who pins down little 15 year old girls in a bedroom when you're a popular well known student of a prestigious school, captain of the basketball team. He makes an attempt to tear her clothes off as his buddy Mark Judge watches and they both laugh, at one point putting his hand over her mouth to stop her screams.

My main question if shes a political hack is why did she put a third person in the room? Why don't the repubs want Judge under oath with the FBI? why did she not say he successfully raped her? why did she initially ask to remain anonymous as well until Dem operatives leaked her name. Why did she begin sharing her account 6 years ago with a therapist?

Why won't the Republicans starting with Chump want to give the FBI to do a 3 day search. When Clarence Thomas was accused by Anita Hill of leaving a pubic hair on a coke can, visually "inspecting" her and inviting her to watch a pornographic movie HW Bush called for an FBI investigation of his nominee immediately. Rape or sexual assault was never alleged..there was one accuser..

I believe the woman. I think Repubs including the histrionic nauseating Lindsay Graham who's come to jesus after a few trips to trump national know it is true too.It's why they and he have no interest in an impartial organization like the FBI digging into this.

I've thought Kavanagh was lying weasel, evasive, lacking the decorum and gravity to be on the court since the first 5 minutes I heard him speak. He was chosen by Trump against the advice of Graham and McConnell among others strictly because of his writings about a president basically being above the law, indictment and impeachment proof, subpoenas proof etc. Its rich since he wrote the articles of impeachment against Clinton over lying about a blow job stating things like the whole truth must come out no matter how ugly..

This POS does not belong on the court. His victims should not be punished for the rest of their lives watching this zit faced liar who perjured himself regarding his drinking at a minimum on the stand yesterday and IMO sexually assaulting women in high school and beyond as well sitting on the most powerful judicial body in the world.That is all.

Can't wait to go pull the lever for Democrats for the first time in my life. I hate having to do it but it's the only weapon i have with bullets in the chamber to stop the 37% party of Trump. I suspect I'll have lots of company. Time to drain the swampiest swamp .

[Hawktawk]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBNEbmZ

[RiverDog]

Hawktalk, here's what former Dem Senator and VP Joe Biden had to say about FBI reports in a SCOTUS hearing during the Clarence Thomas's confirmation:

“The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. The FBI explicitly does not in this or any other case reach a conclusion. Period,”

Besides, all they can do is interview witnesses. There is almost no likelihood of obtaining solid evidence, like pictures, videos, police reports, medical records, etc, to establish any sort of facts. Their investigation is all going to be based on people's personal recollections of events from 3.5 decades ago, and whether their recollections are in support of K's version or F's version, without corroborating facts, they are not reliable enough to reach a definite conclusion. It's one of the prime reasons why most crimes have attached to them a statute of limitations.

Sen. Jeff Flake, a well known Trump antagonist and the lone R on the committee that was undecided and wanted to hear Dr. Ford testify before making his decision, has come out in support of Kavanaugh:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos ... 765bcd4b16

That means that two female R Senators, Murkowski and Collins, hold the cards to the nomination, unless one or more of the red state Dems break ranks, which now seems unlikely. Kavanaugh can afford to lose one, but not both.

[c_hawkbob]

The Bar Association was what the right was calling "the gold standard" in determination of his fitness for the position ... until they weren't.

It appears the Jesuits have withdrawn their endorsement (pending an investigation) as well.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyob ... h-n2523399

This is significant because repubs have also repeatedly referred to his having gone to a Jesuit school as an indication of his character. Until it isn't.

Personally I have no idea which side to believe in this assault case, but it's pretty clear this is going to go along party lines rather than any finding of truth so I don't think it much matters.

[RiverDog]

The Bar Association was what the right was calling "the gold standard" in determination of his fitness for the position ... until they weren't.

It appears the Jesuits have withdrawn their endorsement (pending an investigation) as well.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyob ... h-n2523399

This is significant because repubs have also repeatedly referred to his having gone to a Jesuit school as an indication of his character. Until it isn't.

Personally I have no idea which side to believe in this assault case, but it's pretty clear this is going to go along party lines rather than any finding of truth so I don't think it much matters.

Honest question: Is that the official ABA stance, ie calling for an FBI investigation, or is it the opinion of one man, the president of the ABA?

Additionally, I see a difference between an organization like the ABA weighing in on judicial qualifications and weighing in on a proposed investigation of a question of personal character.

Interesting information regarding the Jesuits. Thanks for posting it.

[idhawkman]

Collins and Murkowski don't matter how they will vote at this point since Mansion has come out and said he is a yes vote barring any substatiated allocations that come out between now and Tuesday's vote. So if both of those women vote no, the senate will still have the 50 votes and the tie breaker being VP Pence the vote will be approved.

That all said, I am in sheer disbelief of the constant push for the FBI to investigate. Remember, this occured in Maryland which has no statute of limitations on sexual crimes. Therefore, it should be reported to the Maryland law enforcement agency(s). NOTE: Maryland is as democrat controlled as Idaho is Republican controlled.

Now what would they investigate. Since they don't know the date, location or any other facts other than who was there and what is alleged between the two participants who have been heard already what would they ask?

Ms. Ford's friend has already stated that she does not recall the incident. She also has a mental problem so her statements and testimony would be suspect anyway.

The Kavanaugh friend (Judge) is an addict with severe depression issues. He also states he can't recall the incident in question. His testimony, too would be in question.

The other participants have all submitted affidavits stating that they do not recall the incident, too. So what can the law enforcement investigation do, investigate something that no one can remember happening? What's the next question they would ask anyone? Here's how it would go.

Q. Do you remember going to a party at some house in Potomac MD in the summer of 82 or 83 where Ms. Ford, Judge Kavenaugh and Mr. Judge were present?
A. No

Q. Why don't you remember this party?
A. It was 36 years ago and I don't remember it.

Q. Did you bring Ms. Ford to and/or from the party you don't remember?
A. I don't know the woman very well if at all. No, she was never in my car.

Q. Did you remember Mr. Kavenaugh being drunk at the party you don't remember?
A. Is this a serious question?

Uhhhhhhhh..... No further questions.

[RiverDog]

Collins and Murkowski don't matter how they will vote at this point since Mansion has come out and said he is a yes vote barring any substatiated allocations that come out between now and Tuesday's vote. So if both of those women vote no, the senate will still have the 50 votes and the tie breaker being VP Pence the vote will be approved.

There is no Senator Mansion. I assume that you are referring to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W VA, a red state Dem. Unless you have a link that shows otherwise, the latest information I've seen is that he was "leaning" towards supporting the nomination but had not yet voiced any commitment. They are speculating that his use of the term "definitely prove" with regard to the accusations indicates that he's already made up his mind, which is a bit of a stretch. It's also unclear to me whether or not he made his "definitely prove" statement before or after the hearing. You're counting your chickens before they hatch.

I guess it doesn't matter to me which agency investigates these allegations if were it to happen. Since it involves a federal office, it would seem to make sense for the FBI to do it. But the point is, as you eluded to, all they would be able to do would be to interview potential witnesses. There is no physical evidence to examine and any conclusions would be nothing more than one person's word against another's. The lack of any physical evidence prevents any firm conclusions from being reached, and as many have already indicated, even though a confirmation hearing is not a court of law, the principle of presumption of innocence should prevail.

[idhawkman]

There is no Senator Mansion. I assume that you are referring to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W VA, a red state Dem. Unless you have a link that shows otherwise, the latest information I've seen is that he was "leaning" towards supporting the nomination but had not yet voiced any commitment. They are speculating that his use of the term "definitely prove" with regard to the accusations indicates that he's already made up his mind, which is a bit of a stretch. It's also unclear to me whether or not he made his "definitely prove" statement before or after the hearing. You're counting your chickens before they hatch.

I guess it doesn't matter to me which agency investigates these allegations if were it to happen. Since it involves a federal office, it would seem to make sense for the FBI to do it. But the point is, as you eluded to, all they would be able to do would be to interview potential witnesses. There is no physical evidence to examine and any conclusions would be nothing more than one person's word against another's. The lack of any physical evidence prevents any firm conclusions from being reached, and as many have already indicated, even though a confirmation hearing is not a court of law, the principle of presumption of innocence should prevail.

The votes will be what they are when they are cast. No one is for sure at this time. Manchin will seal his fate if he votes against Kavanaugh and I think that no matter what Heitcamp does she's toast anyways.

That all said, the die has been cast and it is firing up the Trump base for the mid terms. Remember, many women have sons and they ae being scared to death over what they see as a smeer campaign with nothing more than allegations with no proof or due process.

[idhawkman]

Oh yeah, the FBI can not do the investigation on this issue because they have no jurisdiction. Anyone who says they do have it is just incorrect. They have already rejected the request to re-open the background investigation.

[RiverDog]

The votes will be what they are when they are cast. No one is for sure at this time.

Oh yeah, the FBI can not do the investigation on this issue because they have no jurisdiction. Anyone who says they do have it is just incorrect. They have already rejected the request to re-open the background investigation.

Of course, it's not over until it's over, but realistically well over 90 of the 100 Senators have already reached their decision. Many have already taken a public stance. The point is that the nomination is far from a sure thing.

As I said, it doesn't matter who were to do an investigation, whether it's the FBI, the Maryland State Police, or the Keystone Cops. The point is that all they would be able to do would be to interview potential witnesses. There is no other investigative work that can be done, ie searching for or analysis of physical evidence, that could help determine the truth.

If the events discussed weren't so long ago in the past, or if there were information other than a couple of people's recollection of events that could be had, then I would be open to delaying the vote and doing a thorough investigation. But I just don't see where searching for and interviewing more witnesses from 35 years ago is going to make a difference on how people are going to view this nominee. Give this guy a thumbs up or thumbs down and let's move on.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think the one thing I dislike the most is that Democratic women as a majority seem to want to change the "innocent until proven guilty" principle of justice to "guilty until proven innocent so I don't have to feel the stress standing up to my accuser". This is most assuredly a worse lesson to send to our society that this form of "justice" might become the law of the land with media as judge, jury, and executioner with the penalty career or reputation destruction.

At the same time I hate the idea that so many women seem to have been sexually assaulted and not reported it. I also don't want to see society send the message that a man can sexually assault a female and get away with it with nearly no repercussions. It seems like we as a society have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to sexual assault.

I think it might be in the best interests of the nation to deny this nomination. Kavanaugh is not bulletproof enough for lifetime appointment. He will still have a career as a federal judge, so he's not completely destroyed. Trump should maybe nominate a candidate better vetted for this type of behavior. Maybe to Kavanaugh he didn't perceive what he was doing as he has not currently been able to clearly admit he wasn't a heavy drinker when young. There is sufficient evidence that he was a heavy drinker due to his own lack of clearly stating he wasn't and his association with Mark Judge. When heavily drunk he might have done some incredibly stupid actions that have made him open to this kind of attack. I think I'd prefer a different nominee at this point, a conservative-leaning women would be nice to see on the court for a different perspective.

[Aseahawkfan]

Of course, it's not over until it's over, but realistically well over 90 of the 100 Senators have already reached their decision. Many have already taken a public stance. The point is that the nomination is far from a sure thing.

As I said, it doesn't matter who were to do an investigation, whether it's the FBI, the Maryland State Police, or the Keystone Cops. The point is that all they would be able to do would be to interview potential witnesses. There is no other investigative work that can be done, ie searching for or analysis of physical evidence, that could help determine the truth.

If the events discussed weren't so long ago in the past, or if there were information other than a couple of people's recollection of events that could be had, then I would be open to delaying the vote and doing a thorough investigation. But I just don't see where searching for and interviewing more witnesses from 35 years ago is going to make a difference on how people are going to view this nominee. Give this guy a thumbs up or thumbs down and let's move on.

You could start investigating the Mark Judge association. Judge clearly indicated his past is one of drunken revelry. Kavanaugh and Judge were friends. I would look into that angle. I'm seeing clear evidence that Kavanaugh was part of the drunken fun club with Judge. Drunk people do things all the time that are wrong while drunk and conveniently all of it is forgotten when they awaken from the drunken haze as often as not.

[RiverDog]

You could start investigating the Mark Judge association. Judge clearly indicated his past is one of drunken revelry. Kavanaugh and Judge were friends. I would look into that angle. I'm seeing clear evidence that Kavanaugh was part of the drunken fun club with Judge. Drunk people do things all the time that are wrong while drunk and conveniently all of it is forgotten when they awaken from the drunken haze as often as not.

Here's the latest on Mark Judge:

A high school friend of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh says he will cooperate with any law enforcement agency that will "confidentially investigate" sexual misconduct allegations against him and Kavanaugh.

Mark Judge sent a signed letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday, saying he "categorically" denies sexual misconduct allegations made by Julie Swetnick.

In a sworn statement released Wednesday, Swetnick accused Kavanaugh and Judge of excessive drinking and inappropriate treatment of women in the early 1980s, among other accusations. Judge says in his letter that he doesn't know Swetnick and does not recall any parties in the early 1980s where he "fondled or grabbed women in an aggressive or unwanted manner." He says Swetnick's allegations are "so bizarre" and he "would remember actions so outlandish."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

That doesn't sound to me like there's a lot there, but if you're into fishing expeditions, I guess you could investigate.

[c_hawkbob]

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.

[RiverDog]

I think the one thing I dislike the most is that Democratic women as a majority seem to want to change the "innocent until proven guilty" principle of justice to "guilty until proven innocent so I don't have to feel the stress standing up to my accuser". This is most assuredly a worse lesson to send to our society that this form of "justice" might become the law of the land with media as judge, jury, and executioner with the penalty career or reputation destruction.

At the same time I hate the idea that so many women seem to have been sexually assaulted and not reported it. I also don't want to see society send the message that a man can sexually assault a female and get away with it with nearly no repercussions. It seems like we as a society have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to sexual assault.

I think it might be in the best interests of the nation to deny this nomination. Kavanaugh is not bulletproof enough for lifetime appointment. He will still have a career as a federal judge, so he's not completely destroyed. Trump should maybe nominate a candidate better vetted for this type of behavior. Maybe to Kavanaugh he didn't perceive what he was doing as he has not currently been able to clearly admit he wasn't a heavy drinker when young. There is sufficient evidence that he was a heavy drinker due to his own lack of clearly stating he wasn't and his association with Mark Judge. When heavily drunk he might have done some incredibly stupid actions that have made him open to this kind of attack. I think I'd prefer a different nominee at this point, a conservative-leaning women would be nice to see on the court for a different perspective.

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.