Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[Soxbadger]

Just now, wrathofhahn said:

The fact they hired a female prosecutor who handled Ford with kid gloves rather then question Ford themselves should tell you all you need to know. They are terrified of being seen as not compassionate.

After the hearing they all said they found Ford credible and felt something happened to her despite gaping holes in her story and memory even Graham dances around it. In fact the harshest criticism to come on Ford from the people present hasn't been from Republicans it came from the career prosecutor of sexoffenders who highlighted the holes in her testimony and said based on the testimony there was no case against Kavanaugh.

The fact that they stopped letting the prosecutor ask Kavanaugh questions as soon as she started to zero in on a day when the assault could have occurred should tell you the same.

Had they wanted to know the truth, Graham wouldnt have given a speech for his 5 minutes, he would have asked questions. Had they cared about the truth, Grasserly wouldnt have interrupted Blumenthal and basically helped Kavanaugh avoid questions.

And "no case" isnt the bar for a Supreme Court Justice. No one is suggesting Kavanaugh could be convicted for sexual assault. What I am suggesting is Kavanaugh lied under oath, that should disqualify him from being a Justice. All he had to do was tell the truth about his drinking. But he lied and the Republican's attempted to cover for him.

Any objective person would come to that conclusion. Thats why the American Bar Association immediately called for an investigation. Because lawyers lying under oath is a big deal, let alone potential Supreme Court Justices.

You can keep avoiding the issue, but the issue is the perjury/lying. The entire point of the hearing was to see if Kavanuagh would be honest, he failed. IIf the Republicans cared about the situation at all, theyd have immediately voted him down and moved on. There are many qualified judges who they could submit, who wouldnt have to lie under oath to be confirmed.

You seem to not care about the perjury, which is astounding because that is the entire issue. Kavanugh lied, why would I trust anything he says? Ford may or may not have lied, but she isnt about to be a Justice. And if she lied, they should prosecute her. Just like they should prosecute Kavanaugh. Put them both in jail for both lying if it happened. 

[Jenksismyhero]

10 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

You do realize Ford isnt being nominated for the Supreme Court? Who cares if she lied, all Kavanaugh had to do was tell the truth. When he lied under oath, he disqualified himself. The only reason he would lie is because he is trying to cover something up.

What other reason would he lie about drinking? 

Ok, so I get where you're coming from and I agree that SC justices should be (though probably never have been) the saints of saints when it comes to morals and ethics. HOWEVER, there's a huge difference between a guy not wanting to admit he's a drunk/alcoholic in front of an entire nation and underplaying how he acted as a 17 year old (still not right mind you!) and a person who has falsely accused someone of a sexual assault.

[Soxbadger]

Just now, Jenksismyhero said:

Ok, so I get where you're coming from and I agree that SC justices should be (though probably never have been) the saints of saints when it comes to morals and ethics. HOWEVER, there's a huge difference between a guy not wanting to admit he's a drunk/alcoholic in front of an entire nation and underplaying how he acted as a 17 year old (still not right mind you!) and a person who has falsely accused someone of a sexual assault.

There is a huge difference. One of them is about to be a Justice, the other is a regular person. Lets try and convict them both for perjury.

Why are the Republicans so afraid to go after Kavanaugh, who most reasonable people believe lied under oath? Why are you protecting this guy so much? He lied that disqualifies him. I get that his past is embarrassing. But so what, he would have been confirmed had he admitted to being a drunk idiot when he was younger.

All he had to say was:

"yes I used to drink when I was younger. Yes I probably drank too much, maybe even forgot some minor events. But I never drank so much that I would forget trying to rape a girl."

He wasnt willing to say that. And if he cant be honest, he cant be a Supreme Court Justice. 

Would you want a liberal judge who blatantly lied appointed? 

[Dick Allen]

Once and for all, no one has corroborated Kavanaughs  version.  

[Soxbadger]

15 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Once and for all, no one has corroborated Kavanaughs  version.  

Right but for the sake of argument Im willing to say that even if somehow Dr. Ford's version is proven false, Kavanaugh still disqualified himself. And I think that really is the point here. She isnt up for SC justice, he is. He had to prove himself qualified and he failed. Lying under oath should be immediate disqualification, and I cant imagine the Republican's who are defending him would say its okay to lie under oath. And had this been a Democrat candidate, I have to imagine there would have been hundreds of hours of investigation to try and see if the candidate even lied on the slightest detail.

So any other conclusion is basically just cheering on your team. There are many qualified candidates for SC, if the Republicans and their base had any care for the court or for our society they would be demanding Kavanaugh step down or be voted out. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, wrathofhahn said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/records_raise_questions_about_fords_double-door_story__138225.html

The Fords bought the house on June 20, 2007. And the “very extensive, very long remodel,” including the second front door, were completed under a building permit granted in 2008. 

So a natural question is why, four years after the remodeling, which also added two rooms and a bathroom, is the installation of that second door still such a bone of contention between the couple that it was an issue in the counseling they were undergoing in May 2012?

And that may answer another strange anomaly. Because since 1993, and  through some listings even today, there was another tenant at what is now the Ford property. It is listed as this person’s residence from 1993 to July 2007, a week or so after she sold the house to the Fords.

Her name is Dr. Sylvia Randall, and she listed this address for her California licensed practice of psychotherapy, including couples psychotherapy, until her move to Oregon in 2007.

But many existing directories still have Dr. Randall’s address listed at what is now the Ford residence.

In a phone call, I asked Dr. Randall if she had sold her house to the Fords. She asked back how I had found out. I asked if she was the couples therapist who treated the Fords. She would not answer yes or no, replying, “I am a couples therapist.”

This was a professional drive by the democrats. Hopefully the media keeps digging.

More people looking to blame a victim instead of investigating her story of the crime. 

[wrathofhahn]

2 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Once and for all, no one has corroborated Kavanaughs  version.  

They have because everyone who Ford places at that party doesn't remember it happening and doesn't remember Ford and Kavanaugh ever meeting. That aligns exactly with what Kavanaugh has said and runs in stark contrast of Fords story.

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

More people looking to blame a victim instead of investigating her story of the crime. 

Ford hasn't established herself as a victim ideally her allegation of abuse would substantiated first before moving onto Kavanaugh but as of yet it hasn't by anyone (in fact it's been refuted by everyone she mentions as being there). The one person who she claims to have told (which is pretty suspect in itself considering the date of 2012 which would be 30 years after the assault) is pretty suspect at this point considering what we have found out from the realclearpolitics investigation piece.

Lets just follow what the media reported. First we were told she named Kavanaugh to her therapist. Then we were told she didn't name Kavanaugh to her therapist but described her attack where she mentioned he was judge. Then we were told this therapist was infact a marriage counselor.  Now we find the therapist is a friend and her entire story built around having to see the therapist is very, very suspect and the therapist is a former tenant of her home.

7 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

I think what happened is that one of her friends called the Intercept and told the story. They then started investigating which lead to the the letter ultimately being turned over.

There were a few people who knew the story.

I don't believe in such coincidences. This leak was timed to cause maximum damage to the Republicans and prevent them choosing another nominee. If her friends were aware of the letter then they would have leaked the information immediately not timed it up in such a way. It came from the democrats.

Also lets just follow the logic of her story she claims at the time of the assault she told noone. Not her best friend. Not her family. Not her boyfriends past or present. Noone she held it for 30 years until she told her marriage counselor in 2012 but now that he is a nominee for a supreme court she spilled the beans to "beach friends" and actively sought their advice? Contacted the media? It's strange. It's also strange if she trusted her "beach friends" with this information now why not earlier? Why is the only people she told was allegedly her husband and her therapist in 2012?

7 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Any other time, this nomination would have been pulled by now. This is just the Trump Party giving a big middle finger to Dems because Trump always wants revenge. The collateral damage isn't even a consideration.

 If Ford made the Republicans aware of her allegations he would have never been nominated. He might have been pulled early even after his nomination. in a way that would have been a shame and made this situation that is unfair to Kavanaugh even more so. Though he'd probably choose that over what him and his family has had to go through. Including a recent cartoonist who even had the audacity to attack his daughter.

Now? It's too late to nominate anyone else. You say a middle finger I say showing some spine and finally taking a stand against the democrats spurious smears of course they were forced to but still it's about damn time.

[G&T]

2 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

Right but for the sake of argument Im willing to say that even if somehow Dr. Ford's version is proven false, Kavanaugh still disqualified himself. And I think that really is the point here. She isnt up for SC justice, he is. He had to prove himself qualified and he failed. Lying under oath should be immediate disqualification, and I cant imagine the Republican's who are defending him would say its okay to lie under oath. And had this been a Democrat candidate, I have to imagine there would have been hundreds of hours of investigation to try and see if the candidate even lied on the slightest detail.

So any other conclusion is basically just cheering on your team. There are many qualified candidates for SC, if the Republicans and their base had any care for the court or for our society they would be demanding Kavanaugh step down or be voted out. 

This is absolutely right. 

[Balta1701]

9 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

I don't believe in such coincidences. This leak was timed to cause maximum damage to the Republicans and prevent them choosing another nominee. If her friends were aware of the letter then they would have leaked the information immediately not timed it up in such a way. It came from the democrats.

Also lets just follow the logic of her story she claims at the time of the assault she told noone. Not her best friend. Not her family. Not her boyfriends past or present. Noone she held it for 30 years until she told her marriage counselor in 2012 but now that he is a nominee for a supreme court she spilled the beans to "beach friends" and actively sought their advice? Contacted the media? It's strange. It's also strange if she trusted her "beach friends" with this information now why not earlier? Why is the only people she told was allegedly her husband and her therapist in 2012?

 If Ford made the Republicans aware of her allegations he would have never been nominated. He might have been pulled early even after his nomination. in a way that would have been a shame and made this situation that is unfair to Kavanaugh even more so. Though he'd probably choose that over what him and his family has had to go through. Including a recent cartoonist who even had the audacity to attack his daughter.

Now? It's too late to nominate anyone else. You say a middle finger I say showing some spine and finally taking a stand against the democrats spurious smears of course they were forced to but still it's about damn time.

1. They could absolutely dump this one and put another nominee up for a vote and at this point probably get more votes, and get that done before the lame duck session ends. Kavanaugh was nominated less than 3 months ago. 3 months from now is when the new Senate gets started. If there hadn't been a credible rape allegation, this would have been done already.

2. Every time, literally every time, you try to say that a woman should have acted in a way you deem appropriate in response to an assault, and judge her based on the fact that she didn't live up to your standards of how you think that person should act...it is you who looks awful.

 

[Soxbadger]

14 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

They have because everyone who Ford places at that party doesn't remember it happening and doesn't remember Ford and Kavanaugh ever meeting. That aligns exactly with what Kavanaugh has said and runs in stark contrast of Fords story.

Ford hasn't established herself as a victim ideally her allegation of abuse would substantiated first before moving onto Kavanaugh but as of yet it hasn't by anyone (in fact it's been refuted by everyone she mentions as being there). The one person who she claims to have told (which is pretty suspect in itself considering the date of 2012 which would be 30 years after the assault) is pretty suspect at this point considering what we have found out from the realclearpolitics investigation piece.

Lets just follow what the media reported. First we were told she named Kavanaugh to her therapist. Then we were told she didn't name Kavanaugh to her therapist but described her attack where she mentioned he was judge. Then we were told this therapist was infact a marriage counselor.  Now we find the therapist is a friend and her entire story built around having to see the therapist is very, very suspect and the therapist is a former tenant of her home.

I don't believe in such coincidences. This leak was timed to cause maximum damage to the Republicans and prevent them choosing another nominee. If her friends were aware of the letter then they would have leaked the information immediately not timed it up in such a way. It came from the democrats.

Also lets just follow the logic of her story she claims at the time of the assault she told noone. Not her best friend. Not her family. Not her boyfriends past or present. Noone she held it for 30 years until she told her marriage counselor in 2012 but now that he is a nominee for a supreme court she spilled the beans to "beach friends" and actively sought their advice? Contacted the media? It's strange. It's also strange if she trusted her "beach friends" with this information now why not earlier? Why is the only people she told was allegedly her husband and her therapist in 2012?

 If Ford made the Republicans aware of her allegations he would have never been nominated. He might have been pulled early even after his nomination. in a way that would have been a shame and made this situation that is unfair to Kavanaugh even more so. Though he'd probably choose that over what him and his family has had to go through. Including a recent cartoonist who even had the audacity to attack his daughter.

Now? It's too late to nominate anyone else. You say a middle finger I say showing some spine and finally taking a stand against the democrats spurious smears of course they were forced to but still it's about damn time.

To sum up your post, you dont care Kavanaugh lied under oath. Because your so angry that stories came out late and so Republicans should give out a lifetime appointment to an unqualified person to teach Democrats a lesson.

So how should Deomcrats treat Republicans over Merrick Garland? He by all accounts was a highly qualified judge who didnt break the law or lie under oath. Arguably more respected than Kavanaugh...

Republicans didnt even give him a vote. So how angry are you about Republicans? I assume much more angry because Kavanaugh at least got a vote even though he likely committed a felony.

Garland got nothing.

Oh yeah you just care about your team, you dont care about a potential felon being a Supreme Court justice.

/shrugs

 

Thats why no one takes your argument seriously.

[wrathofhahn]

BREAKING: Fox’s @johnrobertsFox obtains letter from Ford ex-boyfriend alleging: dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits. Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”. pic.twitter.com/jVeW0qaJD0

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 3, 2018

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can confirm all of this.

The Daily Wire has also been told that there is potentially a *second* witness who can corroborate the claims made by Ford's ex-boyfriend. https://t.co/jZ9UgP442W

— Ryan Saavedra ?? (@RealSaavedra) October 3, 2018

Well that fell apart quickly looks like multiple cases of perjury by Dr Ford.

Edited October 3, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Soxbadger]

27 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well that fell apart quickly looks like multiple cases of perjury by Dr Ford.

Tell me how this exonerates Kavanaugh from lying under oath.

Oh wait it doesnt. My argument against Kavanaugh doesnt rely on Ford, so its interesting you keep bringing her up but failing to address the real issue which is Kavanaugh's testimony. 

How many posts can you make where you avoid the issue of Kavanaugh's perjury?

Edited October 3, 2018 by Soxbadger

[wrathofhahn]

26 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Tell me how this exonerates Kavanaugh from lying under oath.

Oh wait it doesnt. My argument against Kavanaugh doesnt rely on Ford, so its interesting you keep bringimg her up but failing to address the real issue which is Kavanaugh's testimony. 

How many posts can you make wherenyou avoid the issue of Kavanaugh's perjury?

I've already stated my thinking on this and the national review wrote a great article that summed up my thoughts in a more concise manner. I honestly don't think Brett lied about his drinking he admitted he liked to drink and at times when he had too much to drink going off somewhere and sleeping it off. What more is there to admit to? I don't even understand really where the democrats are going with that one.

As far as the yearbook goes I do think he wasn't honest about what the terms meant but it's very hard to prove perjury on slang and some of the stuff he said was not true at the time and was more braggadocios like his entry for Racheal who he never had sexual relations with you'd basically have to prove he used slang (which by definition has no agreed upon meaning) to lie then lied about for it to be perjury so good luck there. To answer your question no I'm not concerned about it because it has nothing to do with the allegation and the questions were designed by democrats to embarrass him and his family to score cheap political points based on his language as a 15-17 year old.

My main consideration did he lie about the case like where he was and who he met with with. Could he for example  be placed in the room with Ford? If so then I'd be done with him. Are any of the other allegations true (doesn't appear so)? The other stuff is background noise from desperate dems seeking to move the goalposts on questions they never should have asked in the first place.

Edited October 3, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Soxbadger]

7 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

I've already stated my thinking on this and the national review wrote a great article that summed up my thoughts in a more concise manner. I honestly don't think Brett lied about his drinking he admitted he liked to drink and at times when he had too much to drink going off somewhere and sleeping it off. What more is there to admit to? I don't even understand really where the democrats are going with that one.

As far as the yearbook goes I do think he wasn't honest about what the terms meant but it's very hard to prove perjury on slang and some of the stuff he said was not true at the time and was more braggadocios like his entry for Racheal who he never had sexual relations with you'd basically have to prove he used slang (which by definition has no agreed upon meaning) to lie then lied about for it to be perjury so good luck there. To answer your question no I'm not concerned about it because it has nothing to do with the allegation and the questions were designed by democrats to embarrass him and his family to score cheap political points based on his language as a 15-17 year old.

My main consideration did he lie about the case like where he was and who he met with with. Could he for example  be placed in the room with Ford? If so then I'd be done with him. Are any of the other allegations true (doesn't appear so)? The other stuff is background noise from desperate dems seeking to move the goalposts on questions they never should have asked in the first place.

I think the goal posts for a judge have always been being honest under oath.

Maybe that isnt something you care about, but to me its a really low bar.

/shrugs

There are plenty of conservative judges who dont lie. But if Republicans are fine with perjury, that's their call. If roles were reversed id say the Democrat nominee should step down. Supreme Court Justice should be about the law, not the teams.

If they cant follow the law, then they shouldn't be a Justice.

Again feel free to disagree, its the Republican parties character who is at stake. 

[Reddy]

46 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

I've already stated my thinking on this and the national review wrote a great article that summed up my thoughts in a more concise manner. I honestly don't think Brett lied about his drinking he admitted he liked to drink and at times when he had too much to drink going off somewhere and sleeping it off. What more is there to admit to? I don't even understand really where the democrats are going with that one.

As far as the yearbook goes I do think he wasn't honest about what the terms meant but it's very hard to prove perjury on slang and some of the stuff he said was not true at the time and was more braggadocios like his entry for Racheal who he never had sexual relations with you'd basically have to prove he used slang (which by definition has no agreed upon meaning) to lie then lied about for it to be perjury so good luck there. To answer your question no I'm not concerned about it because it has nothing to do with the allegation and the questions were designed by democrats to embarrass him and his family to score cheap political points based on his language as a 15-17 year old.

My main consideration did he lie about the case like where he was and who he met with with. Could he for example  be placed in the room with Ford? If so then I'd be done with him. Are any of the other allegations true (doesn't appear so)? The other stuff is background noise from desperate dems seeking to move the goalposts on questions they never should have asked in the first place.

can you refer to a source that isn't the Daily Wire or the National Review? C'mon man.

[Dick Allen]

10 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

I've already stated my thinking on this and the national review wrote a great article that summed up my thoughts in a more concise manner. I honestly don't think Brett lied about his drinking he admitted he liked to drink and at times when he had too much to drink going off somewhere and sleeping it off. What more is there to admit to? I don't even understand really where the democrats are going with that one.

As far as the yearbook goes I do think he wasn't honest about what the terms meant but it's very hard to prove perjury on slang and some of the stuff he said was not true at the time and was more braggadocios like his entry for Racheal who he never had sexual relations with you'd basically have to prove he used slang (which by definition has no agreed upon meaning) to lie then lied about for it to be perjury so good luck there. To answer your question no I'm not concerned about it because it has nothing to do with the allegation and the questions were designed by democrats to embarrass him and his family to score cheap political points based on his language as a 15-17 year old.

My main consideration did he lie about the case like where he was and who he met with with. Could he for example  be placed in the room with Ford? If so then I'd be done with him. Are any of the other allegations true (doesn't appear so)? The other stuff is background noise from desperate dems seeking to move the goalposts on questions they never should have asked in the first place.

It's not hard to prove. And yet another lie was uncovered last night when a letter he wrote was signed Bart. Remember when Leahy asked him if he was Bart? He had no idea. At the very least he was trying to deceive, not exactly what you are looking for in a Supreme Court candidate. The guy can't tell the truth. It isn't the first time he lied either. He's been lying to the Senate since 2004. It's time to finally put a foot down and call him out.

 

McConnell wants a vote on this as quickly as possible, not because of the FBI probe, the fix was in on that one, but what is being uncovered by the media on a daily basis. The FBI knows the investigation is a farce and is very concerned about it. They know when Dems take over the House, an investigation about the investigation will be called. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Dick Allen

[wrathofhahn]

41 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

It's not hard to prove. And yet another lie was uncovered last night when a letter he wrote was signed Bart. Remember when Leahy asked him if he was Bart? He had no idea. At the very least he was trying to deceive, not exactly what you are looking for in a Supreme Court candidate. The guy can't tell the truth. It isn't the first time he lied either. He's been lying to the Senate since 2004. It's time to finally put a foot down and call him out.

 

McConnell wants a vote on this as quickly as possible, not because of the FBI probe, the fix was in on that one, but what is being uncovered by the media on a daily basis. The FBI knows the investigation is a farce and is very concerned about it. They know when Dems take over the House, an investigation about the investigation will be called. 

If the circumstances were different I might take have that same viewpoint but Kavanaugh was smeared by the democrats and those questions were only designed to smear him further and embarrass him in front of the nation and his family based on what he said as 15-17 year old. They are not pertinent at all to the allegations made by Dr Ford.

I'm also more then willing for further investigations into this I hope it happens. The more this has been investigated the more it stinks and the more her story has fallen apart. She's already proven to have lied about the flying which you can sort of write off as a white lie but she's also proven to lied about her double door and possibly about her claims from the polygraph.

Those two are central to her claim.

I also don't believe her beach friend story at all if the Dems want to investigate further let them these allegations are garbage which is why they've already started to move the goalposts from the allegations to his temperament, partisanship. and a bunch of slang from his yearbook. In fact DIFI said the other day she doesn't want the results of the FBI investigation released to the public. Huh, I wonder why?

[pettie4sox]

I understand he shtick of riling up his base but what Trump did that that rally was absolutely repulsive.

[Kyyle23]

2 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

I understand he shtick of riling up his base but what Trump did that that rally was absolutely repulsive.

well, he is a piece of shit. 

[pettie4sox]

5 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

well, he is a piece of shit. 

Would a real GOP senator please stand up?  You idiots are going to lose power for YEARS TO COME!

[Dick Allen]

What do you expect from an admitted sexual assaulter? He really is scum of the earth. As a nation, we should all be embarrassed he is in the position he is in. 

[Dick Allen]

Just now, pettie4sox said:

Would a real GOP senator please stand up?  

Of course not. 

[pettie4sox]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

What do you expect from an admitted sexual assaulter? He really is scum of the earth. As a nation, we should all be embarrassed he is in the position he is in. 

It makes me sick to my stomach this man is president.

[Kyyle23]

4 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

Would a real GOP senator please stand up?  You idiots are going to lose power for YEARS TO COME!

well Flake said Trumps rally comments were appalling right before he confirms Kavanaugh and votes for everything along with trump

[Kyyle23]

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

We've said this over and over again, but based on the NYT piece that came out yesterday about his finances, we really all look back on this in 10 years and say "How did America get scammed like this?" Most of us have already been saying that since 2016, but I really hope it becomes more obvious to people. 

from the get, this was a grift