How will Brett Kavanugh defend himself against 3 allegations?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 53 discussions (385 posts)
  1. dianetrotter profile image67
    dianetrotterposted 2 years ago

    Did the Senate Judiciary Committee know about the allegations all along?  Were they buried in the reports Democrats continued to ask for?  Will this be 3 more mulligans?

    1. dianetrotter profile image67
      dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Did anyone read what FFFFFourth of July means? 


      https://hubstatic.com/14221692.jpg

      1. dianetrotter profile image67
        dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Should Trump select someone else or forge ahead?

        Brett Kavanaugh’s Yale Fraternity Hoisted A Flag Made Of Women’s Underwear In 1985   https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ka … 5f8f9b7ba9

        If not true, can people be sued for libel?


        Truth and Courage Secret Society Also Referred to as ‘Tit & Clit https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/truth-co … -tit-clit/

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Why select anyone else?  People like you will deny any good in anyone Trump suggests, simply because he suggests it.

          1. dianetrotter profile image67
            dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You say that based on?  I had no problem with Gorsuch.  I challenge you to find any neative comment I made on him here or anywhere.

            Who are people like me?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Well, that seems to be the way it goes, doesn't it?  For instance, you want to speak of yourself - which of Trump's choices/plans/actions have you celebrated as being "good"?

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          There is a photo of some from Brett's fraternity holding a flag of bra's. Should this reflect on him? He was not in the photo?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Obviously it should - it aids in denigrating a Trump nominee and that is sufficient to say anything at all.  True or not, if it aids in harming our President it will be done.

          2. dianetrotter profile image67
            dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Did you see thee one about the Tit and Clit club.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I think we should wait and hear both parties on Thursday. It's hard o know who is being truthful, this includes the media. The timing is suspect, and I wish Feinstein would have taken the allegation to the FBI when they were still investigating this man. This should never have been used for a political club. One of these people is not being truthful, and the other is going to be crucified. Just not right. The Dems should have been fair, but they weren't.  They seem to never to never realize there dirty politicking is no longer accepted by many. This is one of the reasons Trump won.

              1. The0NatureBoy profile image57
                The0NatureBoyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I believe that is why the Dems wanted to delay the process until they could have gone through the mountain of documents they were given the night before the process was supposed to begin, some body must have known something that the Reps didn't want out before the confirmation was over.

                When anyone in congress know something and ignore it, like how Congressboys molested teenage PageBoys during the 1960s and 70s I know of, they are in violation of their oath of office. That is probably why some person, I've forgotten his name, used to threaten many Reps in the early 2000s.

    2. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You know Diane, it rubs me the wrong way to hold something against a man for something done as a teenage minor. I would not want to be judged today for something that I did, not a capital crime, when I was 16.

      But, as I see a pattern of behavior for Mr. Kavenaugh that is consistent and has continued into his adulthood, I have reason to be concerned about a mirror image of Roy Moore of Alabama.

      That does not bode well for his confirmation.....

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        What have I missed Cred? What patterns of  behavior have continued in adulthood?

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I was in error, GA, I should have said IF it is revealed that Mr. Kavanaugh have had sexually inappropriate behavior as an adult, he should be held accountable.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Do you mean if the revelation is proven true in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt?  Because it is already revealed...if one takes the word of the alleged victim as truth.

            Or do you mean if the revelation is believed by the mob?

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Let's not be bitter, Wilderness. The "mob" does not have the power to derail the confirmation, you better look at your own GOP buddies in Congress to do that.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                LOL  Of course the mob can derail the confirmation.  Ruin a man's life, too.

                But you didn't answer the question: is word against word good enough for you?  It IS, after all, a Trump nominee - does that mean legal proof is not necessary to assign guilt?

                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  How do you mean word against word? If the lady's testimony in of itself is without credible evidence to corroborate her story or there is not evidence supporting a pattern of behavior that has occurred more often than once, than word against word would not be enough to make the lady's case

                  As I said,I am not keen on Trump, but if I bring him or his nominees down, it will be according the legal system and rules of acceptable evidence, not partisan tricks. I got many reasons to oppose Cavenaugh for his conservative judicial perspective, but I won't railroad the man just for that.

                  1. Jean Bakula profile image97
                    Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    There are three women now. The R tactic is to make them look "nutty and slutty." This was the tactic they used on Anita Hill all those years ago. And I thought slut shaming was so over.

                    I think these women need credible proof, as much as I dislike Kavanaugh. But there needs to be time for a court investigation then, and Trump can't ram this nomination through by Friday, the day after the first woman is heard. And I don't know if Congress is the right place for her to be questioned.

                    From what I've read so far, the first woman seems like she doesn't recall a lot of detail. If something really bad happens to you, don't you remember it in such detail you wish you COULD forget it? I don't like seeing all these men railroaded. It's going to ruin male and female relationships for a long time.

          2. dianetrotter profile image67
            dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Avenatti's client will be revealed in 48 hours.  Her accusation is about behavior over years.  She is evidently a government employee who has been vetted by the FBI for multiple positions.

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks Diane, we will watch and see.

      2. dianetrotter profile image67
        dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, initially, I assumed it was a teen thing where friends got together.  It's interesting that it was called a party with 6 or 7 people there.  When I had parties, they were SRO.  In college, we drank cheap wine and played BS.  I never got drunk nor was I taken advantage of.

        Ladies seem to be coming out of the woodwork now.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          That would be cause for some suspicion as to the timing and motive.

      3. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Just what behavior? This man has led an exemplary life. 65 women that he has worked with over many tears at different intervals supporting his good character. He has been a good family man and husband to one woman, he is well known in his community for being a charitable Christian. I find your comment  Why do you feel it necessary to make such a  statement. My God this man has denied this allegation. There is not one bit of proof that he did anything to this woman. Yet you feel emboldened to openly attack his character. Please provide an insolent to back your comment in regards to the Kavanaugh's behavior as an adult where he accosted any women.  Just this evening Ford as well as the other woman that accused him have said they will not attend the hearing.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          As I told GA, I should have said IF, that was a oversight on my part, nothing has been proven yet.

      4. The0NatureBoy profile image57
        The0NatureBoyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Credence,
        The "Yale Fraternity" was NOT his teenage years, he was a young adult and should have known better by then. He was old enough to enter the military had he want to so he was supposed to be responsible by that time.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I was refering to more about the charges against him while he was in high school as a minor.

          1. The0NatureBoy profile image57
            The0NatureBoyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            It is probable the Reps will override the Dems and want to install him anyway. Absolutely no one with that kind of blemish in their life should be in any governing role, especially as a tribunal.

            When the Son of Man takes the presidential seat I am sure he will know some means of eliminating him from his Justice position if he does get the confirmation. Per Daniel 4's prophecy now that Trump, the 43rd president sense Adams served two different terms and Harrison only 31 days without doing any service, is working on "putting military in space" and colonizing Mars he has declared it is now time for the world to come to an end. That is all we are waiting for other than the "Son of Man's" suddenly entering the White House (Malachi 3:1).

    3. dianetrotter profile image67
      dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Why can't Judge just volunteer to testify or take a lie detector test?   Get it over with!     
      1. HOLED UP
      Kavanaugh Ally Mark Judge Found Holed Up at Delaware Beach

      Mark Judge—the man who’s been named as the only witness to an alleged high-school sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh—has been tracked down to a Delaware beach house. Judge went into hiding as the Kavanaugh scandal deepened last week, but The Washington Post found him holed up in the house of a longtime friend in Bethany Beach. Republicans have so far resisted calls from Democratic lawmakers and accuser Christine Blasey Ford to summon him before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge refused to talk about the Kavanaugh case, simply asking the reporter: “How’d you find me?” Barbara VanGelder, Judge’s lawyer, said she instructed her client to leave the D.C. area last week because the “unbelievable stress” of the situation. Ford claims Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed at a high-school party and groped her as Judge looked on.

    4. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Dianne Feinstein was given the letter in July. You ask the question "Did the Senate Judiciary Committee know about the allegations all along?  " Well, it is possible they knew since July.  Feinstein had a private meeting with Brett Kavanugh. It would seem she could have brought it up with him at that time or the following days after. It seems as if she was concerned about the allegation and felt it needed investigation by the FBI as she claims now, she could have given the information to the FBI. This would have been the prudent way of handling such a serious claim. As it appears now, this was held an the 11th-hour cheap ploy and has very little to really do with the serious or Fords charge.  It will be very interesting to hear both sides of the story on Thursday. I don't think the other two charges will even be considered. Neither have any evidence to prove their allegations, as did Ford...

    5. dianetrotter profile image67
      dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Kavanaugh supporter did commercial for him.  Then found out she was in the yearbook!

      New York Times: Woman who signed letter supporting Kavanaugh calls yearbook revelation 'hurtful'
      Anchor Muted Background
      By Kate Sullivan, CNN

      Updated 1:37 PM ET, Tue September 25, 2018
      https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics … index.html

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I found the article vague?  I did not actually say who added this derogatory statements about Renate?  It did say a photo in the yearbook of the football team had the statement.  I m not comfortable blaming this on Kavanaugh. After all, this woman did a commercial vouching for the judge, was she being dishonest?  It appears once again the NYT published a story out of context.  It's very misleading.

        1. dianetrotter profile image67
          dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I forgot that not everyone is watching Twitter and other sources I look at.  A group of the guys wrote, as part of their own vita, about their conquests.  The statements were part of the typeset because the guys wrote what they wanted to go next to their pictures.

          Brett Kavanaugh and Friends Boasted About Their Alleged Conquests in Georgetown Prep Yearbook

          Sophie Weiner

          https://splinternews.com/brett-kavanaug … 1829285898

    6. profile image0
      promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The third woman's name just came out. It's a much more serious allegation.

      It's he said versus she said when there is only one witness claiming something.

      When three people make the claim and put their names and faces into the public for the kind of abuse they are getting, it's getter harder to imagine that Kavanaugh is telling the truth.

      https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael … tnick.html

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I think each case should be looked at individually. Very odd none can bring forth evidence? This new claim should be able to bring forth witnesses to her claims. She may well have some proof. I must say, and this may sound odd, I hope she can prove her claims. Otherwise, this does not bode well for Dems. It is stacking up to look like a well-planned scam. Not sure who to believe at this point. Facts are not there as of yet to condemn this man.  My common sense tells me, Kavanaugh, should not be confirmed until this new allegation is well investigated. Rape is such a serious crime. Yet Kavanaugh should have the right to defend himself. But, it should be done before they take a vote to confirm him.

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
          JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Sharlee01, why do you keep repeating the same falsehood that there is no evidence and where is Brett's polygraph results to compare with the first alleged victims results which indicates she's telling the truth?

          Yeah, we might get Brett's polygraph about the same time we get Bozo Trump's tax returns right? NEVER, but it really doesn't matter now because 'beattie eyes' Brett is GONE:

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Jake just because this man has not taken a lie detector test makes him guilty nor does the fact that he has not taken such a test count as evidence. As of yet, Ford will not produce the results of her test to Congress, so her just saying she took a test does not add any weight to her claim. You need to perhaps stop and think with logic. There is as of yet any evidence of any form of crime. There may be evidence presented tomorrow, but as of yet it's all just reports from media.

        2. profile image0
          promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Do you know anyone who was ever gang raped? I do. The horrendous trauma is enough to destroy them for life.

          For any gang rape victims to go public in front of the entire nation with their names and experiences takes enormous effort and a terrible personal toll.

          It is beyond belief that three women (so far) would do such a thing as part of a scam, possibly ruin their reputations and cause tremendous stress for their loved ones.

          Witnesses? Gang rapers don't act in front of witnesses for obvious reasons. When three women say the same thing, it's corroboration.

          Democrats? They are getting the benefit once again of women who are tired of Republicans dismissing rape and sexual assault.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            T republicans have not dismissed these claims, on the contrary, they are taking it very seriously. Although, no one should be called quilty before an allegation is proven. This is something the Dems have been doing all week. Yes, I have come to know rape victims in my career. I am a Registered Nurse and spent many years in an ER. I am not willing in any respect to take sides and crucify anyone before we hear from both sides. I will not read into the situation other than say so far I have seen no evidence of any form that can be substantiated by anyone of the accusers.  I would assume the latest must-have others that will back her story? I must ask also why did this woman attend 10 parties where she felt gang rape was occurring? She also does not place the judge as her rapists.

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I agree someone is innocent until proven guilty. I also agree we should hear from both sides, although we already have heard quite a bit.

              My point remains that three witnesses willing to testify in front of Congress and the entire nation is a much stronger case against Kavanaugh than just one.

              I don't see how you can make a rape victim substantiate a rape from decades ago other than with witnesses, which we now are hearing from.

              I don't read anywhere that the latest woman knew gang rapes were taking place until after she attended a party where one occurred.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "I don't see how you can make a rape victim substantiate a rape from decades ago other than with witnesses, which we now are hearing from."

                "I don't read anywhere that the latest woman knew gang rapes were taking place until after she attended a party where one occurred."

                One could say how one can accuse a man of rape, and the burden of proof should be on him? In either case, the burden of proof is evidence. I do not even consider due to 3 coming forth means anything if none of them can come up with proof. There may be more, hopefully, if there are one will have proof.

                The statement she signed tells of her attending 10 parties where this sort of rape was occurring. She also said at one of these such party she was raped.
                CNN - "Swetnick, who attended Gaithersburg High School in Maryland, says she attended "well over ten" parties where Kavanaugh was present.". Please see link below with Ms. Swetnick's legal declaration. She clearly submits that she attended 10 parties where these rapes occurred. (note statement # 7)

                https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/ … ugh-sexual


                https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics … index.html

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I would like you to address my point about why these three women would:

                  1. Have their names and photos plastered nationwide.

                  2. Get subjected to enormous verbal abuse (including getting called drunken liars by the nation's President).

                  3. Probably get threatened with violence.

                  4. Possibly damage their reputations.

                  5. Offer to testify before Congress and get drilled by prosecutors on national TV who are trying to prove them wrong in front of the entire country.

                  All for the sake of lying about Kavanaugh?

                  I also would like you to explain as a nurse how a rape victim can prove a rape weeks, months or years after the fact.

                  She did not say in #7 that gang rapes took place at 10 parties she attended. She said she saw "overly aggressive" behavior and "fondling".

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "I also would like you to explain as a nurse how a rape victim can prove a rape weeks, months or years after the fact."

                    They can't... The only way they can verify the rape if they don't speak up when it occurs is to try to prove it happened with memories. Like the place it happened, the day it happened or year it happened.  Perhaps a person that could verify they were also at the location with them when the sexual abuse occurred. Produce a person that she shared her story with. Can she remember something about the rapist's appearance, a tattoo, a scar,   If there is no evidence such as I listed, there would be no way to really prove the rape. Do I think a man's life should be ruined without some form of proof? NO, I don't.  It very much seems to me that one of these now four women should have some form of evidence. One thing they have all claimed the sexual misconduct happened in public with many others present. Someone should be able to verify at least one of these women's claims.  I was more persuaded by Fords claim. However, now with more women stepping up with the same kind of story and no evidence. This seems like a scam. You ask why a woman would put herself through all of this?  That is yet to be determined. Once again we are talking about a grand scandal,  and once again there is nothing to back up this grand scandal... 

                    "Offer to testify before Congress and get drilled by prosecutors on national TV who are trying to prove them wrong in front of the entire country."   Ford had the choice of being questioned in her home or any location of her choice. She chose an open setting. And in regards to all the rest of your questions. These women will not be ruined, they will be revered by their liberal counterparts. Kavenough and his wife have also received death threats.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    You know the answer as well as anyone else in the country.  Without doing those things there will be no negative feelings towards Kavanaugh, and through him, Trump.  Without those things, Trump may well assign a SCOTUS judge.  Without those things, the Republican party will get their choice onto the bench.

                    Without those things Democrats don't stand a chance of preventing Kavanaugh from sitting on the Supreme Court.  And that's all the reason they need.

            2. Jean Bakula profile image97
              Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The culture of having all boys and all girls schools encourages this kind of behavior. All week long these young people don't interact with each other, so they don't know each other in an intellectual or social way. But they have parties or mixers or whatever you call them together, and this sort of thing happens. Kavanaugh may simply not remember a victim because she was being held down in a dark room with loud music playing, and never looked at her face. It's the only social life available, unless you want to sit in your dorm room alone. These parties are encouraged by the administrations of the colleges.

              Also, people keep saying we can't keep blaming these sexual incidences on "it was the 70s" or "it was the 80s". But I maintain we can. The culture of shame was high then for any girl or woman who came forward.

              Remember the movie Animal House? That wouldn't even be released now..

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Jean, it would have been best for the President to have kept his mouth shut during these proceedings. He referred to at least one of the women as totally inebriated and "out of control". Also, he had lamented from his position last week of being willing to hear Ford out to one where he now would have preferred that Kavenaugh's confirmation were "rammed through" without all of the nicety of listening to the women's testimony first.

                https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-k … 28091.html

                1. Jean Bakula profile image97
                  Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Hi Credence2,
                  Yes, I knew Trump already said disparaging things about the first woman without knowing any facts. Of course, he is a known sexual predator himself.  He doesn't see anything wrong with misogynist behavior, nor do the people he has surrounding him.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                A fourth woman has stepped up this evening and claimed in 1996 she dated him an he got sexual aggression on a date pushing her up against a wall. It certainly appears he may very well have a past of being sexually aggressive at best. I will stick with my prior opinion the judge should not be voted on until all these allegations are investigated. He should have a chance to defend himself, but one way or the other this man's career has been ruined.  And yes in the 70's as well as 80's and beyond women were more likely to be shamed by men and women as well if they came forward with sexual abuse claims. Just think of what the women that accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. Jean, we live and learn, and a woman should always have the benefit of being heard, and treated with kindness and respect when they come forward with any complaint of sexual misconduct.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image87
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this



            Sadly, I find it highly probable that 3, or 4, or more women would come forward with such claims if they believed firmly enough in the politics of the matter.  And unfortunately, precedent has already been set where more than one woman have come forth in previous political races and made sexual misconduct (not always rape) claims, that later have been proven false, fabricated, or unsubstantiated.

            In this particular matter, whether these allegations are true, or not... what I have a major issue with, is the Democrat politicians held onto these charges/accusations until the very last minute.

            Only at the last minute, and only when it could be politicized to their best advantage, did they come forward with these allegations, and then, as in past efforts made in previous political races... it is a drip, drip, drip, one, then another... couldn't be more perfectly planned for ultimate political advantage and future voting capital.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              We have seen one person, and heard claims of many more, that pretended to be honest, loyal and helpful to the President while doing everything they could to wreck his plans...because it was the "right" thing to do for the country.

              Is there so much difference between that and a woman lying about sexual assault...because it is the "right" thing to do for the country?

    7. ziyena profile image96
      ziyenaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      As a survivor of attempted murder by a man who abused me in every way, I can understand the reasoning for how some victims of violence hold off telling anyone for years either because of fear or embarrassment.  It took me twelve years to fight back and see through the prosecution of a spouse who received 24 years to life.  My father once told me during that horrible time I was married to a narcissistic psychopath that one day I would have to make a decision to save my life, and I did. 

      Dr. Ford is brave for coming forward, and if she feels the need to make sure that it is known that Kavanaugh may not be fit to serve the bench where he himself will preside over the most important rule of the law in this great land, then I commend her to the core.  However, I believe in a fair justice.  Judge Kavanaugh should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.  His life by mere suggestion has been ruined.  Even though he is not on trial.  If he is voted for confirmation by the panel, he will still deal with this for rest of his life.  The way this has played out seems very unfair and should have been dealt with in a more discreet matter.  It's a damned circus and truthfully, as a victim who has been in the court system for two years dealing with provocative and embarrassing testimonies - this should not have been nationally televised due to the sensitive topic.  We all could have easily read about their testimonies in the paper ... it's all sensationalism nowadays and nothing is sacred anymore.  I feel sorry for both of these people given I do not know the truth, nor do any of us at this time.  We should hold our judgments until then.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        As you say, "innocent until proven guilty".  But it's not about guilt - we heard over and over that "This is not a courtroom".  It's about political expediency, it's about how much mud can be thrown, it's about retaining political at the cost of innocent lives. 

        Kavanaugh is paying the price, for as was pointed out several times there was plenty of time to bring this information forward (it was given to Feinstein weeks before this hearing) AND conduct an FBI investigation into it.  There was zero reason to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation outside of a Democratic desire to delay his confirmation as long as possible.  Disgusting, despicable and indicative of what politics has become in our country.

        But I disagree it should not have televised; I have never witnessed nor hear of as powerful a speech in the workings of Congress.  We the people need to understand what is going on behind those doors - we need to see just how our government works.  We saw and it wasn't pretty.

      2. profile image0
        promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Wisely said, and I couldn't agree more. It's unfortunate that your wisdom about these matters had to come the hard way.

  2. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    Or are they perhaps just the recall of drunken memory phases where in an alcoholic or chemical addled haze  the human mind conjures up it's own memories of falling down teen -age drunks or frat parties rife with drugs and binge drinking, beer- bong  games , AS is fully admitted by one of this  woman Deborah Ramires ?

    I'll say one thing ,Women across America are not only beginning to lose the serious interest in #Metoo from males and our news media  but even the real women that I talk to about these allegations just roll there eyes , shake their heads and comment at the outright phoniness .

    So much for the seriousness of womens tights , the media and our societal belief in how important these rights  are [were }.

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
      JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The only person who looks 'drunk' in this appalling situation in which an alleged sexual assaulter sitting in our oval office actually had the insane notion of nominating an alleged rapist to OUR supreme court is have baked republican disgrace Lindsey Graham:

  3. RJ Schwartz profile image88
    RJ Schwartzposted 2 years ago

    Allegations are meaningless- where is the evidence?

    Next you’ll expect me to believe a boy is a girl just because he put on a dress.....

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
      JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That's why we typically conduct investigations and adjudication of these egregious alleged violent crimes:

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Investigate" all you want...on your dime.  Don't waste my time and money on a 30 year old claim without any substantiating evidence.  It's a common reaction of DA's when claims that cannot be proven are submitted to them; a return to J Edgar Hoover's FBI, when anyone he didn't like was "investigated" until their life was ruined is not something we wish to see.

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
          JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          lol, 'don't waste my time and money', now that's a hillbilly hoot if I've ever heard one:

          Just FYI: Bozo Trump and complicit republicans just wasted trillions of our dollars on a massive socialist corporate welfare tax cut scheme which only made the rich richer and poor poorer: Your concern for our dollars is nothing less than precious:

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Can you define what a "welfare tax cut scheme" is?  Do you mean when you allow people to keep what they earned instead of confiscating it for your own use, as if it belong to you?  The tax cut that left a large majority of people, rich, poor and in between, with more of their pay check?  That "welfare" scheme?

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
              JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              In a democracy where a gigantic country such as the United States must be maintained, 'confiscation' of funds via taxes is an absolute necessity: The only question is who do you tax at a higher rate to pay for said maintenance, corporations who already hoard trillions of our money in foreign lands, or Americans who can't afford it? I think the answer is clear:

              'Corporate Welfare' is really the only way to define a massive unnecessary tax cut to Wall Street which Bozo Trump and his republican accomplices did just months ago: It was gross and obscene, so now CEOS can box up MORE of our cash and ship it  offshore to foreing countries which don't have our best interests in mind"

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                No, the only real question(s) are how much do we need, how much do we take and who do we take it from.

                We need half what we take
                We take twice what we need
                we take it from people we dislike because they are more successful or politically weaker than we are. 

                You do not own what others have built.  No matter how much you think you DO own the entire wealth of the country, you do not.

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Your first sentence is absolutely correct:

                  We don't take money in the form of taxes because we dislike them, we take more in taxes because they can afford it:

                  Actually, we do own what others have built because the worker built it: Yes we as Americans do own the collective wealth:

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    A good socialist response: I own whatever your have built.  You go right on with that, but for me, I believe in ownership outside the wonderful mob of dictators and other political VIP's.  I own what I have produced, not you - to pretend otherwise is about as immoral act as can be done, second only to physical harm and likely doing more damage to a society (as opposed to an individual) than any other unethical or immoral behavior.

  4. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14221913.jpg

    Things are simple for me. If Democrats are saying a thing, I know that thing is a lie.

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
      JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days"



      https://hubstatic.com/14221939.jpg

      Yeah, and this clown is the epitome of honesty and integrity:

      "President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days"

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac … c7f7d74117

    2. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The state of America today... if the Democrats say someone is a rapist or a racist, this is considered fact by their 'collective' media and leadership (and hence by most who identify as Dem).

      Whether it is a former Judge in Alabama running for the Senate seat, or a Supreme Court nominee, the current trend is someone coming out of the woodworks from 30, 40 years ago to accuse them of sexual misconduct of some sort...

      Unprovable of course, without evidence that would stand any scrutiny, but the accusations are enough to sway the election or the confirmation.

      Welcome to America in the 21st century, where a man will be found guilty in the court of public opinion, and no evidence be necessary to derail a career or reputation.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        It is absolutely repulsive.

        On the up side of the democrats down, we may very well get to see that party die. I mean die. Dead and gone.

        Of course political parties have died in the USA before, and I can't think of anything the Democrats deserve more than to see their political party become another corpse party in the history of our nation.

        That would be real progress. I'm progressive! smile


        https://hubstatic.com/14223123.jpg

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
          JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Well Wesman, in the real world the republican party is rapidly shrinking due to death of elderly, under educated white guys and or course abandonment by those who are younger and still have a few brains and morals left and of course the rapidly expanding Dems are winning special elections in very red districts so that's not good news for the GOP which is at war with our healthcare system, and desperately tying to put an alleged attempted rapist on our supreme court:

          Always remember regardless of what the immoral party of the devil conservatives say, they will always fight for the filthy rich leaving the rest of the country behind:

          1. Jean Bakula profile image97
            Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I agree that these alleged sexual abuse cases should not be fought in the court of public opinion. Too many mean are having their careers ruined by women coming forward 35 yrs. after the fact.

            But the reality is Trump wants Kavanaugh on the court because he wants to overturn Roe V Wade, and has publicly stated he believes Trump can pardon himself when he is found guilty. Do you really believe this unbalanced POTUS is above the law?

  5. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    The "story " becomes more and more embellished  the more  time that it spends here in hubpage forums .   As it seems liberals here especially are so liberal  that they can beg ,borrow and steal more detail to make the allegations stand out in the story , you know , might as well create a dialog to your liking ?       These charges are 35 -40 years old and IF they are anywhere near the truth ; Who really believes that Prof. Ford is just now growing a conscience , JUST NOW  deciding that she HAS to do something to stop a mad serial rapist ?   

    If this were true , she should have protected her fellow female classmates and the rest of women in humanity 40 years ago !
    LIke I said , IF this were true .

  6. Sylvia's Thoughts profile image82
    Sylvia's Thoughtsposted 2 years ago

    If there was no political agenda, why did Ford (and the others) take her complaint to politicians instead of law enforcement...35 years later...right before mid-term elections?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Because her handlers thought it would be more useful than a legal charge that was doomed to failure?

  7. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details parties where girls were drugged and raped

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoByX01XcAIt9er.jpg:large

    “I witnessed Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively and engage in highly inappropriate conduct, including being overly aggressive with girls and not taking ‘No’ for an answer. This conduct included the fondling and grabbing of girls without their consent,” Swetnick writes.

    “I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys ... These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh ... In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present,” she added.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/sta … 8730843136

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "Julie Swetnick details parties where girls were drugged and raped"

      Ms. Swetnick most definitely should be heard. If she is willing to go under oath, this certainly will stand as evidence of sexual abuse. This story has just broken. It will be very interesting to see how Congress handles it. I have no respect for Avenatti, but her claim should be investigated. It is vile and needs a good long look.

      1. Jean Bakula profile image97
        Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Sharlee01,
        While Ms. Ford was given opportunities to testify, they were all in the same week, during which she is not even living in her home because of death threats from right wing activists. She is testifying tomorrow, I believe.

        I was speaking of Anita Hill and the dismissive attitudes of women's allegations during the time of Clarence Thomas' nomination. Although times have slowly changed, women are still afraid to come forward about sexual abuse allegations. But I have a brother, son and nephews too, and realize how easily a lie about something this serious could hurt them.

        We aren't so far apart here, I'm still on the fence.

        Now someone else has been called in to question Ms. Ford so it doesn't get even more bipartisan. That's a good thing. And I don't know what Michael Avenatti is running for, he gets involved in everything lately.

        But now today things have changed. Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh admit to drinking too much at parties (not a crime, of course), but there are allegations they spiked punch with quaalude and gang raped women in college. So he's older in these stories, (and they could still be stories).

        I don't like the way he characterized himself as a virginal choirboy last week, and is now apologizing for binge drinking in college, omitting details about these college aged girls. His friend is in hiding. So it is looking worse.

        I felt nobody's HS years should be held against them. But we're in college years now. A person's character is formed by age 3. The Trump administration is very poor at vetting people, or doesn't vet them at all. It's run like the mob, all about loyalty to him.

        The first woman took a lie detector test and passed it. But they aren't admissible in court. Brett is obviously not the choirboy he's pretending to be, and the fact Mark Judge is hiding is rather damning.

        Everyone should be investigated before this nomination goes forward.

  8. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years ago

    Intelligent people know lie detector tests have no scientific value.

    "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.
    Findings
    Lie detector tests have become a popular cultural icon — from crime dramas to comedies to advertisements — the picture of a polygraph pen wildly gyrating on a moving chart is readily recognized symbol. But, as psychologist Leonard Saxe, PhD, (1991) has argued, the idea that we can detect a person's veracity by monitoring psychophysiological changes is more myth than reality. Even the term "lie detector," used to refer to polygraph testing, is a misnomer. So-called "lie detection" involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions.

    The instrument typically used to conduct polygraph tests consists of a physiological recorder that assesses three indicators of autonomic arousal: heart rate/blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity. Most examiners today use computerized recording systems. Rate and depth of respiration are measured by pneumographs wrapped around a subject's chest. Cardiovascular activity is assessed by a blood pressure cuff. Skin conductivity (called the galvanic skin or electrodermal response) is measured through electrodes attached to a subject's fingertips.

    The recording instrument and questioning techniques are only used during a part of the polygraph examination. A typical examination includes a pretest phase during which the technique is explained and each test question reviewed. The pretest interview is designed to ensure that subjects understand the questions and to induce a subject's concern about being deceptive. Polygraph examinations often include a procedure called a "stimulation test," which is a demonstration of the instrument's accuracy in detecting deception.

    Several questioning techniques are commonly used in polygraph tests. The most widely used test format for subjects in criminal incident investigations is the Control Question Test (CQT). The CQT compares responses to "relevant" questions (e.g., "Did you shoot your wife?"), with those of "control" questions. The control questions are designed to control for the effect of the generally threatening nature of relevant questions. Control questions concern misdeeds that are similar to those being investigated, but refer to the subject's past and are usually broad in scope; for example, "Have you ever betrayed anyone who trusted you?"

    A person who is telling the truth is assumed to fear control questions more than relevant questions. This is because control questions are designed to arouse a subject's concern about their past truthfulness, while relevant questions ask about a crime they know they did not commit. A pattern of greater physiological response to relevant questions than to control questions leads to a diagnosis of "deception." Greater response to control questions leads to a judgment of nondeception. If no difference is found between relevant and control questions, the test result is considered "inconclusive."

    An alternative polygraph procedure is called the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT). A GKT involves developing a multiple-choice test with items concerning knowledge that only a guilty subject could have. A test of a theft suspect might, for example, involve questions such as "Was $500, $1,000, or $5,000 stolen?" If only a guilty suspect knows the correct answer, a larger physiological reaction to a correct choice would indicate deception. With a sufficient number of items, a psychometrically sound evaluation could be developed. GKTs are not widely employed, but there is great interest in doing so. One limitation of the GKT is that it can be used only when investigators have information that only a guilty subject would know. The interpretation of "no deception" is also a potential limitation, since it may indicate lack of knowledge rather than innocence.

    The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.

    A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.

    Some confusion about polygraph test accuracy arises because they are used for different purposes, and for each context somewhat different theory and research is applicable. Thus, for example, virtually no research assesses the type of test and procedure used to screen individuals for jobs and security clearances. Most research has focused on specific incident testing. The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).

    Research on the processes involved in CQT polygraph examinations suggests that several examiner, examinee, and situational factors influence test validity, as may the technique used to score polygraph charts. There is little research on the effects of subjects' differences in such factors as education, intelligence, or level of autonomic arousal.

    Evidence indicates that strategies used to "beat" polygraph examinations, so-called countermeasures, may be effective. Countermeasures include simple physical movements, psychological interventions (e.g., manipulating subjects' beliefs about the test), and the use of pharmacological agents that alter arousal patterns.

    Despite the lack of good research validating polygraph tests, efforts are on-going to develop and assess new approaches. Some work involves use of additional autonomic physiologic indicators, such as cardiac output and skin temperature. Such measures, however, are more specific to deception than polygraph tests. Other researchers, such as Frank Andrew Kozel, MD, have examined functional brain imaging as a measure of deception. Dr. Kozel's research team found that for lying, compared with telling the truth, there is more activation in five brain regions (Kozel et al., 2004). However, the results do not currently support the use of fMRI to detect deception in real world individual cases.

    Significance & Practical Application
    Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to be used in non-judicial settings, often to screen personnel, but sometimes to try to assess the veracity of suspects and witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies and corporations.

    The development of currently used "lie detection" technologies has been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the most part, been independent of systematic psychological research. Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus, could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better theoretical understanding of the mechanisms by which deception functions, however, development of a lie detection technology seems highly problematic.

    For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."

    http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
      JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah right Wesman: Then why did the white house consider using polygraph tests to find the 'deep staters'?

      "Trump advisers discussed using lie-detector tests to find anonymous op-ed author: report"

      https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … -anonymous

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        According to you Trump is mentally defective and an idiot; would you expect such a person to hire advisers that are not?  Assuming, of course, that we believe yet another accuser that refuses to identify themselves...

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
          JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          No wilderness, you are simply wrong again about everything because according to me, Bozo Trump is in much worse psychological condition than 'mentally defective' he's a dangerous basket case who should have been removed from our white house long ago and by the way, all the accusers so far including the woman who made the shocking allegations this morning about MORE criminal activity in which Brett and his friend who is now in hiding, were involved in, have all identified themselves:

          "New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details parties where she says girls were drugged and raped"

          The lawyer Michael Avenatti on Wednesday identified another accuser of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh, Washington resident Julie Swetnick.

          Swetnick, in an affidavit posted online by Avenatti, claims that Kavanaugh, as a high school student in the early 1980s, with others spiked the drinks of girls at house parties with grain alcohol and/or drugs to "cause girls to lose inhibitions and their ability to say 'No.' "

          Swetnick said these efforts by Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge were done so the girls "could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys."

          https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael … tnick.html

        2. profile image0
          promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Actually, according to reasonable and observant people, he is an idiot and mentally defective.

  9. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    All irrefutable facts ;

    Dan Rather " We have unvaried proof of a five legged giraffe that was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh in a 1978 frat party ,   

    Meghan Kelly  Msnbc , "  In 1984 Brett Kavanaugh assaulted a pet Monkey  on the stairway  of the Fox News cafeteria room with Roger Ailes  help ".

    Joey Baer , The View  ,"In 1982  Kavanaugh assaulted my little puppy in the veterinarian's office while we waited for an teeth cleaning appointment ." 

    Wolf Blitzer CNN " Fact ,My pet Rhino was assaulted by Kavanaugh right before my eye's in the field behind our house , I think it was in 1985 "

    Michael Avinarte , " Kavanaugh assaulted Stormy Daniels too  as I watched from  the break room closet on Celebrity Apprentice in 1986 , "

    Mario Cuomo , " In 1980 Brett Kavanaugh Touched my pet monkey  inappropriately while we were watching Disney movies in my chambers  at the State House movie theatre "

    Vladimir Putin , " in 1981 Brett Kavanaugh assaulted me while I was installing electronic bugs in the DNC bathroom closets"

    Anyone with half a brain will see a obvious pattern by Brett Kavanaugh ,  He likes to hang out with news media circus acts , and the media itself likes to bring the circus to town every year just about this time  !

  10. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    The entire issue here And Democrats know this very well ,  is timing  and location of these- time sensitive allegations .  Democrats also know this is entirely a trial by televised popular opinion ,  they know extremely well that with all the legal ramifications aside , this is entirely political , Including Prof. Ford ........It's not difficult to ascertain motive .

    A Circus Act .

    1. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Simple way to resolve it. A thorough and objective investigation.

      1. profile image0
        promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Agreed. By the FBI.

        Interesting that Kavanaugh and the Republicans aren't insisting on it.

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Exactly. If I were accused of something I did not do. I'd be the one insisting on a thorough and objective investigation by the FBI.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Only if the Clintons were in power and on my side, or if I had other powerful Democrats "guiding" the investigation.

            But question: how long should we go without that last justice?  A year?  5 years?  10?  Liberal "investigations" seem to go on for however long it takes to kill the problem.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I have no idea how long such an investigation would take, neither do you. I don't think that's a sensible reason not to conduct an investigation though.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Given that the total purpose of such an investigation is to keep Kavanaugh out of office any such investigation will go on as long as Trump's opponents can push it. 

                Just as the "investigation" into "Russian collusion" has.  Now, you can deny that's what is happening, but the evidence (very obvious evidence) is not on your side.

                And, of course, the FBI has become a political weapon, currently being wielded by Democrats: that is sufficient reason not to subject myself to it as I pay no obeisance to the party.

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Fox News fantasy. It's absurd to think the conservative FBI is a tool that kisses the rear end of the Democrats.

                  And for the 10th time, the Russia investigation is not only about collusion.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    As we saw with Hillary's crime that the FBI advised not to prosecute.  Of course we heard yesterday (over and over) that the FBI does NOT advise, just collect data.  How does that work again?

                    And for the 20th time it was started as about collusion.  It has expanded at Democratic insistence to include every possible crime and every possible person.

                2. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  The purpose of such an investigation is to gather evidence in an effort to establish as many facts as possible and report those facts to the Committee.

                  If you have evidence that proves the FBI is entirely incapable of investigating this matter objectively, present it. If not, you're just speculating.

                3. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  you keep believing as if anyone Trump brings forth must be as pure as wind driven snow. Because of your belief, we are all to just defer to the word of Trump or Kavanaugh without any investigation into the charges?

                  I say lets do the appropriate investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

                  I can see quickly that you subscribe to all the silly conspiracy theories just because the GOP and Trump do not get what they want?

                  1. dianetrotter profile image67
                    dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I agree!!!

                  2. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "I say lets do the appropriate investigation and let the chips fall where they may."

                    Too bad the democrats didn't feel the same way when they got this information.

                    Come on Cred, tell me how you justify Feinstein's actions of withholding this information when there was time for an investigation - before her 11th hour disclosure.


                    GA

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Six times he's been investigated by the FBI.  Six times through the wringer.  But we suddenly need a 7th, on the eve of the vote, when the information has been available for weeks and weeks. 

                    Is there any reason at all to think it won't happen for an 8th, a 9th...an unlimited series of delays to keep him out of the courtroom?  After hearing how Feinstein carefully kept the information hidden until it would be most useful in maintaining a delaying tactic, I don't.   Do you?

              2. profile image0
                promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Done deal. Feinstein asked him why he wouldn't support a thorough investigation by the FBI to clear his name. He evaded the question and started yelling about other stuff.

                Clearly, he doesn't want an investigation.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Clearly he is sick and tired of Democratic delaying tactics; sick and tired of Democratic games with his life and his family.  He DID say he would cooperate with an investigation; to expect him to continue Democratic political games is not the brightest tactic they could have used. 

                  Democrats want to delay the hearing; let them try and do so.  Don't expect Kavanaugh to do it FOR them.

              3. dianetrotter profile image67
                dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I've heard 3 or 4 days?

            2. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              how long was it did the Republicans plan to delay confirming a new justice to replace Scalia during the Obama Administration? I guess we can wait at least that long?

      2. dianetrotter profile image67
        dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        That's what's driving me nuts.  Why doesn't Kavanaugh want FBI to investigate and get it over with.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Umm...he DID say he would cooperate.  Why do the Democrats wish to delay confirmation (it was very plain that is the goal, not an investigation)?  Why would anyone in the world think Kavanaugh has anything to gain from and investigation; when he comes out lily white he will still be guilty in the mob's mind and still be delayed further if possible.  No gain, then.

          1. dianetrotter profile image67
            dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            He said it comfortably because he knew the majority GOP committee would not let it happen.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Perhaps.  Either way, given the testimony yesterday, what possible reason would he have to follow the Democrat's plan to delay and derail his confirmation?  It isn't about finding truth, for we already have all the truth that can come out of a party with no physical evidence and only 7 witnesses, so what reason could he have for going along with their plan and causing his family additional damage.

            2. profile image0
              promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Exactly right. He knew they would cover for him.

  11. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    You have ALL seen  how the FBI  , DOJ  has hammered Trump from the beginning with charges that we either agree with OR feel   are thus baseless in defence of Trump , right ?       

    Don't you all agree then that if Kavanaugh had a history of sexual abuses or even something as slight as a history of workplace sexual innuendos with female workers  that the general FBI background check would have picked up on and exploited by the usual "Trump resisters within the FBI  ?

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      No...and this guy is whimpering..I mean come on.

      1. profile image0
        promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        He has gone from whimpering to yelling a lot. Maybe it's a strategy, but it's backfiring.

        I realize he is under tremendous pressure. But it's hardly the composure we might expect from a Supreme Court justice.

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          This is what we get when we put someone with Trump's demeanor in charge. Trump is the world laughing stock and he may succeed in making our entire country the same. If this is Supreme Court material, than it's no longer supreme.

          1. Jean Bakula profile image97
            Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Couldn't agree more. Oh, but they aren't laughing "at" him, they are laughing "with" him--as at the UN meeting. smile.

            1. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Ha ha...yeah...that episode is a kind of summary of Trump. After that, anyone who still thinks he's making America respected again is part of the joke. What's so crazy to me is how insecure Donny really is....a reflection of many of his supporters?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                ... so why don't you run for president?

                1. hard sun profile image84
                  hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not qualified and I don't want the job. I vote for those who I think are more qualified than me. Irrelevant question at any rate. Besides, I wouldn't be a reflection of his supporters...proudly...lol.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    ... who can do better than Trump?

        2. profile image0
          Ed Fisherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          No other court nominee has been subjected to such absolute circustry , is that a word ?

          1. dianetrotter profile image67
            dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Not in the dictionary..  People use it for a website, LinkedIn, etc..

      2. profile image0
        Ed Fisherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        That means absolutely Nothing pointing towards guilt .

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Exactly. My point is he's acting like a punk. I don't care if he is guilty...we'll just call it Trump's court of punks from now on..fair enough?

  12. hard sun profile image84
    hard sunposted 2 years ago

    This guy shouldn't be on the Supreme Court even if he didn't do anything wrong. Crying and yelling...wow...what a wimp.

    1. dianetrotter profile image67
      dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      :sad

      1. Don W profile image82
        Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        For someone who is "open to anything" he seems remarkably reluctant for there to be an FBI investigation.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I agree, believe it or not. I believe he did it. I believe he had a drinking problem (stemming from psychological issues caused by his high social standing and position.) I believe Ford is relaying the truth.

          Ultimately, Brett is guilty of being in denial of his dark side. Then and perhaps even now. It was certainly suppressed then. He was trying to impress his parents and teachers. He acted out when drunk and did things he would never do when sober. Like Jekyll and Hyde.

          For his own psychological reasons.

          The fact is, he is a beer drinker. The question is, does he do things on beer that he would not do off beer?

          The conclusion could be, if he doesn't, he has changed and

          People can change.

        2. dianetrotter profile image67
          dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          True!

        3. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Because he didn't fold to Democratic delaying tactics?  Is there any possible reason to do so?  His guilt is pre-determined from being nominated by Trump in the minds of Trump haters, and delays from the Democrats will not end with an investigation.  Why do their job for them, then?

  13. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    If so , he's not the only one , certainly here !

  14. hard sun profile image84
    hard sunposted 2 years ago

    Moron

  15. hard sun profile image84
    hard sunposted 2 years ago

    I know middle schoolers that could handle themselves WAY better than this joke.

  16. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    Wow. That FBI question is getting on his nerves. Not a pretty picture.

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Cause he knows he's hit if the FBI gets involved. He's almost assuredly guilty.

    2. dianetrotter profile image67
      dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It annoys me that he keeps saying, "Whatever the committee wants to do!"  He already knows GOP does NOT want to do investigation..

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        They are asking him to do the job of the committee because they can't get it done.  Is that Kavanaugh's role in this farce?  To aid in delaying his confirmation?

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          "Umm...he DID say he would cooperate. " Then "They are asking him to do the job of the committee because they can't get it done.  Is that Kavanaugh's role in this farce?  To aid in delaying his confirmation?"

          So, which is it? Did he really say he would cooperate or is he not cooperating because it's not his role? It can't be both ways. If he really wanted to cooperate he would say bring on an investigation not hide behind the Republicans protecting him.

          I believe the later because he doesn't want the confirmation delayed AND he doesn't want the FBI to help find the truth.

          Just like GA, you know that Kavanuagh understands the committee would not ask for an FBI investigation yet you still say Kavanuagh agreed to an FBI investigation. It clearly makes no sense.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Cooperation by Kavanaugh does NOT include intentionally delaying the task of the Justice committee for no more reason than an effort to deny his confirmation as long as possible. 

            What makes no sense?  That he will cooperate with an investigation if it happens or that he refuses to play games with his life and call for the useless 7th investigation Democrats want but cannot push through the committee?

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
              JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              https://hubstatic.com/14227900_f1024.jpg

              wilderness, please tell me you didn't forget the fact that rotting 'Granny' McConnell unlawfully and corruptly held a supreme court position OPEN for about 1 year during president Obama's tenure for the sole corrupt purpose of STEALING the seat, which is exactly what filthy phony republicans including Flake and presumably Collins and Murkowski are trying to do right now:

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Your point?  That the democratic party can do far worse to people than the Republicans can?  Is that what you're pointing out?

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image75
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  No wilderness, my point is we have another atrocious republican cover-up to suppress the truth about this alleged attempted rapist and why the neglectful refusal to investigate the serious criminal charges against him?

                  Why the big rush all of a sudden to throw an unhinged, delusional 'Clinton Conspiracy' theory believer who has several un-investigated alleged criminal charges pending, on to our highest court in the land after 'Granny' McConnell held a supreme court seat hostage for 1 year during President Obama's tenure?

                  The height of hypocrisy and criminality, let's pray for truth and justice:

            2. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Cooperation would be wanting to be proven innocent. It makes sense that he is avoiding an FBI investigation..it doesn't make sense to say he is cooperating but is avoiding an FBI investigation to save his but.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                As Kavanaugh pointed out and every thinking person recognizes, he cannot be "proven innocent".  Not now, not in the minds of gullible people falling for Democratic political games.

                Doesn't leave much, does it, as a reason to help them delay his confirmation?

                1. hard sun profile image84
                  hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Changing your story now.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Same story, it just doesn't agree with the false picture you're trying to paint.

                    K still offered to cooperate with whatever the committee wants and still has no reason to join Democrats in delaying his confirmation.  No change anywhere.

                2. Jean Bakula profile image97
                  Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  And the Republicans are so innocent? McConnell held that seat open for a year when it was Obama's choice to put Merritt Garland in it. These old guys are masters at games.

                  I thought Dr. Ford's testimony was compelling and I believed her. And Mark Judge was in the room as this happened, possibly participated, and disappears to a beach house because of anxiety and alcoholism recovery? He's the key to the whole story, and doesn't want to implicate his friend, surely even you can understand that?

                  I'm sure he would be offered terms where someone would go to him and interview him, with a psychiatrist there if necessary, to protect his fragile mental health.

                  Today there was a call for an FBI investigation of limited scope (not too much time). I saw that a few hours ago, but it could have changed, things are moving fast.  Kavanaugh should take it like a man and withdraw his name. Maybe he can hold onto his old job, another lifetime appointment.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image87
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Again, they had control of Congress, all they did was choose not to vote.

                    They did not attempt to destroy Obama's nominees when they did not have the vote, they did not throw a fit as the Dems rammed through ACA, it is the American people with their votes, that voted in waves of Republicans to counter what was occurring.

                    The Republicans never weaponized sexual misconduct allegations for purposes of trying to stop a nomination or change the outcome of an election.



                    The problem is there is no one who corroborates her accusation, there is no proof that this occurred, no one she names supports her claims.

                    As far as I know, this goes with the other supposed accusers as well.

                    Ms. Ford is knee deep into the politics of this. If I understand correctly she has worked for Democratic campaigns in the past, has ties to the firm which helped create the 'dossier', and has ties to the CIA as well... John Brennan's agency which he helped restructure to suit his interests and politics.

  17. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    .. maybe Jean should run.

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      maybe the Easter Bunny should run and Santa's elves should be in his cabinet

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The elves are busy making toys and are loyal to Santa.

    2. Jean Bakula profile image97
      Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I'm busy with my local Democratic Club and never considered President as a career. I see how dirty politics is at a local level. It's not for me. My interest is local and regards environmental issues, the saving of historical buildings, overdevelopment and the flooding it causes, and water safety.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Sounds good. Did you ever drink to excess in your youth? and regret it?
        You don't have to answer. I'm just wondering.

        1. Jean Bakula profile image97
          Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I don't have regrets about my life, I own what I do or did.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That addresses the latter part of the question. How about the former ...

            1. Jean Bakula profile image97
              Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Deleted

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                A yes or no would have been sufficient.  And you didn't have to reveal anything at all.

                Why did I ask?
                Because you are a fine upstanding citizen who might have done something in your youth which was not so upstanding. I did one stupid thing as a seventeen year old ... However, I feel that I too am an upstanding citizen even though it happened.

                Could it have been used against me as sexual assault?
                Well, it did not involve groping, but it did involve throwing myself onto a guy and telling him that I loved him, (practically a stranger) at a Griffith Park free concert in the 70's. He did not take advantage of me in my severely drunken state. In fact, he probably ran for his life!!!

                How do I even remember this? I wrote it in my journal. The truth is I remember nothing of my ridiculous behavior. My friends told me what I  had done under the influence of wine which was being passed around by the gallons.

                1. Jean Bakula profile image97
                  Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Kathryn, we all make mistakes when we are young. I made a mistake or two that I'm not proud of. But I learned from them, and they didn't have to do with drinking, or didn't happen as a result of drinking. I grew up in an alcoholic family. My son is 30 and never drank a drop, not even a toast at a wedding. Please don't beat yourself up so much. Its part of growing up.

                  As far as Kavanaugh, the hate and rude way he addressed members of Congress just showed he has anger management and likely still drinking problems. I was shocked by his nasty outbursts. He didn't change or grow.

                  Don't compare your life to his. I'm sure you are upstanding.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    He has been plagued with opposition from the Left throughout his career as court judge. His anger comes from his frustration at the continuation of their ruthless attacks.
                    ... as I now believe.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    The hate and rude way he addressed the Democratic portion of the committee just showed he understands just what they have done and why they did it.  He understands that he, his children and wife have suffered at the hands of those people, and for no more reason than political games and a desire to NOT do their appointed job.  He understand that they have intentionally and with malice destroyed his reputation...because they MIGHT gain political points for their party. 

                    Nor can I believe you were "shocked" - the comment that he has "likely still drinking problems" without a single shred of evidence of drinking problems either now or at the age of 17 says it all.

  18. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    Even in this spectacle of a "trial" the presentation of "evidence " was in Kavanaugh's favor ,  his calendars  , the hundreds of letters in support from co-workers , the FBI background checks ,  the actual cross examining far worse than Prof. Fords emotion  infused unquestioned testimony .  Ford offered no facts , dates , details of before or after the alleged incident .   Kavanaugh's testimony was far more believable .

  19. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    One important aspect of a witness statement is corroboration.  Nobody corroborated Christine Ford's claim.   Too many things she can't remember.  Interesting how she came forward 36 years later when Kavanaugh is in the confirmation process for the Supreme Court.  How can anyone find her credible? Because she put on a good performance using here psychology training?  I do wonder what liberal men would do if they were falsely accused of such a horrible thing by someone who can't remember the day or time and has friends who say it didn't happen. Put yourself if Brett Kavanaugh's position. 


    “All of Ford's named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party.”

    https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mcc … -kavanaugh

    “One week ago, Dr. Christine Ford claimed she was assaulted at a house party attended by four others. Since then, all four of these individuals have provided statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee denying any knowledge of the incident or even having attended such a party,

    https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-accu … es-1134728

    “I do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together. I truly wish I could provide detailed answers to all of the questions. I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t remember as much as I would like to.” Dr. Christine Ford.

    https://www.lifenews.com/2018/09/27/chr … confirmed/

    Ford said she could not recall all the details of the polygraph or how former FBI agent Jeremiah Hanafin was chosen to administer the test. She added that the test took place on either the same day or near the date of her grandmother’s funeral.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 … -test.html

  20. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    It all just points to the ONE known fact that WE can know today , these hearings are political and not based on the legalities of the accusation or there would have been some evidentiary value in her testimony besides her memory  , a friend , a witness , a police report , something , anything at all . If all we have to rely on is our individual believability today then I say Kavanaugh's testimony was more believable .  Considering that Prof. Ford is a trained psychologist bothers me as to her testimony .

  21. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    I'm sure there were people who could back up your claims.  I'm sure you spoke to it about other people. I would bet there is plenty of evidence to prove your claim.  I'm sure your allegations are credible.  What would anyone do if going for a position and a person says decades earlier they molested a child.  Nobody who was there at the time that can remember it. The person making the allegations can't remember all the details, but is certain you molested a child. You have proof you were not at the place where it happened and many people support your claim.  Yet, the media has labeled you as a child molester.  What an innocent person do in this situation?

  22. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    I have known at least two women who when attending counselling for mental health issues had shrinks who actually tried to convince them of past sexual abuses that needed to be "brought out " through , for one , hypnosis . My point,  there are many  agenda's out there of the manipulation of politically hot issues like these , Either gender , sexual ,psychologically or however related , it's still a" public lynching "when  these issues become politicized .

  23. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    Lynne Brookes, a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh's at Yale, disappointed in blatant lying

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upxbLT5iP70

    1. dianetrotter profile image67
      dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I saw her on Chris Cuomo.

  24. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoLYkTcU4AAw7A8.jpg:large

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The Republicans on the judiciary committee are discounting it, of course.

  25. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14227904.jpg

    You can be a good person, or you can be a democrat. You can't be both.

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That's funny. Trump and his administration are good people then? lol..riot. Keep the jokes coming and I'll keep watching Trump's men cry on national TV. Oh, and go to prison for being so good.

      Poor rich boy Trump. Wow

  26. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago
    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That is some spectacular editing. LOL

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        yeah, that was worth the watch.

        GA

  27. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    Another Yale classmate breaks silence: Kavanaugh lied

    Liz Swisher, former Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLLjYGBWLyo

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      He's a lying punk. Sorry I don't have anything more earth shattering to bring to the conversation..but that's how I see it.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Do you give the testimony of Liz Swisher more credence and validity than the hundreds of letters Kavanaugh presented?  If so, why, and what ELSE can there be to label him a "lying punk"?

  28. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    White House limits FBI's Kavanaugh inquiry to 2 of 3 accusers: report

    The White House has instructed the FBI to question two women who have alleged sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    But the parameters of the new and limited FBI probe don’t include interviewing Julie Swetnick, a third accuser who alleged this week that he was at a party decades ago where she was gang-raped, according to a report on Saturday in The Wall Street Journal.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 … eport.html

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I think that could be a serious mistake. Ms. Swetnick might choose to take her story to the public, if the FBI is forbidden to investigate.

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I disagree PrettyPanther. Regarding the purpose of the hearings and this new investigation, I think the limitations more than fulfill the need.

        If there is enough smoke from the two accuser's charges being investigated, then the fire of Swetnick's allegations will be superfluous to the purpose of the hearing. Not to the issue of chargeable offenses, but to the purposes of the committee. Does it matter the degree to which he is unqualified - if he is deemed unqualified?

        GA

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          No, the degree doesn't matter to me. I think he should be disqualified for his lying and his partisan tirade.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Or 1 (accuser) or even none.  The terminology used was along the lines of "current" and "credible" accusations.  Swetnick's pile of feces was not credible at all; it is up to the FBI to determine if the center one or even Ford is.

  29. paradigmsearch profile image61
    paradigmsearchposted 2 years ago

    Negate.

  30. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Will men even be able to look at women?  No, they will look away. They will not talk to them and they will protect themselves from those vile and confusing creatures. Meanwhile the women will dress as provocatively as they so choose.

    It doesn't make sense and it is definitely not fair.
    Make up your minds, women. 

    Actually, recently, if you thumb through women magazines, women have been down-playing their curves and attractiveness in dress and clothing styles.

    We will suffer without balance, respect and kindness toward one another.

    Why is this suddenly so difficult to do?

    In India, if you watch their music videos, it seems the guys love their women and their women are sweet and alluring in an innocent playful way. I suppose that will all disappear as they become more westernized.

    How Come?

  31. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    Which  FBI ?
    The biggest Irony of all in the Kavanaugh / Ford investigation ,  the Senate is happy to have us all believe that we can all rest easy in that The FBI has arrived on the scene ............again . The FBI that is infused with partisanship at the highest levels of it's offices , perhaps  Feinstein can assure us that Lisa Paige will investigate Kavanaugh  ?

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Setting it up already for a no lose situation.

      "“Every FBI agent, and Pete [Strzok] is no different, knows how to investigate and follow the facts,” a former senior official told The Hill. “It’s astonishing. There’s a lack of understanding of how we operate as an organization—one, to think that we could not have political views and conduct impartial investigations, and two, to assume with a complex investigation like this that one person could change the outcome.”"

      https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-biased-dem … ion-745389

      Then it seems maybe the investigation should be allowed to be complicated so the effects of any bias will be eliminated. Great argument for a longer investigation.

  32. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    Democrats  already infiltrated and exploited  the FBI for political purposes  , If the FBI knocked on every American door , half of America would laugh in their faces .So this isn't about  the integrity of an investigation , democrats on the senate committee are simply "running down the clock ".  Painfully obvious .

  33. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    After the 2016 elections fiasco , The reputation of the FBI is on trial and they're not the only ones ,  leftists under Obama have succeeded in compromising the neutrality of most gov. institutions . That's what happens when bias is infused in the halls of Justice , democrats  be proud .
    DOJ , FBI , ATF , IRS .? They have all been played.

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      They are under trial by anti-law enforcement, Pro-Trump Fox propaganda watchers. I don't think they represent the majority. But we'll see. Nothing surprises me anymore.

      1. Jean Bakula profile image97
        Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Ed,
        Are you ahorseback?

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Ah..It does say formerly ahorseback on his profile. I didn't catch that. I'm glad he's using a real name, maybe.

        2. profile image0
          Ed Fisherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yes .

  34. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    Ford /Kavanaugh ?  Tell us all this just isn't one more Trump resistance   , phase # 62 .

    You have learned much Grasshopper .
    https://hubstatic.com/14229847.jpg

  35. Live to Learn profile image79
    Live to Learnposted 2 years ago

    I read through all the comments, by men, on this alleged incident. It's laughable. Ford has no corroborating evidence, a murky memory (at best).

    I know women. I grew up in a prep school environment. I can easily imagine the scenario. I'm sick of society giving women a free ride no matter the ridiculousness of the allegation, their rearranging events to somehow be able to claim themselves as victims, of this 'she said it so he must be a monster' mentality, with absolutely no ability for the man to defend his actions.

    She didn't name him when telling her husband. And didn't name him when discussing with a therapist. She has changed key parts of the story several times. But, now, the final version, we are to accept without reservation.

    Give me a break.

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      But call Kavanaugh a punk and you get the wrath, lol. I think we don't need to over correct on the male dominance thing..but I also think MANY men are scared of a future where women are treated equally.

      1. Jean Bakula profile image97
        Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        That's what I am seeing too. When Ms. Cortez won in Jamaica, Queens, and the older, white man, who only had an address there, and didn't even bother to campaign, lost, people were upset. An older guy in my son's martial arts school called her a "nitwit." My son said, "Just because you have political disagreements with her doesn't make her a nitwit." A lot of these guys are getting lazy and out of touch.

        The only way they can come to grips with women, people of color, or those of different sexual orientation is to denigrate them. But I believe you are from NJ too and we are used to diversity. Many of people in other parts of the country aren't. They just think they are, because it's an idea, they don't interact with these people everyday.

        I think people don't change. Anyone who is a drunken woman molester at 17 still is. In NJ, if a black person at 17 did what BK did, he'd be judged as an adult, and would spend a minimum of 25 yrs. in prison (I never said the law here was fair). What kinds of decisions will he make for women whose cases get as far as the Supreme Ct? It's too big a gamble to take.

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I agree with most of your assessment. I remember, even in college, seeing professors, give entirely different reactions to a male stating the same thing a a female.

          I'm actually from the Midwest, and grew up in a small town with very little diversity. However, I always tried to keep my mind open and had many experiences in the interim. Too many men are still offended by a strong woman. I married a strong woman and have a highly intelligent, high-achieving daughter who's likely to exceed the career aspirations of any of the men in my immediate family, so that probably helps me see and understand a bit more than I would have otherwise.

          1. Jean Bakula profile image97
            Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I had a husband who always was respectful and always listened to me, and we made all our decisions together. Our son often says he learned everything about life from both of us. Many of his friends think he's still single because people always seemed to idealize our marriage, and think he feels he can't live up to that. Nonsense, every couple has problems. But I was lucky to be loved by a man who was not threatened by me, who truly liked women, and have a son very much like him. I don't think men have to panic because instead of a world run by the "old boy's club" we now have older, wise woman who can help younger woman climb career ladders too. Great job on the daughter!

            1. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              That's great! And thanks. You shouldn't have to be "lucky" to find a man who truly sees marriage as an equal partnership.

              I try to always listen to my wife, and I know if I don't, I'll hear about it, lol. I think the main thing is to take her input seriously. I see couples where the man always dismisses the wife's input as though she were a child. I think this has a little to do with where we live. Honestly, If my wife would have allowed it when we were younger, our relationship may not be so equal either. We certainly but heads, much more so when we were younger. But, her strong-will was part of what I admired about her so I respected her and grew to understand things like what are now known as "mansplaining." I could never get away with such a patronizing tone or pretending I know more about something that she clearly has more knowledge than me on. Hell, she could change the oil in our car faster than I could.

              America's missed out on a lot of innovation due to the good old boys club  exclusion of women, and well, guys who just weren't too big a part of the club. I look forward to seeing what so many daughters can accomplish in the future. I look forward to the days when people like Mike Pence have no shot of being in leadership positions.

  36. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    It all falls under the five or six usual anti -conservative labels .
    -Misogyny
    -Racists
    -Islamophobes
    -Nazisists
    -Nationalists
    - ................[ add your own here ]
    https://hubstatic.com/14229890.png

  37. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    And another one! This time is not a woman.

    Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week..

    In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.

    I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges.

    I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.

    I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will, however, take my information to the F.B.I.

    Charles (Chad) Ludington

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p … naugh.html

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Kavanaugh is a lying punk. That wasn't hard to see. If he would have been even a little honest..like, said, yeah, maybe I blacked out once or twice, then I'd give him a little credit. We don't need someone on the Supreme Court who lies to the Senate on national TV.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I thought this was as clear as day also. If I pulled something like this in front of a judge...they would let me out of jail Wednesday.....Wednesday decided to, which would be as long as possible. His lying performance isn't something that takes long  philosophical discussions to see.

          Grade A boofer

    2. IslandBites profile image91
      IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this
      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Just a thought IslandBites. Reiterating a thought I just related to hard sun.

        In an interview, a CNN commentator asked; (paraphrasing), "If we are to believe this one "friend," Chad Ludington, don't we also have to believe the two friends that counter his claims?"

        C'mon kid, you are sounding a bit biased in this thread.

        GA

        1. IslandBites profile image91
          IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I was checking my posts in this thread... Funny that I'm sounding biased when I've only posted news/links about allegations... In a thread about how can Kavanaugh defend himself against (what?!) allegations. Ha.

          Btw, it's a valid question (in Fake News CNN?! yikes ) Did I said I believe him? Or that you (any) should? I must've forgotten. big_smile

          (That "kid" made my day! tongue)

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Well, relative to me, you are a "kid," so enjoy.

            Isn't your choice of what you post indicative of a perspective?

            GA

            1. IslandBites profile image91
              IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Well, the thread is about allegations against BK and how will BK defend himself. Don't know of news about any other allegations that could indicate (to you) another perspective. hmm

              But, since you're so interested... big_smile

              My opinion about it is almost the same as yours, even if you resist it. I have no idea if he assaulted Ford. But I believe he lied at the hearing. And you know you too.

              I know I didn't like his yelling and arrogance (and that doesn't make him guilty of Ford's accusation). Like I said, it didn't painted a pretty picture (I believe my only opinion in this thread). Also, how partisan he is.

              But, I could care less about democrats and what they did or not did. There were allegations and an investigation was needed.

              I also believe he'll likely be confirmed anyway.

              Finally, I hope he doesn't.

              ("You're a kid" was enough! sad lol )

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Geesh! Just like a man isn't it. We never know when to leave 'well enough' alone. (re - "kid," of course)

                I no longer think Kavanaugh should be confirmed. Also, I am no longer certain that the Republicans can confirm him.

                His post-Ford testimony is a problem for me, and, I think the uncertainty of his guilt or innocence will negatively impact the integrity of the Court itself.

                I am still simmering over, and blaming the democrats for their political character assassination of Kavanaugh, and callous use of Ford.

                The whole thing stinks. Going back to high school years and using allegations that can't be proven, (or realistically disproved) - when the entirety of an admirable adult life can be, is a step I think we will live to regret. I think the #metoo folks will especially regret this one.

                But, relative to what I think, Kavanaugh did the job for them with his final testimony. I doubt that many of us men would have done differently, and I bet most of us were applauding him for it at the time - but we aren't candidates for the Supreme Court, and I think that makes a difference.

                On top of all that, based on what I found looking around at his judicial history, I think he would have made a good Justice.

                Damn dirty politics, and the Dems own it. And don't give me that "Garland" baloney. He was politically obstructed, not purposely ruined.

                GA

                1. hard sun profile image84
                  hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Hi GA...Do you think this entire fiasco reflects upon Trump's judgement? Everyone knew, considering what this appointment will do to the make up of the court, Merrick Garland, etc. that this would be highly challenged by the Dems.

                  Isn't there someone that didn't have a checkered past like this, including his days at Yale, friends like Mark Judge, etc. This could have went much differently if Trump had not been at the helm IMO.

                  This is why I think liberals, and those that value liberty, are better off with Trump than Pence. Mike Pence is a little craftier at circumventing the Constitution in the name of religious freedom.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    No hard sun, I don't think this reflects poorly on Pres. Trump. And I am not sure I would say Kavanaugh has a "checkered past."

                    We are all welcome to form our opinions by whatever measures we want, but the measures we choose will affect the validity of our opinions. I won't base mine on allegations.

                    GA

                  2. dianetrotter profile image67
                    dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Hard, I agree that it is judgment.  DJT is self serving in all of his dealings.  He did not properly vet Kavanaugh - no surprise..  He didn't vet most of his loyalists..  Not only that, the loyalists have less than or comparable dealings to DJTs..

                    After all of the Stormy is lying bit, now we see that he had taken out a restraining order against her.

                    After consoling the Warmbiers, he and Rocket Man are not in love with each other.  What advantage is that for the US.

                    He preferred Putin to our allies.  This was self-serving because I believe Putin has something over him.  I would not be surprised to find that an investigation was done on Lindsey Graham so they could manipulate him..

                    I once thought Pence would be a better president..  Quite honestly, he scares me.  He adoringly looks at DJT and offers soft expressions of admiration and adulation.

                    Make Paul Ryan should become president..

                2. IslandBites profile image91
                  IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  We basically agree... almost 100%.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Oh lordy! I must have screwed up somewhere then.

                    GA

                3. Ken Burgess profile image87
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this




                  At this stage, I think this would be a gift to the Republicans come November.  This particular case has many left-of-center women sitting up and taking notice.

                  Those Moms with boys, those Brothers with loving Sisters who are close, etc. etc.  this type of attack and the way it has dominated for weeks now, has alarmed many of them.

                  Democrats probably think all women will be cheering over this, I don't think so, and I think those who would have been inclined to fall in line more with the #metoo movement will be leaning more towards the #toofar movement (and if there isn't such a movement there may be very soon), in large part because of this event, this close to elections.




                  They do, they own it, and if Kavanaugh is not confirmed it will go a long way to turning out the vote in November for the Republicans, and should the Republicans retain control, then Kavanaugh won't matter, because the next person Trump nominates will be a certainty.

                  This whole event may very well be catalyst to the Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory come this November.

                  1. hard sun profile image84
                    hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Blue wave..see, I'm learning. After reading the nonsense from Trump supporters here, I'm all in partisan in November. #toofar may be true but it's  better than #willtakeyourfreedommakelovetokimjongunanddrinkorangekoolaid   There is no meeting in the middle from Trump supporters..they go low, we go low is the new motto until the new generations get their chance, lol. You all call Jake crazy. If so, I see who made him that way. Twilight Zone, passive aggressive nonsense.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Ken, I do agree that this may well turn out to be harmful to the Democrats, rather than the Republicans - as they, (the Dems), planned.,

                    I think your idea of a #toofar movement is a possibility.

                    Anything else would just be a rehash. Except that I disagree that Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

                    GA

                4. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Do we have a catch-22 situation?  Confirm him and the integrity of the court is impacted; fail to confirm based on unsubstantiated claims and the integrity of the entire selection process is not only impacted but lost.  Along with any other selection process in govt., from elections to appointments to hiring janitors.

                  (Not sure that is an exaggeration, either, as I can easily see this tactic being used in the future from complainants that KNOW their claim is false.)

                  1. dianetrotter profile image67
                    dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I hear investigation may be over tonight????

                  2. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I don't think your comment was an exaggeration at all Wilderness. That is where we are now. But, as much as I wanted Kavanaugh to be confirmed, I think his post-Ford testimony has disqualified him. Damn shame to be human isn't it?

                    GA

                  3. Ken Burgess profile image87
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Consider the bigger picture.

                    The anger has been on the side of the Democrats, they have been nasty beyond all reason the past two years... and for the most part those in the middle and the right have been content to let them wail in their misery.

                    Kavanaugh not being confirmed, raises alarms, will wake people up, will get people in the middle and the right to the voting booth come November, motivating them in ways they probably wouldn't have been.

                    If this can be done to Kavanaugh, on this stage, in this way, it confirms just about every fear a person who is not already pre-disposed to believe in the Democratic Party may have about them, their tactics, and what they stand for today. 

                    This is much different than the FBI scandals and the Trump, Hillary dirty politics and storylines. 

                    This is a not-well-known-until-now Judge that stood up there with his wife and kids, who has devoted his life to serving his country and community, getting eviscerated by the Democrats.

    3. IslandBites profile image91
      IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Now we know at least one person was telling the truth.

      Police questioned Kavanaugh after bar fight in 1985

      In the New Haven, Connecticut, police department report, a man named Dom Cozzolino said Kavanaugh had thrown ice on him and Kavanaugh's friend Chris Dudley had thrown a glass that hit him in the ear.

      "The argument between the two started when Mr. Cozzolino stated that Brett Kavanaugh threw ice at him for some unknown reason and he then got hit in the ear with a glass," the report says.

      Dudley denied the allegations, according to the report, "and Mr. Kavanaugh didn't (want) to say if he threw the ice or not. "

      Cozzolino "was bleeding from the right ear," according to the report, and he was later treated at a local hospital. The incident reportedly occurred at a bar called Demery's.

      Ludington told CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time" anchor Chris Cuomo that the altercation happened after a UB40 concert, when he and a group of friends were drinking at Demery's.

      https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/01/poli … index.html

  38. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DobkP8JWwAEZSbt.jpg:large

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It's mounting

  39. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14231371.jpg

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, I would of stopped at just not having him on the Supreme Court...did he recruit a donkey to show the world what he really meant by boofing?

  40. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    Since we're here...

    Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public
    A former classmate of the Supreme Court nominee has reached out to the FBI but hasn't received a response.

    WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

    The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

    The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.

    https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2018_40/2584646/1810101-kavanaugh-ramirez-inline-circles-mn-1125_e94f62d67a6c9cd04c78877ad4db2c7f.fit-2000w.jpg

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem … ce-n915566

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Not a good picture being painted here, especially for a SC nominee. As you seem to agree, IslandBites, it matches his behavior at the Senate hearing IMO. This could turn out to be bombshell.

      No, this doesn't prove anything, but he's definitely looking a little like the proverbial duck. Of course, this particular story would need to be verified by other news sources, perhaps the FBI...that would be something...for it to be taken as hard truth. But, since it involves texts, this is something that can be proven or disproved.

      I'd like to see the texts.

      " Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI." If true, this is disturbing.

      1. IslandBites profile image91
        IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        George Hartmann, a spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said that “the texts from Ms. Berchem do not appear relevant or contradictory to Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony."

        "This appears to be another last-ditch effort to derail the nomination with baseless innuendo by Democrats who have already decided to vote no," Hartmann said.

        ---

        Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

        Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

        Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, when he first heard of Ramirez’s allegations. Kavanaugh answered: “In the New Yorker story.”

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Well, it seems the texts are definitely relevant if there was an "anticipatory narrative." Besides the lying under oath to the Senate thing, We need to see the texts in time context, hear from Bercham and the others involved.

          People say this isn't a trial, and that the people should not be trying this in the media. But, I think a trial in the media is exactly what was invited here. What is this, if not a public opinion battle, to fight for votes in November? If Republicans were not concerned about public opinion, they would have rammed Kavanaugh through with no hearing.

    2. Jean Bakula profile image97
      Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      At this point even if he never touched these women, his unstable demeanor and abusive comments to the Senators show that he doesn't have the temperament to serve on the Supreme Ct.

      Also, why was he already checking out his friend's recollections of his former behavior in the summer? Diane Feinstein is being trashed on this thread for holding info on Dr. Ford (and I don't know why she did, but think from what I read that Dr. Ford had doubts about going forward and the Senator honored them until Ford was sure), but BK has been texting friends since the summer to try to diffuse what they say. Double standard?

      I believe the FBI will do a minimal investigation, so far today it appears they haven't reached out to anyone. I suspect that's how the week will go, no effort will be made, and he will be confirmed.

      1. hard sun profile image84
        hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, the timing of Feinstein's release is questionable, but she did state why from the beginning and it did concern the wishes of Dr. Ford. Whether you believe this or not is another story. I'm not sure how you believe everything Kavanaugh said, who was entirely unbelievable IMO, but completely dismiss Feinstein's claim. I don't think there's any proof to the contrary.

        Lets hope the FBI can do its job but it's likely rigged just like Trump said the election was.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "I don't know why she did <hold information back>"

        That's odd - everyone else in the country knows.  She held it back until the last moment so that no investigation could be made and no vote be taken until after the mid term elections.  So that when Democrats DID cry out for an investigation it would delay the proceedings as long as possible.

        Are you really the last person in the country not to know that?

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Do you have proof? Do you have evidence that meets your own standard of proof as repeatedly and stridently outlined in multiple threads on these forums?

          I hate dirty politics as much as anyone, but whether or not Feinstein carefully timed the release of the allegations has no bearing on whether or not they are true.

          1. Live to Learn profile image79
            Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            With every person named verifying absolutely no recollection to match hers, I think we have proof the allegations are not true.

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The only thing we have proof of is that K lied under oath. Stating that you did not witness an incident is not proof that it didn't happen.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No it doesn't.  It IS, however, circumstantial evidence that there was an agenda beyond Kavanaugh's fitness for the position.

            Much like all the other evidence we've seen to date, it is another small chink in the allegation.  So far we've seen nothing whatsoever - zero - that it is true and quite a bit that it is not.

        2. Jean Bakula profile image97
          Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Dan,

          I don't see why you have to always be so insulting. It says a lot about your own character.

          From what I heard on various news shows and several websites and magazine articles, Dr. Ford asked Diane Feinstein to hold her evidence. Yes, it sounds fishy, but I don't know the truth of the reasoning behind it, nor do you, except to speculate.

          BK was chosen from a list by the Federalist Society. This is right wing conservative organization. Kavanaugh has been known (according to what I've read and heard on news) to have the opinion that a sitting President can pardon himself. This is the only reason Trump wants him, because then Trump will be above the law. And nobody should be above the law. The last time I checked, this is a Democratic Republic, not an authoritarian regime like Trump wants it to be.

          I believe BK's abusive and disgusting display before the Judiciary Committee should be enough to disqualify him from a Supreme Court lifetime appointment. Anyone would be angry if accused, but he had a sense of such entitlement, he was rude to Senator Klobachar and acted like a fool. Do we need someone who can't control his temper in this position? No.

          Now information is coming out about his excessive drinking and abusive behavior towards others continued when he was at Yale. So this pattern of bad behavior continues. Did you see the look on his wife's face as she watched him testify? She was alternately sad and disgusted.

          You seem to think you are the moderator of these forums. Earlier when I typed a link to show BK wanted to overturn Roe v Wade, you told me I had to present position papers on both sides. Hogwash.

          Then because I disagreed with you, you told me, "I had a chip on my shoulder." If you continue to insult me, not allowed on these forums, I will report you. I don't agree with you on many topics, but I never insulted you or called you a name. You are a bully Dan, so watch what you say.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            First, I must apologize for I wasn't referring to Ford holding back information, but Feinstein and her cronies.  And yes, she absolutely did hold it back as long as possible in order to delay the hearing.  It should have been presented to at least the chairman, and really the whole committee, immediately if Feinstein wanted in looked into.  It was a nasty delaying tactic to hold it back until just before voting, nothing more. 

            "Kavanaugh has been known (according to what I've read and heard on news) to have the opinion that a sitting President can pardon himself."

            Perhaps he does.  I don't know.  But I DO think that if he does then that's what the law says - would you prefer a judge that will make law according to his own standards and wishes?  I wouldn't; if he truly believes that then I have to believe him - he has a wee bit more experience and knowledge of the law than I do.

            I believe BK's abusive and disgusting display before the Judiciary Committee should be enough to disqualify him from a Supreme Court lifetime appointment."

            I didn't find it disgusting: I found it wonderful.  A bold, truthful, honest evaluation of what had been done to him.  No beating around the bush, no PC tiptoeing.  No punches pulled - I find that refreshing and wonderful and I think our congress would be a lot better if they all took a hint from his speech.

            "Now information is coming out about his excessive drinking and abusive behavior towards others continued when he was at Yale."

            You're right.  One (or is it two?) people have claimed so.  Has to be true, yes?  Especially if they were enemies at the time.  (I see headlines that claim BK often passed out from alcohol, but reading the comments they did not.  Typical, isn't it?)

            "you told me I had to present position papers on both sides."

            I did no such thing.  I insinuated (and will again) that if you want to be believed you will have to provide quotes from Kavanaugh that he wishes to overturn RvsW.  I have never seen such a statement and do not believe he made it; you claim he did, so prove it.  You DID present a link, supposedly his position paper, that turned out to be nothing more than an email from an employee to an employer stating that in his considered opinion on the law RvsW was not "set in stone".  That is a far, far cry from wanting to overturn it.  Again, do you wish judges that legislate from the bench or ones that accept they are NOT legislators and simply apply the law?

            "Then because I disagreed with you, you told me, "I had a chip on my shoulder."

            Can't reply because after searching this entire thread I can't find it.  I do recall making a statement about some people being offended because they carry a chip on their shoulder, but do not recall saying you had one (might have said you might have one if you take offense when none is offered, though).  Can you copy/paste that?

            "If you continue to insult me, not allowed on these forums, I will report you. I don't agree with you on many topics, but I never insulted you or called you a name. You are a bully Dan, so watch what you say."

            Are you sure you want to threaten reporting...immediately before declaring you never call names and then insult by calling me a bully? 

            (I'd really like to see where I called you names or insulted you.  I probably HAVE said things indicating poor reasoning, but that's about it.  And you DO exhibit poor reasoning occasionally , as in "This is the only reason Trump wants him, because then Trump will be above the law." and saying BK wants to reverse RvsW.  Both without a shred of evidence at all; you might at least indicate it is your opinion only and that you cannot support either one with any evidence.)

            1. Jean Bakula profile image97
              Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Wilderness,
              The first time you insulted me is below..We are having a bad storm, computer is kicking me off, everything electrical is flickering, can't copy and paste, have to make this fast.. The second was implying I was unintelligent, when neither of us will ever know what was truly said between Ms. Ford and Diane Feinstein. You think it's a big conspiracy, I said I found the time frame "fishy."

              This is you: "Kathryn has been here a long time - she fully understands what an open, public forum is, does and allows.

              .I missed the link, and will check it out.

              People very often "choose" to take offense - so much so there is a term for it.  It's called having a "Chip on the shoulder" or in some cases "searching for offense". End.

              I think this is bullying. I express opinions here based on what I read and hear, just like you do. I don't see proof of any of the statements you wrote above. BK has been known for months to be picked for this position because he will pardon Trump, if it comes to that. The article I posted shows that BK doesn't consider Roe v Wade "settled law" whether you agree with it or not. I have read and heard both ideas for months now. You say I don't provide evidence, but you don't either. Why am I being held to a higher standard?

              I have never spoken with you in person, but often the way you write comes across as bullying and rude. Maybe you don't realize it. Just trying to make you aware. I would never report you without discussing why first. Why do you get to jump in with unsubstantiated claims?  I write about an issue based on news, websites, and magazines, but I "cannot support either one with any evidence." I guess only "right wing" conspiracies count as evidence? It's best if we don't engage in these forums.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Jean, I love the way you are so open and honest in the forums. I want to be more like you. :-)

                1. Jean Bakula profile image97
                  Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks Pretty Panther,
                  You are most kind. That's pretty much me. Also opinionated. But I am only expressing what I decide after much reading and watching news on all sides Fox is particularly hard for me, I must have chocolate or ice cream while viewing, and only in small doses (viewing, not chocolate or ice cream).

              2. hard sun profile image84
                hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Good job Jean. We are talking about the type of people who cheer when Trump mocks a woman who makes sexual assault allegations. Wilderness also insulted me, was proven wrong, and doesn't even acknowledge it. I've come to understand I'm a better person than that, and I don't need to converse with these types. I'm certainly not learning anything new.

                1. Jean Bakula profile image97
                  Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Hello Hard Sun,

                  I am also a better person than that. If I don't agree with someone, I don't have a need to insult or hurt them. Plus the person in question never provides sources or references on any of his positions. Yet he insists we must all write up to his rigorous (not) standards. For the most part, these political forums are an "old boy's club" except for a few women. I say what I know based on not living under a rock all these months, and by staying informed.

                  Did you ever read 1984 by George Orwell? It's usually on the HS reading list, which to my dismay, never seems to change. It is about a dystopian society where free thought is punishable by vaporization.The citizens celebrate "hate week." It's just like what's happening now. I couldn't find my old copy to read after the 2016 election, and it was flying off Amazon's shelves, so I wasn't the only one who immediately thought of it based on things Trump said and his behaviors during campaigning.

                  Trump's behavior allows people to behave on all their basest instincts, the hatred, misogyny, fear of anyone or any idea that deviates from their accepted and warped norm. Many reporters, Katy Tur among them, describes that when she covered rallies, women in fur coats wearing diamonds were spitting at her. Trump wants to discourage a free press. It's like "hate week" all the time, and in an era where truth is said to be fake,  we don't know if we are fighting with Eurasia or East Asia. That society just made stuff up too.

                  1. hard sun profile image84
                    hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi Jean,

                    "Trump's behavior allows people to behave on all their basest instincts, the hatred, misogyny, fear of anyone or any idea that deviates from their accepted and warped norm."

                    Then the people who support him so often state the President's behavior doesn't matter. On what planet would this be true?

                    I also read 1984 in high school and recently watched a movie version. Our country has been hijacked by immoral, elitist, criminal, old money interests and it's being cheered on by some in the lower and middle classes. They can't see it, but history will shed light on the misdirection.

                    I just can't take speaking with people who ignore facts and only real skill is passive aggressive name-calling, much like their leader.  The particular person can't acknowledge clear mistakes just like Trump. This is how societies devolve.

                    No amount of facts will change the brain-washed minds. Trump can do NO wrong. He bears no responsibility for his own SC nominee, etc, etc. Yet,when Obama was President, "Well, it starts at the top" was the mantra when anything was perceived to go wrong.

  41. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    So Democrats , I've noticed  your" resistance " attention span is swinging away from the Kavanaugh issue and towards perhaps the next available resistance movement .  Much like lemmings , when you lose the fire in the individual issue  the cause becomes dampened by disinterest .

    Obstructionists  are SOoo predictable .  Let's see..........How about that Bull Market ...... anything there ......the death of NAFTA .........Kanye again .........Melania's shoes ?

  42. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    All political , no substance.

    -Timing of Feinstein release
    -The fact that she did release letter *
    -Inconsistencies in Fords entire path to testimony
    -Senate Prosecutor's report
    -Best of #Metoo witness'?
    -Political maneuvering by Feinstein , Flake , Harris ,....
    -Seven FBI backgrounds
    -Impeccable Kavanaugh legal record

    * Who wrote this , a first grader.

    Can liberals say "The Honorable Scotus Kavanaugh ".


    https://hubstatic.com/14232488.png

    1. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.



      https://hubstatic.com/14232452.jpg

  43. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    NEWSFLASH ************************OMG  Kavanaugh threw ice on someone in a bar ,  where is there a good rope when we need one !!!!!!!!!!!

    Really ? Sounds extremely serious to us all ....................

    Sure it does .

    1. dianetrotter profile image67
      dianetrotterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You must include the details that led up to the event plus the skirmish after.

      1. profile image0
        Ed Fisherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I "must " do nothing of the kind .

  44. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    Trump Resisters, Get ready for it , practice ................

    "Yes, your honorable Judge Kavanaugh "

  45. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    No. those points cannot be denied as reasonable grounds for forming an initial opinion hard sun.

    But they are also not your original points that I responded to; Pres. Trump failed to vet, and a checkered past.  Are you saying those are also supported by what you saw?

    Considering that the background check was done by the FBI, and in the same way as done when requested by any other president, and that the nominee had passed at least one other background check for his Federal judgeship, (I don't know what the other four FBI checks were for) - even if any of these allegations prove out, I don't see how Pres. Trump could be blamed for failing to vet his nominee.

    As for his checkered past - aren't those just allegations at this point?

    GA

  46. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    What?? How is that an investigation?

    Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys on Tuesday implored the FBI to interview her and act on investigative leads they have provided for its inquiry into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    "It is inconceivable that the FBI could conduct a thorough investigation of Dr. Ford’s allegations without interviewing her, Judge Kavanaugh, or the witnesses we have identified in our letters to you," attorneys Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich wrote to top FBI officials.

  47. IslandBites profile image91
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    Uh, another sworn declaration of a supposedly witness that confirms Swetnick's allegations.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/sta … 6831059970

  48. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    The truth can be hard to take like that sometimes.

  49. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    Or maybe your cause for being so offended is that some people never had , have or ever will possess the ability to tell the difference between  the testimonies of Dr.Ford and Dr. Edsel ?      Most notice that even the voices of the reasonable today are being questioned . Maybe ,Wilderness is just too fair and balanced for your personal and party bias .

    Yea , that's it isn't it .

    1. profile image0
      James Courtisposted 2 years ago

      Hello from the UK. May I point out the man's name is Kavanaugh. I remember the days when the test was "beyond a reasonable doubt" not trial by social media. I have reservations he has committed a crime, and worry greatly regarding the seemingly desperate measures to which oppositions now stoop to drag out 30 year old potential "he said she said" allegations to destroy somebody's charter for political aims.  Even if it is true, and we have NO PROOF AT ALL YET, show me a person on the planet that has not made mistakes 30 years ago. And why the silence for 30 years? Out of interest, if we dig into your life are you blameless? The point is this, this whole thing is all very nasty and will only end up bringing more nastiness on nastiness. Live by the sword you die by the sword. Clearly I disagree with you, but I respect your right to say it and wish you well. x

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Great to have you, and it is good to get opinions that are from outside of the fray.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)