OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

[Asclepias]

K so let's really break this down.

When she was 15, someone pushed her into a room, groped her over her clothes, laughed with her friend about it, briefly covered her mouth and....that was it. She escaped and that was the end of that.

Not good. Very bad. Unfortunate. If true, the guy's a cad.

But this woman, a wife and mother with two sons, two master's degrees, a PhD and etc is so traumatized by this almost 40 years later she "can't fly"? (but can). She needs two doors on the first floor? (But not until 2012).

That's just not right. I don't think it jives. I think she DID recover from this, and maybe trouble in her marriage brought it up again, fine. But to NOW cast this as if it "broke her". Nope. And don't a single man here fall for it, either.

Sorry but I know women that have been through the same thing and it indeed ***** up their lives.

But her life was not effed up. She went on to school and multiple advanced degrees. Not only a successful life, but an exemplary career by all standards. She seems to be REALLY dwelling on something that happened a really long time ago, was very short, and did not rise to actual rape or even close.

I hear what your saying, but, just the incident that happened is enough to screw things up for her.....doesn't have to be noticed by people.
My point is that something probably happened, but, not with Kav.

I have no doubt that it was and can continue to be disturbing. What I dispute is the grandstanding and the drama we saw today. This woman has had a successful life in every arena of life. People who are deeply traumatized do not typically do that. I cannot say she was not disturbed or bothered. But I can say it did not have a deep traumatic impact on her life. I mean...objectively.

I disagree. There are lots of accomplished people that are deeply traumatized. In fact that trauma is often instrumental to them over achieving.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why the **** is her looks continually pointed out?

That is more than pointless.

Thats the next progression. She handed the repubs a bag of explosives so now they are deconstruction mode. They have to find something to break her down.

It looks like Kavanaugh is up next.

The GOP won't take any shots at the lady-professor.

Not now but you can bet they are going to talk about how ugly she is.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beer holder.

I too think the lady-professor is pretty. I have no problem with her looks.

She is a credible witness. Her testimony seems factual.

Kavanaugh is between a rock and a hard place now.

What facts? You been drinking?

 

[yiostheoy]

K so let's really break this down.

When she was 15, someone pushed her into a room, groped her over her clothes, laughed with her friend about it, briefly covered her mouth and....that was it. She escaped and that was the end of that.

Not good. Very bad. Unfortunate. If true, the guy's a cad.

But this woman, a wife and mother with two sons, two master's degrees, a PhD and etc is so traumatized by this almost 40 years later she "can't fly"? (but can). She needs two doors on the first floor? (But not until 2012).

That's just not right. I don't think it jives. I think she DID recover from this, and maybe trouble in her marriage brought it up again, fine. But to NOW cast this as if it "broke her". Nope. And don't a single man here fall for it, either.

Sorry but I know women that have been through the same thing and it indeed ***** up their lives.

But her life was not effed up. She went on to school and multiple advanced degrees. Not only a successful life, but an exemplary career by all standards. She seems to be REALLY dwelling on something that happened a really long time ago, was very short, and did not rise to actual rape or even close.

I hear what your saying, but, just the incident that happened is enough to screw things up for her.....doesn't have to be noticed by people.
My point is that something probably happened, but, not with Kav.

You're kidding me right ?!

 

[Tilly]

So much cry voice, so few tears.

 

[Indeependent]

K so let's really break this down.

When she was 15, someone pushed her into a room, groped her over her clothes, laughed with her friend about it, briefly covered her mouth and....that was it. She escaped and that was the end of that.

Not good. Very bad. Unfortunate. If true, the guy's a cad.

But this woman, a wife and mother with two sons, two master's degrees, a PhD and etc is so traumatized by this almost 40 years later she "can't fly"? (but can). She needs two doors on the first floor? (But not until 2012).

That's just not right. I don't think it jives. I think she DID recover from this, and maybe trouble in her marriage brought it up again, fine. But to NOW cast this as if it "broke her". Nope. And don't a single man here fall for it, either.

Sorry but I know women that have been through the same thing and it indeed ***** up their lives.

But her life was not effed up. She went on to school and multiple advanced degrees. Not only a successful life, but an exemplary career by all standards. She seems to be REALLY dwelling on something that happened a really long time ago, was very short, and did not rise to actual rape or even close.

I hear what your saying, but, just the incident that happened is enough to screw things up for her.....doesn't have to be noticed by people.
My point is that something probably happened, but, not with Kav.

I have no doubt that it was and can continue to be disturbing. What I dispute is the grandstanding and the drama we saw today. This woman has had a successful life in every arena of life. People who are deeply traumatized do not typically do that. I cannot say she was not disturbed or bothered. But I can say it did not have a deep traumatic impact on her life. I mean...objectively.

I disagree. There are lots of accomplished people that are deeply traumatized. In fact that trauma is often instrumental to them over achieving.

You, for example.

 

[Asclepias]

ignores the fact that Kavanaugh was a virgin.

...and a choir boy too.

 

[martybegan]

They had months and months to investigate this. Feinstein had the information TWO MONTHS before the official hearings were held.

So we should keep trying people until we find the guilty? How Fascist of you.

Actually trying to prosecute him would be better because you would be held to a far higher standard of evidence, and any judge would throw out the charges in a heartbeat.

They are asking for "An investigation" as cover to vote no and use Ford's accusation as a shield, at least the Dems from Red States are.

-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Kavenaugh will receive an up or down vote
Something Garland never received

The writing was on the wall with Garland, he wasn't going to get the votes.
How many times did Reid shelve Bills because there wasn't the votes. No difference

Then they should have had to put their vote on the record and be accountable for it
If Garland was voted down, Obama should have had the opportunity to name a replacement

Just like Trump will

You are comparing apples and tactical nuclear warheads.

Just admit you see character assassination as a viable political tool, regardless of the evidence at hand.

 

[yiostheoy]

K so let's really break this down.

When she was 15, someone pushed her into a room, groped her over her clothes, laughed with her friend about it, briefly covered her mouth and....that was it. She escaped and that was the end of that.

Not good. Very bad. Unfortunate. If true, the guy's a cad.

But this woman, a wife and mother with two sons, two master's degrees, a PhD and etc is so traumatized by this almost 40 years later she "can't fly"? (but can). She needs two doors on the first floor? (But not until 2012).

That's just not right. I don't think it jives. I think she DID recover from this, and maybe trouble in her marriage brought it up again, fine. But to NOW cast this as if it "broke her". Nope. And don't a single man here fall for it, either.

Sorry but I know women that have been through the same thing and it indeed ***** up their lives.

But her life was not effed up. She went on to school and multiple advanced degrees. Not only a successful life, but an exemplary career by all standards. She seems to be REALLY dwelling on something that happened a really long time ago, was very short, and did not rise to actual rape or even close.

I hear what your saying, but, just the incident that happened is enough to screw things up for her.....doesn't have to be noticed by people.
My point is that something probably happened, but, not with Kav.

I have no doubt that it was and can continue to be disturbing. What I dispute is the grandstanding and the drama we saw today. This woman has had a successful life in every arena of life. People who are deeply traumatized do not typically do that. I cannot say she was not disturbed or bothered. But I can say it did not have a deep traumatic impact on her life. I mean...objectively.

I disagree. There are lots of accomplished people that are deeply traumatized. In fact that trauma is often instrumental to them over achieving.

I saw a stat somewhere that 25% of females and 10% of males are sexually exploited at some point.

 

[caddo kid]

The GOP is getting nervous; they are feeling the HEAT

Chris Wallace on Christine Blasey Ford Testimony: 'This Is a Disaster for Republicans'


Kavanaugh confirmation vote should be delayed due to 'sickening' assault allegations, some GOP governors say

 

[Oddball]

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You really think it’s only Republican men?

Where did I say only? I said repub men seem to have a problem with being sexual predators. The leader of the repubs likes grabbing pussies.

Kinda sounds cuckolded?

I cant see Drumpf being a cuck. He is an apex sexual predator.

I suspect Trump thinks this is all a victimless crime, yes.

However the political implications for November will cause Trump and the GOP to rethink Kavanaugh very quickly.

I am waiting with 'baited breath to hear what Kavanaugh will say during his grilling by the DEMs next.

If the GOP caves on Kavanaugh with zero evidence against him, they will lose the election.

I don’t think the two are connected tbh

 

[basquebromance]

"Bad day for America. Good day for the redundant front door installation industry."

 

[Flash]

Trump will spin this hatefest and dishonesty by the Democrats as a great reason for Americans to not vote for Democrats in November He will ram it up their ass.

 

[theHawk]

They had months and months to investigate this. Feinstein had the information TWO MONTHS before the official hearings were held.

So we should keep trying people until we find the guilty? How Fascist of you.

Actually trying to prosecute him would be better because you would be held to a far higher standard of evidence, and any judge would throw out the charges in a heartbeat.

They are asking for "An investigation" as cover to vote no and use Ford's accusation as a shield, at least the Dems from Red States are.

-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Kavenaugh will receive an up or down vote
Something Garland never received

The writing was on the wall with Garland, he wasn't going to get the votes.
How many times did Reid shelve Bills because there wasn't the votes. No difference

Then they should have had to put their vote on the record and be accountable for it
If Garland was voted down, Obama should have had the opportunity to name a replacement

Just like Trump will

I don’t think Dems should be rewarded for the suspicious death of Scalia by getting to name his replacement. It would encourage assassinations of them.

 

[yiostheoy]

ignores the fact that Kavanaugh was a virgin.

...and a choir boy too.

It is unfortunate that Kavanaugh had played the church card before all this.

He was a dirt bag drunk not a church mouse growing up.

 

[Asclepias]

Sorry but I know women that have been through the same thing and it indeed ***** up their lives.

But her life was not effed up. She went on to school and multiple advanced degrees. Not only a successful life, but an exemplary career by all standards. She seems to be REALLY dwelling on something that happened a really long time ago, was very short, and did not rise to actual rape or even close.

I hear what your saying, but, just the incident that happened is enough to screw things up for her.....doesn't have to be noticed by people.
My point is that something probably happened, but, not with Kav.

I have no doubt that it was and can continue to be disturbing. What I dispute is the grandstanding and the drama we saw today. This woman has had a successful life in every arena of life. People who are deeply traumatized do not typically do that. I cannot say she was not disturbed or bothered. But I can say it did not have a deep traumatic impact on her life. I mean...objectively.

I disagree. There are lots of accomplished people that are deeply traumatized. In fact that trauma is often instrumental to them over achieving.

I saw a stat somewhere that 25% of females and 10% of males are sexually exploited at some point.

Yeah and its got to be way higher than that since its so under reported.

 

[forkup]

Actually the FBI is also responsible for doing background checks. They don't need even a suggestion of criminal behavior for that. So suggesting that it's impossible for the FBI to investigate someone up for a position in the federal government, is wrong.

They already did one. Six of them. They wouldn't turn up anything more on this, because as we have seen, there is ZERO documentation of what happened that night.

The Committee has sent questions to anyone they can reach who was involved, that is the same thing the FBI would do, it would just take them longer.

A background check is a very specific thing. They just gather INFORMATION, they don't use it to build a case, which is basically what the left is calling for here.

So if I investigate somebody 100 times but afterwards stuff comes out that I missed does that mean I don't have a right to investigate those things? The only thing I've seen the left, or anybody do is ask for an investigation. Show me one who is even suggesting prosecuting Kavanaugh?

They had months and months to investigate this. Feinstein had the information TWO MONTHS before the official hearings were held.

So we should keep trying people until we find the guilty? How Fascist of you.

Actually trying to prosecute him would be better because you would be held to a far higher standard of evidence, and any judge would throw out the charges in a heartbeat.

They are asking for "An investigation" as cover to vote no and use Ford's accusation as a shield, at least the Dems from Red States are.

-So now you jump from the process of background checks to, "the Democrats use this as a political weapon". Probably... It says nothing about the truth of the claims more about how unethical politics is. Something that Republicans have done on more then a few occasions.
-As to how unfair it is. The picking of a SCOTUS nominee IS a political process not a judicial one. I find it the height of irony that a Republican asks for a nomination process were there is no political gamesmanship and the standard of the nominee in question should be no higher then whether or not he has committed sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Garland wasn't even allowed a meeting let alone a hearing when he was put forward. Kavanaugh had no compunction trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about a blowjob between CONSENTING ADULTS. Here's a tip. When asking for not just fair but unreasonable fair behavior. Which, not holding a higher standard that there is doubt that he committed a crime is. It's probably a good idea to have a proven track record of fairness yourself. Otherwise what is it but blatant, self-serving hypocrisy?

I have always been of the opinion that this is nothing more than a political weapon. And the Garland thing has nothing to do with this. He was denied hearings, his whole life wasn't turned upside down in an attempt to ruin him. He wasn't accused of unprovable acts done 30+ years ago.

How many Democratic SC appointments have gone though this much acrimony and outright hatred?

Everything else in your response is bullshit fluff.

How about we ruin your life with accusations with this level of evidence?

Where was Kavanaugh objections on the Clinton impeachment? You call it irrelevant. I call it highly appropriate. If I hit you in the face, would you, hitting me back be unjustified? I don't know for certain certain these accusations are true. I very much suspect they were. She has to be the best actress in the world to give that account she did during the hearing. You don't know for certain that they are untrue. Yet you are perfectly willing to assert that Kavanaugh doesn't deserve this. In the end can't you guys just pull this guys name and nominate someone equally dreadful?

 

[jc456]

The lady-professor told her story.

It was the opening volley in a huge battle between GOP and DEMs that will continue all day.

Then a vote tomorrow, unless Kavanaugh or Trump withdraws the nomination first.

nothing new was learned today.

BTW, I knew this before this ever happened. It's why I said last Tuesday there should have been a vote.

Meh, it does seem pretty pointless so far, but even so it needed to be done even if just for appearances.

You don't seem to appreciate the gravity of the situation.

as easy already posted:

Ford:
Has No Idea Where The Party Was
Has No Idea When The Party Was - not even the YEAR
Not sure how she got there
No idea how she got home
Claims to have been intoxicated, which effects memory
The 4 Witnesses she named say IT NEVER HAPPENED
Never told her family
Never told her friends
Never filed charges
Never intended to file charges
Never came out about it
Never wanted to come out about it
Says her therapist 'got it wrong' in their therapy notes
Claims she 'corrected therapist' in her story to the Washington Post
Has no idea who paid for her polygraph test

...but...

'Ford: I'm '100 percent' certain Kavanaugh assaulted me'

any psychologist in their right mind would say this isn't possible and isn't logical.

 

[Indeependent]

The GOP is getting nervous; they are feeling the HEAT

Chris Wallace on Christine Blasey Ford Testimony: 'This Is a Disaster for Republicans'


Kavanaugh confirmation vote should be delayed due to 'sickening' assault allegations, some GOP governors say

Wallace is not a Conservative and neither was his father.

 

[captkaos]

Lindsey Graham just gave a remarkable interview in the hallway. way to go Lindsey!!!

Lindsey Graham was hysterical and childish, Dr. Ford was emotional, mature and rational.

Republicans needed to break her story and establish that she was not credible

They failed

Ford established that herserlf

She didn’t break
She calmly laid out her story and Republicans failed to break it

LMAO What was to break. She has no witnesses. No proof. Its a he said. She said and that's about it.

I watched her and she looked far from credible to me. She couldn't remember where the party was or how she got home.

The whole thing was a big waste of time over something that happened 30+ years ago. Something that should have been reported then. Something that should have been investigated then.

He said. She said.

It's she said she said, I can't disprove something that didn't happen 40 yrs ago either, can any of you! So if I can't disprove it I must be guilty, and if you cant prove it you must be telling the truth. HUH?