Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Dont think the FBI can do anything about Mollie not being the guy's type

 

This might help explain it:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/04/kavanaugh-trump-mueller-executive-power-219634

They might have trouble finding another potential justice who is on record as having advocated for the position that the president is above the law.

 

I guess it depends Mollie, is the “attractive woman” 15 years old and pinned to the bar on her stomach with her mouth covered and trying to scream? If she is, then yes Mollie, you should probably do her a “solid” and alert someone.

 

I wonder of she and her friends proclaimed their membership in the Brent Kavanaugh Alumni club.

 

The equivalent of saying you saw someone buying a gallon of milk, should you alert the FBI?

 

Because that is totally the same thing.

 

this was the week that Trump's reality show got its comeuppance:

​

• his lies were laughed at by the attendees at the UNGA
• he succumbed to political pressure from within his own political party
  • when he ordered the FBI to do an investigation of the sexual misconduct claims against BK, which directly contradicts his words when Prof Ford's claim first surfaced
    • ~ 2 weeks ago, when asked multiple times whether he would order the FBI to reopen its investigation, Trump had suggested that the FBI "doesn't do that."

​

but, it has diverted attention away from the Mueller investigation

 

All you can do is wonder because the evidence has been destroyed.

 

Thank you. The tweet was repugnant.

 

It depends, is she willing to claim that the person was Brett Kavanaugh? One woman is getting nearly a million dollars for making a claim against him but convincing vocal fry is a must.

 

Habits are hard to break. He is never a straight shooter, is often misrepresenting and at time just lie. The worst of politician and yet he is about to be a SCJ.

 

Because BK did fool a number of folks, or a number of folks are willfully ignorant, she must clarify something that didn’t need to be clarify.



"Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account," Keyser's attorney, Howard Walsh, wrote in the letter, which was sent to the committee overnight Friday. "However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question."

 

LOL that IS refuting her allegations. When someone says that a person was at an event with you and the other person says that not only were they not at that event with you but they never even went to that event at any point ever....they are refuting your claim.

 

Your characterization of what she is isn't what she said.

 

She said she never even met Brett Kavanaugh at any point ever and was never at a party with him at any point either with Ford or without her. That directly refutes Ford's claim that she was with her at a party with Kavanaugh. In fact, everyone at the party has suggested that they don't remember there being such a party as described, but Leland Keyser's claim went further than that suggesting that she was never at a party with Brett Kavanaugh at any point ever. If we were talking about a large party with 100 people in attendance then you could say that maybe they just didn't know they were at the same party together, but in a party with 6 total people, you know who else is there.

 

Here are some problems.

1. There is corroborating evidence to the crime which Ford testified. That evidence is Kavanaugh's calendar which puts him with the people Ford mentioned drinking which Ford also mentioned.

2. Republicans can choose scores of other conservative judges who don't have this problem of sexual assault accusation. They are fighting for this one in part as a stance against #Me too. They want to draw a line with women stepping forward and speaking out against a culture that has been tolerated for too long. They are trying to say " enough is enough."

3. This is a job interview. If any of us went to a job interview and yelled and interrupted the interviewers the way Kavanaugh did we wouldn't get the job.

4. If a woman did that she would be called hysterical, overly emotional, and all sorts of other names.

 

That's in no way corroborative to her story. It was never in question that he hung out with his friends, her story is that she was there, something corroborated by no one and nothing.....even her close friends deny it.

But they don't have to dump a nominee over baseless allegations and IMO they shouldn't. Doing so would set a terrible precedent. It's important to draw a line and say that you need evidence in order to lynch someone in this country.....no matter what the #MeToo zealots would prefer.

Unless the "company" was split on the idea and a minority of the company was being shitheads about it while the majority wanted to hire you. Yelling at the shithead minority might actually entice the majority to hire you....it shows you aren't a shithead like the minority.

If a man brought baseless allegations of sexual assault against a woman, the man would be laughed out of the building, they wouldn't be trying to lynch the woman without any evidence whatsoever.

 

She doesn't know when

She doesn't know where

She doesn't know who brought here there

She doesn't know who took her home

She can't identify anyone who remembers the party or Kavanaugh

A man has a decades long professional career with zero complaints (quite the opposite), and a few days before he's about to be confirmed, they try to smear him as an alcoholic gang rapist, with zero evidence, zero corroboration, just an accusation from 30+ years ago.

There is nothing the left will not do for power, especially if their holiest of sacraments - the right to kill the unborn - is at stake.

 

This is no ordinary job this is US Supreme Court Justice. What Kavanaugh did was loudly and publicly admit he is partisan and biased. He laid out his enemies list of a vast Left Wing conspiracy. Any ruling he makes from now on that concerns those who he has called his enemies is automatically suspect.

Judges frequently like to compare their job to that of referees or umpires in sports. Complaining about refs is something we love to do on Clutchfans. Imagine if an NBA ref publicly and angrily said he hated the Rockets and that Tilman Fertitta and pro-Rockets sports writers were part of a conspiracy ruin his life. Would us or anyone else in the NBA for that matter trust him to fairly call a Rockets game? Would a referee like that even be allowed to continue in the NBA?