Is anyone paying attention to the Kavanaugh hearings?

How did BKs massive debts disappear overnight? Who paid them off?

He's a part time ticket scalper. He buys a bunch of sports tickets and sells them to his friends.

Are you taking about the Nats season tickets he charged to his credit card for which his friends reimbursed him, or something else?

I don’t know. Maybe the Koch Brothers helped. I know George Soros is paying protestors to show up and clog the works at the hearings and many other events.

As I said, I’m not necessarily a BK fan. His voting to black bag Americans would lose my vote BUT he would still get my vote IF this accusation was the only blemish.

On this matter, he gets my vote. On his other decisions, maybe not so much so. I hope I’m defending the principal of innocent until proven guilty, not specifically BK.

This comment has been deleted.

Agreed...

Even "if" this alleged incident took place, can a person be destroyed for stuff that college guys and gals do (to this date)?

I mean, look at Bill Cosby...THAT is an example of a predator - not horny boys at college trying to get lucky.

And call me a "victim shamer" all you want, but I'm tired of the hypocrisy of all these meeeetoo victims...'Oh, I'm a sweet catholic girl and had no idea that booze and college parties meant that I was gonna be disrespected by a bunch of horny boys'???

So, can all the traumatized victims of "strip poker" now come forward?

Bill Cosby got away with it for decades...no one did anything until about it until their where like 50 women..

Same with Sandusky, Nassar, the Catholic Church..

Boys and men are also victims.

And she passed a polygraph, can he?

Polygraphs are so unreliable they can't be used in a court of law. Hers never mentioned BK so how could it be useful in a case about BK?

They use them to screen for employment screenings all the time. And, at the end of the day, that is what this is.

Polygraphs do not measure whether someone is telling the truth or not. Polygraphs just show whether or not the subject had a physical reaction to certain questioning...

So, if someone is cool as a cucumber and/or manipulates his/her physical responses to the line of questioning, they can pass and/or confuse the polygraph results.

Now, just because someone had a physical reaction to a question doesn't mean he/her is guilty of something. For example, let's say on a polygraph you were asked if you use drugs. You may not have used drugs, but you found the question so offensive that a physical response was registered. Again, a polygraph only registers physical responses.

See, the public's ignorance on topics like "polygraphs" and what the FBI does is what these politicians and special interest groups are playing upon...for example, the FBI has no reason to investigate these accusations. Why? Because the "F" in FBI is for "federal". The alleged incidents did not happen when Kavanaugh and/or his accusers were federal employees and/or on federal property - it would fall under the sheriff, police, bureau of investigation of their county, city, and/or state. But noooo, people hear FBI and start jumping up like morons.

I am upset that Trump ordered the FBI investigation. He probably did it just to shut up the opposing side and that is a problem because we should not acquiesce to mob rule. And, again, that is the scary part about these accusations - that "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" is thrown out of the window. So, if we are going to deny a person's due process over allegations of a woman being sexually harassed and/or assaulted - why not throw away due process for everything???

I mean, this Dr. woman and all her buddies are demanding that the investigation be conducted a certain way, on their terms, etc. and everyone is bending over backwards cuz they don't want to offend womenkind? Seriously? There are women and even men, who lie through their teeth about sexual assault and/or harAskMent. I had a soldier who under me did the same thing. She said she was assaulted when in fact she cheated. When her bf went to fight the other guy for "allegedly" assaulting her and my command was going to investigate, she finally came clean. Accusations, taken at face value and bending over backwards for an accuser is a dangerous precedent if adopted as the norm, but unfortunately that is what we have now a days...employers don't wanna deal with lawsuits and now politicians and bending over backwards to special interest groups.

Remember this, and like my fav radio guy is warning us, if you think it is cool to take away Kavanaugh's right to due process just because he is a Republican and you are scared of him taking away Roe v. Wade, get ready for the day when the same is done to you when someone walking down the street falsely accuses you of X, Y or Z.

Yes, the national security agencies - like FBI, NSA, etc. use polygraphs.

But polygraphs are just a tool used to TRY to figure out if someone is telling the truth or not. Polygraphs by themselves tell nothing.

For example, if you notice someone has a certain reaction to certain questioning during a polygraph, you can use that to open up an inquiry/investigation into something and/or get them to break down and confess.

Again, polygraphs CANNOT tell if someone is telling the truth, it just tells you if they had a physical response to questions made to them.

The term 'lynching' comes to mind. The law, and its 'due process' is what finally ended this horrible practice in our country.

If you wanted to find some black guy guilty of some 'sexual assault' you had to take him to court and prove it. You couldn't just declare him guilty because someone accused him and then string him up. The accusation is not enough, even if the accusation is true. Proof is required.

Who is protected by the fact that an accusation alone is not enough to find someone guilty? All of us.

Mobs like lynching, because it gives them the result they want, regardless of the facts.

Civilization demands facts and due process, and outlaws lynching.

*** that "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" is thrown out of the window. So, if we are going to deny a person's due process over allegations of a woman being sexually harassed and/or assaulted - why not throw away due process for everything???***

It has been thrown away aleady. Remember what happened to the 2 black men waiting for a friend at a Philadelphia Starbucks? They spent 8 hours in jail before they were released. For what? ......waiting for a friend while black.

I do believe anyone accused of any crime is entitled to an investigation. IMO he ordered the FBI to open the investigation as to not alienate his female voters.

And that’s the point. Because you know women who were assaulted doesn’t mean this woman was.

Each case has to be taken without emotion and based on the facts. It’s terrible that sometimes that notion allows a guilty man to go free but weighed against the notion of an innocent man being punished because of feelings instead of facts , that is the basis of our entire justice system.

While you want to “convict” Kavanaugh, under the same circumstances would you agree your father, brother or son also be treated by others this way?

No fan of Kavanaugh, he voted to black bag Americans under the Patriot Act and hold them without rights. THAT should interest us far more than some drunk groping he may have done as a teen.

The facts do not support the allegation.

Yes that may be true, but none of those men were Kavanaugh. What other men do, should not affect whether we think he is guilty or innocent. The color of his skin, his wealth and priviledge, or his gender does not in itself support guilt or innocence, one iota.

I'm not saying that Kavanaugh did anything, I'm simply stating that there may be more women out there than we think that have been abused and have said nothing, even after a great number of years have passed. In the case of the women I know, if one of them would say something today it would very much a case he said, she said. Perhaps we need some more investigation into the matter given the nature of the appointment.

Then we have the affidavit of Julie Swetnick, where she claims to have witnessed men lining up to gang rape a woman at MANY parties attended by Kavanaugh and Judge. My question for Swetnick is why she continued to attend parties where women were being gang raped. I would think that one incident would be enough to keep her away.

The man who claimed he witnessed BK grope a woman on a boat has already withdrawn his statement saying he was mistaken. But damage done.

IF Kavanaugh had attended ONE gang rape party, why didn't that get mentioned in the previous SIX background checks? Wouldn't someone have mentioned hearing about such parties at least? Why didnt this woman ever mention it before?

We saw the Dems cheat Bernie out of his rightful nomination. This was done by replacing the DNC head with Debbie Spagetti-hair. She made rule changes benefitting Hillary. The DNC guy was Tim Kaine, Hillary's VP pick. We saw Hillary get advance questions to debates from Donna Brazille. We saw spying on candidate and President Trump by a weaponized FBI, the same group that exonerated Hillary of mishandling of classified docs before they even interviewed her. My point is the Dems have a history of lying, cheating to get their way. Not saying Repubs are saints, just that the Dems have crossed the line from corruption into destruction of our democracy. This is evidence without punishment Now with BK, it's punishment without evidence. This is not how it works.

I think calling this a job interview, is patently false.

On a job interview, you entire life is not made public

On a job interview, there is not one side saying horrible things about you.

On a job interview, there is not a case being made against you, that affects how the entire country thinks about you.

Maybe once this was a job interview, but that is not how it is today. It is an ordeal.

What is the next person going to say, if asked if he wants the job?

When you're applying for a job in which you can make decisions that will control other people's lives and the duration of your job is until you are ready to leave or if you die in office --whichever comes first, the job interview process should be made public.

It's already public for elected officials.

***On a job interview, there is not a case being made against you, that affects how the entire country thinks about you.***

BK will be making decisions that will affect the entire country. Whether on gun control, reproductive rights, treatment of victims in rape cases; expanding the powers of the presidency.........
you don't think those issues affect you or people close to you?

False argument. I never said he should not be vetted. They already had the confirmation hearings. Going over his entire career. But the argument that this is just a job interview, is used by the press to say, why is he getting upset? It is used to downplay and normalize all the bad behavior of the political circus.

I have no problem with investigating to be sure about the facts. I have a problem with going forward publicly with an allegation where there are no corroboration, facts, and the only witnesses deny its existence? Acting like if you are moved by someone's sad story, it is more important than the facts. The actions of the senators, activists and the press are deplorable.

*BK will be making decisions that will affect the entire country*

And that’s exactly the point. And it’s a scary one.

Its honestly not a whole lot different than one side feeing justified in gunning down the opposition. It’s just less bloody.

The GOP don't want the facts. They are avoiding an FBI investigation. Something that BK would order for nominees when he worked in the Bush WH.

If the Dems are so interested in an FBI investigation, why didn't they call for one when Feinstein first got the letter? Why not when the Senate first held hearings? Why not when Feinstein met privately with BK? Because they aren't interested in the facts. They're interested in smearing the candidate as their last ditch effort to prevent the appointment.

Neither side wants what is right. They want to win. The Democrats just want to keep this going until after midterms, and hope they get a majority of the Senate. They will leave the seat unfilled for two years.

The point is everyone should be very polite, and say they are unsure who to believe until the facts come out. But it should be a finite process. Look if the Democrats could get the facts on their side, we would be hearing about them. So they desperately don't want the facts against them. That is why she has not said a date, a place, a time, she has not released her notes, she does not remember much at all about what happened last week.

They are trying to keep this going until they can come up with something else. How far are they willing to go? This is a bad tactic and it has been used too frequently. They seem to be willing to do anything, say anything. Don't you care? Or if he is not in your tribe, **** him.

The Republicans just want to declare victory and have a vote. The only reason why they have not is because it might look bad come election time. Question Judge, read the therapist notes. Look at the locations of the houses of each of BK's friends. But the truth is this has already been done, and there is nothing more to learn on the Ford case. You really don't think that legions of lawyers, private eyes, and activists have been searching like mad for evidence since the story broke. In the end, the Democrats will move onto a teen drunk theme make him unfit; to keep the filibuster going.

Dems are in the minority. The request has to come from either the majority party or the White
House.

The request couldn't come from either the majority party or the White House when they didn't know about Dr. Ford's claim, right?

If the Dems had really wanted to get the facts, they would not have kept Dr. Ford's claim a secret for 2 months. You can't look for facts when no one knows there's a problem.

So it's disingenuous, at best, for the Dems to suddenly claim they want an FBI investigation when they could have shared what they knew 2 months ago and suggested the Pres or the Repub start for an investigation then.

The Republicans don’t want the delay. Had these charges been brought in July when Feinstein first heard the accusation, REOPENING his 6th FBI investigation would have been easy.

The Dems presented the charges at the last minute to delay the vote, not to seek justice.

The Dems do not want a Trump conservative on the bench. This woman was not traumatized by this event. She is a Dem supporter being used to delay.

This is how they tried to get Clarence Thomas.

Dr Ford did not want to be known to the public. She wanted to get word to Trump about her accusations prior to him being picked-when he was still just on the list with other candidates. (She is clearly not into following politics, or she would not have thought President P---y Grabber would care. )

She is a succesful, educated woman who has no known political connections.

Everything you said, I agree with. And the same would be agreeable if the pronouns were reversed.

And it’s not right to let people who abuse, sexually or otherwise, other people “escape liability” for these crimes.

The way we do that is through due process. BK is innocent of until she can collaborate her accusation.

So far her story has holes. Those men in your life you love and respect, this would be enough evidence for you to believe they did this? Or you you want the accuser to have more than a faulty memory?

People was calling BK a rapist. A rapist for a drunken act he did at 17, 35 years ago. Is that justice?

I'm not throwing rocks at women. I'm throwing rocks at a system that allows a career and reputation to be ruined by an accusation with no evidence. If we're not to judge then this man should not be judged based on what has gone unproven and entirely unsupported.

For some crimes, there is no limitation (i.e. no limit in time) to prosecute. There are reasons for this.

That's what the hearing is trying to establish: is there evidence. The system has to be just for everyone, including the victim if victim there is.

Yes, that’s true but in this case, as stated by the metropolitan police having jurisdiction, what Mrs. Ford claimed was only a misdemeanor and for that, the statute of limitations expired decades ago.

This was not considered rape or even attempted rape. It was considered an assault.

One other thing I wanted to point out was that this was in the 80’s when a much different standard was held. There was no “#metoo” group in place to convince people that almost anything could be considered sexually offensive.

This entire movement, while great at first, has been hijacked for political purposes. And not just in this case but others before it.

I do not want to deny that Ms Ford was harmed by someone, who that someone could have been may never be fully proven but I do want to say any man is now subject to losing his job over someone’s accusation. It can never be enough. It must be more before we lynch.

I agree with the metoo movement. My daughter was molested by a close family member. We had more than just my daughters word thankfully and he got what he deserved. Had it just been hervwird against my family member, it would have been enough for me to never speak to him again but not enough for us to put him in jail where he belonged.

I see what the globalists are doing. They want to destroy the country with division. Our rule of law and due process is one thing that should keep us united.

I understand as part of the ethics in being a judge is that one should not even have the appearance of impropriety.

In any case, he is already a judge with a lifetime tenure.

There is no reason that he is going to lose that too.

How can any person stop anyone from making unsupported accusations? The solution is for others to discount those until there’s more to the story than one persons claim.

I agree with you that this is a very sensitive issue and now any man faces the possibility of having his career, family and reputation destroyed, by any unscrupulous (I would say scandalous) person who would claim that that man raped her or was sexually inappropriate, where the man is innocent. A perfect way to put someone down and how convenient especially against someone in a public position... It's a shame. That's being said, let the truth be uncovered, if ever it can be... because the justice system definitely has its failures!!

Unfortunately false accusations of sexual harAskMent and/or assault are also being made by men.

This IS a new low in our society, where some loser with an ulterior motive (i.e. money, a promotion, fame, to bring down someone, support a particular political party/movement) can make up stories and people out of fear will not challenge these losers.

I am a woman and was falsely accused of harassing some arse. He got a promotion, some money and I got fired.

So, there are also garbage "males" (can't call him a "man"), who also make up fake stories to get a quick buck.

Well, then you understand what I am saying. As a guy I can feel empathy towards you but i can tell you that what happened to you is going to happen more and more with all of this #metoo stuff.

Have you seen the money Dr. Ford is raking in on GoFundMe? ABC reported yesterday that 2 of the funds had already taken in $700,000 and there were several other funds also in Dr. Ford's name. I don't know what the amount is today.

hello

Exactly... and if the US doesn’t get its shit together in a hurry youre going to see a return to the violence and riots of the 60s and 70s.

This comment has been deleted.

Whatever people think about the allwgations against Kavanaugh, there is no question that he has politicized his nomination like none of his predecessors. From his interview on Fox news, to his op-ed in the WSJ..to his comments about Clinton and how he treated the Dem Senators during his confirmation hearing. It is horrible for the Supreme Court, whicj is why retired Republican justice came out against his nomination.

I wonder if he asked a crowd of people, ‘what steps have you taken to not be falsely accused of sexual assault?’ what the results would have been.

Again, anyone with half a brain should know that Ford is full of crap.

So what do you do to avoid being accused of sexual assault?

There’s not a lot you can do besides avoiding women completely, which is absurd. I can name probably a dozen men I know (including myself) who’ve been falsely accused of either sexually assaulting a woman or hitting a woman.

The black community has a saying, ‘guilty of walking while black.’

Pretty soon there will also be ‘guilty of having a penis’

There are thing that men can do to avoid being entrapped by a pregnancy. But it seems that they can be bothered.

The problem I would have with this is that you are posting this as an adjunct to this story to do what? Convince us that as men we are simply unable to understand what women feel like? That we don't understand the type of caution women must employ daily to avoid being victimized?

Of course we do. But usually not when it comes to sexual assault but rather assault itself. A lot of the items in that article are things that everyone, regardless of gender, should do to avoid a mugging that could potentially be fatal.

Suppose you ask the question of men how do they avoid being falsely accused of sexual harAskMent at work, especially if they are management?

Never be alone in a room with a woman, or at least ensure that the door is open and people can see inside. Have a female witness when you have to counsel or discipline a female employee. Never, ever, touch a female employee in any way. Immediately take action when you observe a male employee doing so, even if it appears consensual, and counsel both of them. Never ask a female employee to provide food for parties or be responsible for planning company parties or luncheons and always be seen as encouraging male employees to do so. Do not have one on one dinners with female employees, even if it is on a business trip. On business trips, never be alone with the employee, always contact by cell phone and not knock on their hotel room door. I can go on, but you see the point.

Most of the men reading this, and following what has been happening in the US for the past 5 years, understand what women are saying about sexual assault. Being married to a woman, having daughters-in-law, grand-daughters, female relatives and friends, and having the acquaintance of the ladies that post here to include yourself, I understand that there are men who rape, men who will drug women to do so, men who beat and kill women, men that sexually abuse children, etc, etc. Men do not like or respect men who do these things, it is quite the opposite. Even male criminals despise men who rape, and rapists and child molesters do not do well in prison.

But I don't then extrapolate that to mean that this type of behavior is rampant or that a great majority of men are predators, because that is simply not true. Just as it wouldn't be true to take violent crimes that women commit against men and children and say that all or most women do that.

And I will never accept the crap about incarcerating men, or destroying their lives, without due process based solely on a woman's say so. Because, like it or not, people DO lie. I'm not going to state that this Kavanaugh guy did or didn't do what this woman said he did. It should have been reported to the police at the time it happened. Yes, I can have empathy for women who are assaulted and acknowledge what they must feel, but at the end of the day, if you want justice to be served, you have to go through the justice system. However flawed you may think it is, it is still better than mob rule and vigilantism.

And that is what you see now being bandied about in the press. When a woman accuses a guy of something, it is automatically true and as such there is no need for a trial, just swift retribution.

I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that some men sexually assault some women.

But it does not necessarily follow that, therefore, whenever a woman makes an accusation, she must be right and he must be wrong. Some people seem to be conflating these things. They are separate.

I'm arguing that we still need a requirement of proof, and this protects all of us from false accusations.

Most people, including Dr Ford, were just asking for an investigation.

The message of this thread seems to be that if an individual presents an allegation of sexual assault or harAskMent, it should not be investigated, because the investigation would be detrimental to the accused, who might be innocent. And if you love a man or men you should agree with this.

I disagree with this premise.

People lie, investigations can be messy, but those things do not mean that victims should not be heard--and not all of those victims are female.

36 years after the alleged assault, several years after she supposedly mentioned this assault to her therapist, 2 months after she gave a letter to Feinstein, and now 'all she's asking for is an investigation'?

There is nothing sketchy about this timing?

I have not seen anyone say that a sexual assault should not be investigated. But I think we can all agree that no man (or woman) could defend himself from any allegation 36 years after the fact when the allegation includes no facts other than that it took place somewhere at some time.

*Most people, including Dr Ford, were just asking for an investigation.*

Come on, you don’t really believe that. Dr ford and most people in the left just want to prevent another conservative judge from being on the SCOTUS.

Uh, unfortunately women are not physically capable of fighting off some who would want to harm them, so taking precautions is "smart", not a sign of men oppressing women...

Same thing in the animal kingdom. A lion isn't gonna attack the strongest in a pack of prey, the lion is gonna go for prey that it can overpower.

Dr. Ford and all her buddies IMO need to stop with the hypocrisy. Go to a frat party with booze and boys and what do you think is gonna happen?

An investigation is supposed to find the proof--either way.

Requesting an investigation is the exact opposite of assuming guilt, or innocence.

After listening to Dr Fords testimony regarding the sexual assault she says happened to her, Sen Orin Hatch described her as "attractive"....

I am not sure that most men "get it".. At least not the older generations...

"Go to a frat party with boys and booze and what do you think is going to happen"

Seriously? What exactly are you saying?

Regardless of the nasty politics at play on both sides, the time line, etc., the thousands and thousands of sexual assault victims in this country deserve to have allegations of this nature investigated before confirmation.

So she dyed her hair and had it professionally blown out and put on all that makeup because...she did NOT want to be attractive???

Sorry, can't agree. If you are a victim of sexual assault, you need to report it to the police for investigation and prosecution as I said before. This dog and pony show has nothing at all to do with "thousands and thousands of sexual assault victims" and everything to do with the Democrats not wanting a conservative judge on the court.

And also this:

'Outside the Dirsken Senate Office building on Thursday morning, Cameron Mixon, a 22-year-old Georgetown Law School student was sporting a tee-shirt with the slogan: “Men Are Trash.”

“I love your shirt!” one woman told Mixon. “It’s amazing,” another agreed. By 9:30 a.m., Mixon said, about 20 people had asked to take photos next to her."

Well, then I guess you think Jerry Sandusky should be out of jail, and his access to Penn State's locker room showers reinstated, since those allegations were not made immediately either... And, while we are at it-leave those priests alone! How dare all those people claim they were abused as children! No, that really does not work for me.

You'd best read the timeline of the Jerry Sandusky case and acknowledge major differences.

The women that are involved in this little game the Democrats are playing STILL have not filed a police report. There have been no criminal charges made, and there won't be, but that was never the plan to begin with.

This has now become common in the US. Don't file charges with the police because then there is an actual investigation and need for evidence and actual proof. Just make the allegations and sit back and watch the person's reputation and life be destroyed. It is even worse on American college campuses.

The major difference between you and I, from what I see, is that I believe in due process according to the laws of our country. Even though the system does have its shortcomings at times, and people are often not pleased at the outcome, it is better than mob rule.

This comment has been deleted.

2. These women being credible is the entire point. Simply saying he did it in a "I'm about to cry" voice without any other collaboration is NOT credible.

https://imgur.com/a/YYhCaMV

So these women:
1. Signed affidavits that mean they've committed perjury which can/will affect their career's and security clearances,
2. Are smart enough to know that doing this they were going to get their names dragged through the mud, and that they would receive death threats over this,
3. Ford spoke to a therapist about the incident six years ago.

And that's not enough to make them credible? There's enough evidence to indict him on the affidavits alone.

Also just for interest, if one thinks that verbal testimony is enough to convict someone of murder which has the death penalty, how do you rationalize that verbal testimony _isn't_ enough to get someone's resume dropped from the pool of potential candidates?

1. She signed an affidavit. BK signed one too. She has no need for a clearance, he might. She’s a professor who until a few days ago claimed on the school website that she was a psychologist which she is not. That “mistake” was corrected after her testimony.

2. Go FundMe accounts in her name have raised $900,000 to help pay for her “security”. Her job at a liberal college is hardly in jeopardy for her testimony unless it’s proven fraudulent and then the evidence her school would require against her would have to be more damning than some guy saying so. BKs rep has been stained.

3. Ford did speak to her therapist several years ago. Specifically she mentioned it after BKs name was mentioned as a possible candidate if Romney won the election.

When she told her therapist he wrote it was four boys in the room. She claims he miswrote. She also told her husband that it was theee boys and a girl.

She also claimed to be claustrophobic due to her PTSD that this event “contributed” to, meaning she already had it at 15. When asked, she said there were no other events. This was also why she claimed inability to fly, which she has done dozens of times.

She offers few details except she is sure it was BK. Of the few she did offer there have been inconsistencies AND memory lapses about things occurring only a few weeks ago.

She also testified she did not remember if she was videotaped during her lie detector and she stated she just remembered being strapped in and answering a lot of questions. The polygrapher asked her TWO questions total.

She has no credibility as a witness

"She has no need for a clearance."
His second accuser does.

"...job at a liberal college..."
His second accuser holds multiple clearances directly related to her work. Ford's job would also be in jeopardy if it turned out that she perjured herself and brought down negative impressions on her employer.

"BKs rep has been stained."
Let him sue for libel then.

"She has no credibility as a witness"
Doesn't mean it didn't happen either, and with multiple other accusers and witnesses, I'd hate to be on the wrong side of this if you're wrong.

Also if she has no credibility, then neither does he for the cases where it's obvious he lied under oath or the fact that he prepped a character witness list of 65 women "just in case" and perhaps also the fact that very few of those women are still willing to stand by it.

I'm unaware of anyone refusing to stand by their statements about BK. She also provided plenty of signatures attesting to her character and credibility, yet her parents and siblings were not signors.

Your comment about hate to be on the wrong side of this...... this is NOT about either punishing him just in case he is guilty OR letting a "rapist" go free.

This is about due process and the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If this woman had ONE witness to collaborate her story.... do you know why she can't remember how she got to the party? Becasue if momma drove or her brother dropped her off, THAT would give us someone to ask about that night. She was 15, left the party, no cell phone.... did she go to as neighbor....can't remember because we could maybe ask the neighbor.

This is a set-up. She's a Democratic operative, not a real victim of a sex crime. She's provided few details and of the ones provided, there are inconsistencies. That spells set up.

Now his class at Harvard Law has voted not to bring BK back to teach. It is a sad day when our student lawyers practice guilty until proven innocent.

I've lost my long reply three times now so the short version:

It's a job interview not a trial. He is _not_ entitled to due process.

Even without the accusations from 4 (or is it 5 now) women, he's a bad candidate. (chosen by Trump, partisan, perjury about drinking, weird debt disappearing that reeks of bribe , not calm or level headed, etc. )

Let the FBI investigate and see what they find. If there's enough to indict him in front of a grand jury (and there is) maybe the GOP should vette their candidates more competently.

I disagree. I think due process is a way we conduct any accusation of rape, whether for a job or school admission or anything else. If you remember, the Duke lacrosse team did not get due process. They were accused, found guilty by a school facility team and prosecuted by a prosecutor who was later disbarred for his actions.

Due process is the right to face your accuser, to cross examine... do you remember anyone cross-examining Ford? She was asked some softball questions, nothing too pointy becasue the Repubs did not want to be seen as harassing a witness. How silly. SHE made a serious allegation, she needs to be grilled like a cheese sandwich for the many inconsistencies.

And 4 or 5 accusers.... if we count people who claim "there were gang rapes and drugged people" but yet I never saw BK drug or rape BUT I did see him giving out red cups to people (implying BK was handing out drugged drinks randomly to whoever took one) That witness she attended TEN of these gang rape parties until she herself was raped. She stopped going after that, it wasn't as much fun after that I suppose. Seriously?

Weird debt? Ford has collected over $900K from GoFundMe. You don't think there's a payoff in there somewhere? Why couldn't some generous benefactor pay off debts for Kavanaugh for the trouble he's been through?

One thing.... Ford claimed she told her husband about her attack when she had to explain why she wanted a second front door installed in their house. She confessed it was for her claustrophobia, her "escape door" she called it. This condition was part of her PTSD that BK casued when he attacked her. It was also the reason given for her delay in coming to Washington, her fear of flying which we now know is another lie.

That door, according to building permits, was installed in 2008. She told her husband in 2012. And she didn't even install it. It was installed by the previous owner who used that room and door as an office for her counseling business. Ford used that room with private entrance to "host" Google interns which explains how and why her social media was wiped so quickly including HER yearbook.

Another point... if Ford was so traumatized by Bk, how was she able to rent rooms to strange men interns? If she needed an escape door, why invite strange men in to live with them?

"I disagree. I think due process is a way we conduct any accusation of rape, whether for a job or school admission or anything else."

Disagree all you want, but when you're not in a court, for better or for worse, that is not the way things are done whether you're talking about rape or any other number of crimes like petty theft. Is an employee who might be stealing from the till entitled to due process? In an ideal world yeah we'd have the resources to dig deep into every accusation. But we don't and if they get fired over an accusation there's not much else they can do about it. Or more relevantly, if they don't get hired at a new place that's everyday life.

"If you remember, the Duke lacrosse team did not get due process. They were accused, found guilty by a school facility team and prosecuted by a prosecutor who was later disbarred for his actions."

Name the prosecutor who's charged BK with anything here. Go ahead I'll wait.

"Due process is the right to face your accuser, to cross examine..."

Yes, in a court of law. Who's the BK rape trial judge? Go ahead I'll wait.

"That witness she attended TEN of these gang rape parties until she herself was raped. She stopped going after that, it wasn't as much fun after that I suppose. Seriously?"

People make bad decisions and put themselves in danger. They drink and drive, they accept rides from people they don't know, they have unprotected sex with strangers, they eat too much, they don't eat enough etc. Then add in that 18-25 year olds tend to think they're invulnerable. At the end of the day are they dumb? Yes.

It may have been predictable, but do they deserve what happened to them if they're being acted on by a predator? Go ahead I'll wait.

"Weird debt? Ford has collected over...."
This isn't about Ford. Ford isn't up for influencing 40 years of legal decisions. No one can make an argument that Ford should recuse herself from cases about politics whereas a decent lawyer would point to BK's rant on the Clintons and there's no way a democrat could get a fair trial from him. You keep deflecting from the fact that the debt he incurred disappeared rather suddenly whereas if he was a democrat you'd be wondering where the money came from. So now I'm wondering and you keep saying "look over there at how bad she is" when I'm not talking about her debt. Show some consistency.

"Why couldn't some generous benefactor pay off debts for Kavanaugh for the trouble he's been through?"
Because the go fund me happened after the nomination. The debts disappeared prior when he was still just a regular judge. To use your line of attack, why hasn't he publically named the people he said he was buying tickets for? It's just not very credible and reeks of either being a consistent gambler or having been bribed for a decision.

"Ford used that room with private entrance to "host" Google interns which explains how and why her social media was wiped so quickly including HER yearbook."

Google interns wiped a hardcopy year book from the 80s? Seriously?

"Are we arguing for the right to abort here rather than discussing the merits of this particular accusation?"
Neither. His temperament, his political bias and his perjury under oath should disqualify him from the position.

"Since when did you ever believe America abandoned the right to due process in any matter?"
Steady erosion of 4th amendment rights, giving border guards ever expanding jurisdiction, civil forfeiture, putting 3 year olds on trial etc.

You also still haven't answered my questions about the name of the judge and the lawyers in his trial.

"There has to be something else besides an accusation."
And there is: lying about his drinking habits, having an explosive temper and blaming a democratic conspiracy.

" She was no nun in school. But that has no bearing."
You're right, it doesn't have any bearing because she isn't being nominated for anything. (and that's ignoring the whole victim element.)

"This is all about spoiled people not getting their president and not wanting Trump to appoint a justice who will vote the Constitution instead of more silly multiple gender, safe space, all white men are evil, globalists agenda."

Dismissive attitudes like yours are helping lead the US towards political violence. And while it looks more and more like the GOP has "won" this round, I've never seen so many everyday people asking about how long it is until politicians start getting shot over this stuff and it's almost inevitable that it's coming. (In a lot of ways its a self fulfilling prophecy at this point... and who's to say that Bolton and the GOP aren't looking for a Reichstag fire...)

" His temperament, his political bias and his perjury under oath should disqualify him from the position "

He's not allowed to get angry over false charges and to do so means he would get angry in deciding court cases? Would you be a little upset over a false rape charge? Would it affect how you did your job afterward?

What political bias? He's been on the court for a long time with ZERO complaints about any bias. And lying? About his drinking habits? He says he drank, others claim he was a lush. Who are you going to give the benefit of the doubt to? now, who's biased?

It'll be interesting to see who Trump selects next for a seat on the SC. With Ginsberg all but dead and another hitting 80, we should see these proceedings again. Who will want to undergo such a slanderous attack just becasue the Dems want THEIR choice not Trumps.

BK will more than likely be confirmed. If so, he will make a good, conservative, Constitutional judge. At least with him on the court we can expect our rights, what's left of them, to be saved if not restored.

Ok, so what your saying is thank God Dr. Ford and all these women made these allegations because the fact that Kavanaugh has had a successful federal career - where he served as judge in one of the highest courts in our nation (the DC Circuit) AND has wrote decisions that have set precedent - HAS NO RELEVANCE to whether or not he is qualified to sit on the supreme court?

A job interview is whether or not you have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do a job - not what you do when you get off of work...especially what you did in high school and/or college.

If Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on the Supreme court - based on these allegations - why is no one asking for him to also be removed as a judge in his current position?

I got your answer...

It is because, this show is not for the benefit of Dr. Ford and womenkind...it is a sad and pathetic dig for power by the Democrats, Liberals and special interest groups.

Also, you are saying that while you don't know if he did it or not and whether they can prove it is irrelevant because an allegation is enough to disqualify him....wow. So forget about due process?

Ok, how would you feel if someone accused you of something and although you never did it, the accusation and doubt it created was enough for you to lose out on a job and/or have your reputation forever tarnished?

Geesh...

"A job interview is whether or not you have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do a job - not what you do when you get off of work...especially what you did in high school and/or college."

That may have been true 15-20 years ago, but in the age of social media, it is not. Companies fire people for bad decisions made off the clock all the time, they have corporate policies on how people represent the company in off hours and they search social media to make sure they're not hiring someone with dubious/questionable ties. As a member of the supreme court his honor needs to be impeccable and I'd say that's pretty deeply questionable.

"why is no one asking for him to also be removed as a judge in his current position?"
If the FBI turns up anything that'll be the next stage.

"So forget about due process?"
Job interviews do not give anyone the right to due process. It's not a trial with a judge. You think when they hand out security clearances that the people being investigated get due process?

Interesting. I like the way they delayed (key word) the hearing because she claims she's afraid to fly, yet, oh look, she flies all over the place for her 'hobbies' and to visit family.