I'm confused
Is Kavanaugh a metaphor for what we go back to if Kavanaugh is confirmed?
Oh thanks, now I'm confused too.:o
Mebbe the commies don't take over so quickly, but, other than that, nuthin' changes.
Right, if Kavanaugh is confirmed everything stays fucked up.
:neutral:
Better tell that to the Repug Congress and their fearful leader. :eyebrow:
Kavanaugh
The most controversial sound I ever heard:
Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh
All the controversial sounds of the words
In a single word:
Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh
Kavanaugh!
I've just remembered a boy named Kavanaugh,
And suddenly that name
Will never be the same
To the committee.
Kavanaugh!
I've just smeared a man named Kavanaugh,
And suddenly I've found
How malicious a sound
Can be!
Kavanaugh!
Say it loud and the world's smallest violin is playing,
Say it soft and it's almost like defaming.
Kavanaugh,
I'll never stop accusing Kavanaugh!
The most controversial sound I ever heard.
Kavanaugh.
Or he's a frat boy who has been shielded from consequences his entire life. Maybe there should be a serious investigation before he gets a life-time appointment to the highest court in the land.
Chris Wallace on Fox News recently noted that, because of family conversations that this hearing has sparked, two of his daughters told him stories he'd never heard before about incidents that personally happened to them in high school.
He now thinks we should take Christine Blasey Ford's allegations seriously.
The bitter side of this is that old men have no empathy unless it's brought home to them in a personal, concrete way. The hopeful side is that it can be brought home, if the women in their lives are willing to speak the truth to them.
I definitely have ambivalent feelings when someone makes an announcement like that. It's great that that person gained some empathy, but why was that required? Can he apply that newfound empathy to other subjects that don't personally affect him? Is there any way for his newfound empathy to be spread to others with a similar mindset, or does every one of them need to be personally affected themselves?
The bitter side of this is that old men have no empathy unless it's brought home to them in a personal, concrete way. The hopeful side is that it can be brought home, if the women in their lives are willing to speak the truth to them.
But that's only hopeful because of the tragic fact that it's depressingly likely that women in their lives have some truth of this sort to tell.
...where's the beef?
If there ain't no beef to show then all the claims of beef don't mean jackshit.
Ain't no sensible person buyin' beef sight unseen.
-----
*Confirm, don't confirm: **meh
Buy into this crapsack of a woman? No fuckin' way.
*to be clear: I don't give a flip about Kav so dumbshits (hi, tw!) need to shut the fuck up in advance...call me misogynist or misanthrope, I don't care; throw up that tired 'extremist' bullshit and I'll find you and shoot you in the ass, two barrels of rock salt...seriously, you fuckin' retard: don't do it
**if what's 'round the corner is really 'round the corner then all this means less than nuthin'
hq
Your declared level of care and the vigor and volume of your declaration are way out of proportion.
Sometimes, it's not what you say but how you say it that communicates more truthfully.
Or he's a frat boy who has been shielded from consequences his entire life. Maybe there should be a serious investigation before he gets a life-time appointment to the highest court in the land.
Supreme Court justices can be impeached.
"Your declared level of care and the vigor and volume of your declaration are way out of proportion."
As a warning to tw (or any other nimrod) everything of mine syncs up perfectly.
#
"Sometimes, it's not what you say but how you say it that communicates more truthfully."
Yeah? Then -- by way of 'how' I say what I say -- it should be apparent I can't stand tw.
Anything else you wanna read into it is your problem, bub.
Supreme Court justices can be impeached.
Much easier not to put them there, I'd assume. Trump has ah... binders of judges. I'm sure he has someone more judicious than the guy we heard from today.
Dr. Ford sounded legit. Whether Pelosi sat on her information is another question. I'd need to see the time-line. Proportional response to the Garland move? It is a hardball play but proportional as long as Dr. Ford is for real.
"Dr. Ford sounded legit"
they both did ~ but that shouldn't be enough evidence for anyone, right?
Definitely not. But if one side took a lie detector test and actively wants the FBI to investigate, while the other side is refusing to do either... I'm on the side that is in favor of more evidence-gathering.
It's not my opinion that both sounded legit. Kavanagh sounded evasive and butthurt.
Also.... If Ford is lying why doesn't Kavanaugh sue her for defamation?
Dr. Ford sounded legit. Whether Pelosi sat on her information is another question. I'd need to see the time-line. Proportional response to the Garland move? It is a hardball play but proportional as long as Dr. Ford is for real.
Feinstein, not Pelosi.
But yes, even if the Democrats did try to pull a mini-Garland and delay the vote a week, that has no bearing on the veracity of Ford.
"Dr. Ford sounded legit"
they both did ~ but that shouldn't be enough evidence for anyone, right?
Ford answered every question directly and as the questioner intended the question to be interpreted, and is requesting further investigation, to gather more evidence. The opposite is true for Kavanaugh.
And the football team calling themselves the "alumni" of a girl means they were her pals? No. Just no. They were claiming they had sex with her. I expect they were lying then, but he was definitely lying in the hearing.
Lying?
Hahahaha.
Google Devil's Triangle and tell me how far down the search results you have to go to get to the "drinking game".
Whoopsie!
Turns out, there have been recent edits to The Internet to match Kavanagh's description.
Talk about fitting the data to the conclusion....
~ but that shouldn't be enough evidence for anyone, right?
I mean I can't see high school broheim lingo is proof of anything worthwhile, other than you figure he might have gotten his buddies to beat us up in high school.
Personally I'm over that wretched time period, but are you guys ok?
they both did ~ but that shouldn't be enough evidence for anyone, right?
Appreciate what is happening here. First, other Republicans were screaming that they would be punished in November if the hearings were not conducted with Senatorial courtesy.
Second, no committee Senator will be swayed. This entire presentation only targets some moderate Republican Senators.
Third, question is quite simple. Does behavior in high school and college have any relevance to qualification of a judge? This behavior was acceptable even some years ago. Harvey Weinstein changed that. So, is behavior that is unacceptable for adults today relevant to what someone did in high school and college? Does that behavior define core values of the man?
A few moderate Republican Senators will be the only ones answering that question. Only one is on the committee.
"Dr. Ford sounded legit"
they both did ~ but that shouldn't be enough evidence for anyone, right?
Definitely not enough for a legal proceeding. However, there is enough there for a more serious look if you're getting a lifetime appointment.
Temperament is an issue. Can this guy deal fairly with the political cases that come before the court? Throwing the Clinton red meat out there looks to me either politically calculated or paranoid. I want someone coolly looking at the law. Can this guy do that?
For the record I'm over high school but is the nominee?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408821-kavanaugh-says-hes-victim-of-revenge-on-behalf-of-the-clintons
I would guess this makes him very attractive to the base, pretty repulsive to mainline Democrats, and a real problem for Joe Manchin.
if you're getting a lifetime appointment
SC justices can be impeached.
Throwing the Clinton red meat out there looks to me either politically calculated or paranoid. I want someone coolly looking at the law. Can this guy do that?
We could judge him on his body of work, on the 12 years on the second-highest court but... ah that is pretty irrelevant I guess. There's apparently nothing to see there (or we would have already gotten an earful about it)
I mean I can't see high school broheim lingo is proof of anything worthwhile, other than you figure he might have gotten his buddies to beat us up in high school.
Lying under oath multiple times yesterday,
plus multiple times earlier in the process (see links in first paragraph).
We could judge him on his body of work, on the 12 years on the second-highest court but... ah that is pretty irrelevant I guess. There's apparently nothing to see there (or we would have already gotten an earful about it)
His body of work was discussed in that earlier process, during which he lied. This was a hearing specifically about the sexual assault, which is why it wasn't discussed there.
He sounded, appeared, tentative and timid. He had no fire in his belly.
She sounded, appeared, wounded and fragile. She had no fire in her belly.
Neither was credible, neither convincing.
As performance art: the whole event gets a half a star out of a possible ten stars.
As a means of sussin' out the truth: zero out of a possible ten.
We know not one goddamned thing more today than we did at the beginning of yesterday.
Led by the nose we are, not by beef but only by the promise of beef, to one of two troughs where we're expected to drink deep and shut the fuck up.
No, nope, forget that noise.
I say Trump should dump Kav and find a woman of comparabe experience...vet the hell out of her...have the vetting be public.
Then bring her before the committee and dare the bastids to wreck her...make them vote on 'her' and not on an accusation about her.
I'll buy the earlier in the process issues -- and it would be nice if the committee actually cared. But lying about high school yearbook terminology? Bill Clinton should *definitely* have been impeached, if that is the standard. I don't think he should have been impeached, do you?
The high school yearbook lies were just a few of the most obvious ones. He also repeatedly claimed that he was of a legal drinking age, even though he missed the cutoff when they raised it in Maryland.
And we seem to have slid from "Ford and Kavanaugh were both legit" to "Kavanaugh's most obvious lies were about trivial things".
I'll buy the earlier in the process issues -- and it would be nice if the committee actually cared. But lying about high school yearbook terminology? Bill Clinton should *definitely* have been impeached, if that is the standard. I don't think he should have been impeached, do you?
Clinton *was definitely* impeached, you could look it up.
Trump *could be* impeached, how's that workin out?
Kavanaugh's behavior as a young person is germane, for a couple reasons. One, what he did and how he's addressing it *now* is the main reason. He's lying and I don't want someone who's a liar on the Court. Two, it shows his hypocrisy and I don't want that on the Court either.
The actions of other teenagers matter, but don't look at his. That's not fair.
I think I know why he won't call for an FBI investigation, why he won't call for Mark Judge to be subpoenaed--because he believes these actions will not help his case.
Maybe you think both were credible in telling their truth. But who do you think has more to gain from lying? Ford? To put herself and her family in the national spotlight and become the target of death threats when merely staying silent could avoid that? Or Kavanaugh? To avoid losing his shot at the Court *and* still be subject to criminal prosecution? It seems clear to me that he has more to gain from lying. He is lying. He is a liar.
Neither was credible, neither convincing.
Multiple Republican Senators on that committee were quoted outside the conference room saying she sounded very credible.
we seem to have slid from "Ford and Kavanaugh were both legit"
SOUNDED legit was "our" starting point and I suppose "we" have?
Clinton *was definitely* impeached, you could look it up
Do you figure he should have been removed from office?
The Republicans insisted on this being a he-said-she-said, refusing any investigation and refusing to call additional witnesses, so credibility is paramount. In that context, the importance of lies is vastly magnified.
Is it credible that a teenage boy is asking whether one of his friends has farted yet? When the common meaning for the term in question is something that teenage boys may dare each other to do?
He could have said that all the booze and sex references in his yearbook were teenage bluster. It would have meshed with his "I was outwardly embarrassed about being a virgin but inwardly proud" line.
About impeachment; it should have a much higher bar than a confirmation hearing. In Clinton's case, it didn't, and Brett Kavanaugh had a hand in that so he can hardly complain. If some of the other women's accusations against Clinton had borne out (and maybe some should have. Ken Starr certainly tried and failed, and I have a somewhat higher trust for negative results from hostile prosecutors than other combinations, but that's tempered by a general difficulty for accusations of this sort to get traction), then those would have justified it. As it is, he was impeached but not convicted, which was embarrassing for him, but mattered not a whit to his presidential power.
So I find it a bit disingenuous to respond to "lifetime appointment" with "he can be impeached". What does it matter if he's impeached? Do you think they'll come up with 67 Senators to convict him?
SOUNDED legit was "our" starting point and I suppose "we" have?
What does sounded legit mean if obvious lies don't count? Tone of voice?
Do you think they'll come up with 67 Senators to convict him?
Do you think they wouldn't if they had proof?
Proof? Fake news.
[eta] not snark. That's exactly what I would expect.
Aren't they all?
Pretty sure if the level of scrutiny applied to Kav were applied to everyone in Washington, that place would be empty across all three branches.
Would any of us, here, in this forum, survive that kinda of nose-pokery?
I doubt it.
No, there was only one standard that mattered and that standard was poorly defended by the committee right and utterly pissed on by the committee left.
Or that. "Fake news" or "everybody does it". Or both at the same time.
Flake is trying to find a center. I hope it works because this is getting very ugly.
The Judge and the women who came to support him...
Wow.
I know a photo is just an instant in time captured forever, but look at the repulsion on their faces.
Yup Dr. Ford is a credible witness. I think I will contribute to one of her 5 go fund me accounts which are at a total of $900,000 right now. Maybe she can buy some new eyeglasses.
When this is over, can you imagine the make-up sex Ford and Kavanaugh are going to have!
Too soon?
[YOUTUBE]6_koveS9n3Y[/YOUTUBE]
The Coen Brothers lay it out in
Beach Week.
When the Republicans are bitterly partisan and combative, it shows conviction, and it fires up their base of freedom-loving constitutionalists, and they sweep national and state level elections. When the spineless Democrats push back with an ounce of enthusiasm, OH NO we mustn't be too ill-mannered, we gotta maintain decorum with those cool-headed patriots across the aisle. It's got to be a ƒuckin' joke at this point. One big wind-up.
Suddenly it will be in everyone's best interests to resolve this thing quickly and painlessly
I don’t think that’s true. There are more Democrats than Republicans so as long as Dems stay fired up and a similar percentage show up they win. Being comfortable is death for the Dems.
Nate Silver sees fit to look into it:
Is Kavanaugh Helping Republicans' Midterm Chances?
Answer: A little, especially in the Senate, but it may be fleeting and the situation is dynamic anyway.
Kavanaugh's unfit. He's a liar, a perjurer.
And let's look at how he *does* answer when he's not lying.
[ATTACH]65162[/ATTACH]
And he's about to be confirmed.
Too bad, so sad.
Women, blacks, kids, the poor, gays, transgenders, etc.
You know, the usual go-to groups.
But, really, it's only 'too bad' for the commies.
I'm not impressed with Kav, but at least he's not a commie.
Ruthie is next.
Trump should replace RBG with a woman, a non-commie woman, a hot, piece-of-ass woman. If she were Mexican, that'd be kick ass. A non-commie, Mexican hottie who immigrated legally.
What a 'fuck you' that would be.
But, really, it's only 'too bad' for the commies.
No difference between a commie or a nazi. Both are extremists who blindly recite what they are ordered to believe. henry quirk is so extremist that anyone can predict what his opinion will be; what he was ordered to believe.
Meanwhile, patriotic Americans - moderates - learn facts long before making any conclusion. Only a nazi type (no different from a radical liberal) is that anti-American.
What the hate that will follow. Another characteristic of an extremist - an anti-American.
To all those unhappy about Kavanaugh being confirmed to the Supreme Court; but, couldn't be bothered to get out and vote in elections: :rotflol:
Too bad for who??
Not for rapist-Americans, they're feeling quite pleased.
I expect an up-tick in voter participation, but who knows low unemployment = "...fat, dumb, and happy..."
The people who care
are voters.
Is Kavanaugh a metaphor for what we go back to if Kavanaugh is confirmed?
Now you'll get a chance to find out. Your thread will remain alive and well. WTG!
Rapist Americans
climb into your window
tie you to the bed, poke and prod you, 1,2,3
Rapist Americans
lock the door behind them
get you on the desktop, do the hokey pokey, wow-wow-wee
Rapist Americans
will let you keep your job now
if you lick upon their member, do a good one, get a buck, fiftee
Rapist Americans
pretend to be policemen
stop you at the red light, it gets quite messy, as you'll see
I still blame the schools.
It is very hard to know many things. When it is hard, we save time by "outsourcing" the work of figuring out the truth. Sometimes to friends, sometimes to media, sometimes to the tribe.
In context: there is no gray.
He did, or he didn't.
Where's the goddamned beef?
Friends, media, tribe: folks in the same boat as you, with access to the same things you have access to (no more or less), just as limited as you in assessing anything.
Rely on them sparingly.
Now you'll get a chance to find out. Your thread will remain alive and well. WTG!
If we're gonna make 2 million comments we all need to up our game.
I have some respect for the Supreme Court at least compared to the other branches because their thinking is on paper and even when you disagree you can follow it if you have the inclination. I'm going to have some trouble buying into this guy on the court but at least henry is finally represented.
May you live in interesting times.
This may come before the court...
Do you think people who can vote; but, don't vote don't care about that? Wouldn't that make them some kind of monsters?
Really?
How?
Cuz Kav is a conservative repub?
I'm not either of those.
Cuz he's (supposed to be) a Rapist American?
I'm not one of those.
So, tell me: how am I finally represented?
Do you think people who can vote; but, don't vote don't care about that? Wouldn't that make them some kind of monsters?
hey!! I voted!
And he's about to be confirmed.
Too bad, so sad.
Women, blacks, kids, the poor, gays, transgenders, etc.
You know, the usual go-to groups.
But, really, it's only 'too bad' for the commies.
I'm not impressed with Kav, but at least he's not a commie.
Ruthie is next.
Trump should replace RBG with a woman, a non-commie woman, a hot, piece-of-ass woman. If she were Mexican, that'd be kick ass. A non-commie, Mexican hottie who immigrated legally.
What a 'fuck you' that would be.
Really?
How?
Cuz Kav is a conservative repub?
I'm not either of those.
Cuz he's (supposed to be) a Rapist American?
I'm not one of those.
So, tell me: how am I finally represented?
You supported him on this thread, own it.
But, you know what?
Even if he is a Rapist American, he's still a damned-sight better than any commie currently on the court.
So, okay, I 'own' it.
And -- just to be a dick about it -- I'm gonna crow LOUD when Ruthie strokes out (DIE, YOU OLD CRONE, DIE!) and TRUMPET when another repub con gets seated, and I'll keep doin' that clear through to the end of Trump's second term (cuz you know he's gonna have one [gives you the warm fuzzies, I know]).
That's right, ladies! Get them wire hangers ready! R v. W is history!
Gay folks? The closet is callin'!
Blacks? We've saved your place in dem good ol' cotton and tobacco fields!
Own it? I'll own it.
How you like them apples, Griff?
Griff, what's this I hear about you reading into stuff things aren't there? I hear tell you've been exaggerating situations and posting sensationalized material! Just who do you think you are, tw? Paranoia is a lonely place. You don't want to go there. :headshake
[strike]Shane[/strike] Griff, come back!
But, you know what?
Even if he is a Rapist American, he's still a damned-sight better than any commie currently on the court.
So, okay, I 'own' it.
And -- just to be a dick about it -- I'm gonna crow LOUD when Ruthie strokes out (DIE, YOU OLD CRONE, DIE!) and TRUMPET when another repub con gets seated, and I'll keep doin' that clear through to the end of Trump's second term (cuz you know he's gonna have one [gives you the warm fuzzies, I know]).
That's right, ladies! Get them wire hangers ready! R v. W is history!
Gay folks? The closet is callin'!
Blacks? We've saved your place in dem good ol' cotton and tobacco fields!
Own it? I'll own it.
How you like them apples, Griff?
I'm totally cool with you owning whatever is the fruit of this. Right totalitarianism is a thing.
In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter -- bitter,"he answered;
"But I like it
"Because it is bitter,
"And because it is my heart."
-Stephen Crane
btw: I hope you didn't think I was calling you a rapist, that was not my intention.
I'm bettin' if 'you' were accused you'd want the presumption of innocence.
I would and I'd fuckin' demand it.
Hell, even that piece of garbage, tw, deserves the presumption of innocence..
But, if he's a repub con (a category of human only slightly less odious to me than dem progs); he's guilty, don't you know.
And when you can't get him on misusin' his cock, crap about perjury and being unfit gets foisted up.
Interesting how when the guy or gal is aligned with you, well -- holy shit! -- they're fit! And whatever slippery games such a person plays with facts, well, not only is a blind eye turned, both eyes are dug sloppily out of the sockets with a rusty spoon and fed to the dogs.
The depth of hypocrisy among some of you is incredible. Only in the 'Freethought Forum' do I find even more pernicious hypocrites.
It wasn't a criminal trial. Totally different rules apply. And even in a criminal trial where there is a presumption of innocence, accusers are allowed to tell their side of the story.
I don't know what point you are trying to make. You think an accuser shouldn't be allowed to tell their side of a story?
C'mon, guy...my 'point' is in every goddamned post of mine in-thread.
You know this.
#
"It wasn't a criminal trial. Totally different rules"
Yeah? Next time 'you' get accused of sumthin' just eat it. Your boss sez you did X when you didn't, just shut the hell up and eat it, cuz it's not a criminal trial, just an 'employment issue', right? Or your significant other declares you're bein' dumped cuz you were unfaithful: shut up and eat it; it, after all, isn't a criminal trial, just a 'marital issue', yeah?
Innocent till proven guilty isn't 'just' a legal construct. It's a cornerstore of civilization. It applies across the board, all the time, for everyone. If you declare you've been wronged, if you would take another to task for an offense, then PROVE IT.
Unfortunately the GOP didn't allow her to try to prove it and we potentially have a rapist on the Supreme Court. Yay for your side.
This was simple hardball, Republicans chose a potential rapist over the possibility of a delay.
Yeah I deleted it sorry, I don't know how to say what I would like to say.
I think I get caught up in point making and get way the fuck off track.
I'll just say this then. Given the facts you know, and the evidence she could not produce, do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?
(Not that it wouldn't open with statute of limitations - which is in place because of specifically these sorts of problems - i.e., cases lose all their potential evidence pro AND con - and human memory is ridiculously flawed over time.)
The anti-Kav side needed her not to go through actual trial conditions, which would have displayed more clearly to the world that there was no criminal case to be made.
The pro-Kav side needed to appear somewhat considerate and not put a potential victim through the kind of grilling a real trial would include.
All this is just part of what made it a perfect storm so that both sides could be seen as angelic from the POV of their constituencies
Both sides got roughly what they wanted although they certainly won't admit that
And so did the public actually - eating this shit up not realizing it's turd sandwiches. We love it, we want it, it's on all channels
"Unfortunately the GOP didn't allow her to try to prove it"
I disagree. Seems to me she had her shot and the best she could bring to the table was a claim.
#
"we potentially have a rapist on the Supreme Court."
That's a possibility.
#
"Yay for your side."
How did 'my side' (the weird-ass anarcho-individualists) score a win here?
#
"This was simple hardball"
This is politics.
#
"Republicans chose a potential rapist over the possibility of a delay."
Blame Feinstein.
... do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?
In a criminal trial, witnesses would have been interviewed by trained interrogators. And even would have testified under oath. Criminal trials are also given sufficient time to discover facts.
None of that happened here. Even the victim did not want to testify. And would not have if not outed by an aggressive press.
In a similar situation, how long did it take for Cosby to finally be prosecuted? How many witnesses were interrogated by professionals? Nothing done in a few months is at all related to what must happen in criminal prosecutions.
Even The Don said her testimony was credible. I do not believe any of this was decided on facts. Clear both in video and in comments from close associates; Senator Susan Collins was under threat and seriously disturbed due to unknown sources - be it Sen McConnell or physical violence. Her face and so many security guards demonstrated the pressure.
Decisions clearly were not based in what would exist in a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, I do not believe many of the excuses publicly stated for their conclusions.
But it is the nature of the beast.
I'll just say this then. Given the facts you know, and the evidence she could not produce, do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?
(Not that it wouldn't open with statute of limitations - which is in place because of specifically these sorts of problems - i.e., cases lose all their potential evidence pro AND con - and human memory is ridiculously flawed over time.)
The anti-Kav side needed her not to go through actual trial conditions, which would have displayed more clearly to the world that there was no criminal case to be made.
The pro-Kav side needed to appear somewhat considerate and not put a potential victim through the kind of grilling a real trial would include.
All this is just part of what made it a perfect storm so that both sides could be seen as angelic from the POV of their constituencies
Both sides got roughly what they wanted although they certainly won't admit that
And so did the public actually - eating this shit up not realizing it's turd sandwiches. We love it, we want it, it's on all channels
I don’t think she can prove it without Kav’s friend rolling over. An extended look at him may have shown a pattern of behavior inconsistent with sitting on the SC.
I do blame Feinstein, both sides played a game which ignored the good of the country in favor of party. My perspective is that of someone who found Dr. Ford more credible.
Assuming Mark Judge had testified and agreed with everything you say, would the charge have been rape?
There were three accusers, dozens of witnesses they identified, and many that came forward for the accusers or for Kavanaugh. The FBI "investigation" only interviewed nine people, which included only one of the three accusers, and did not include the accused. They stapled the results of that into a thousand page document that Senators had an hour to read, and were prohibited from "characterizing".
So one of the facts I know is that they did their damnedest to avoid looking into it, and to prevent people from seeing what little they did look into, or saying what little they saw.
Assuming Mark Judge had testified and agreed with everything you say, would the charge have been rape?
Probably attempted rape, definitely sexual assault. That was a misdemeanor at the time, with a statute of limitations (happily no longer the case), so he wouldn't go to jail over it.
But the question* isn't whether he should go to jail, it's whether he should be on the Supreme Court.
* in this thread, of course that's pretty much moot in the real world now
Big win for the Republicans. Hiring a criminal prosecutor for the public hearings was successful in shifting the conversation away from being a "job interview" to being a "criminal trial." The "trial" was unwinnable--because it WASN'T a trial, and the fact that he f a c e p l a n t e d the interview is being ignored.
I heard the classified version of the FBI report concluded Ford might've been the wife of a Supreme Court Justice today except that Kav dumped her in high school 'cause she wouldn't put out and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Lot's of theory here about this and that.
Here's another: Ford is a loon or an operative or both; Kav is just a boring, run-of-mill guy who's only 'crime' was bein' nominated by Trump; the Dems had and have a similar set of debilitating faux-scandals waitin' for anyone on the publicized short list who might get nominated when Ruthie keels over.
Conspiracies to the Left of me, conspiracies to the Right, here I am...
Unexpected (by me, at least) twist:
Chief Justice John Roberts said in a letter on Wednesday that he had transferred judicial misconduct complaints related to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Judicial Council of the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals for further review.
...
Tymkovich can handle the complaints himself, dismiss them or appoint a special committee to examine them.
...
Tymkovich is a George W. Bush appointee who is on Trump's Supreme Court short list.
So if Trump does get another pick, it could be the person who handled the ethics complaints from the last one.
That's hilarious. You couldn't make it up.
The complaints only relate to his crazy ass testimony so at least we're getting away from 35 year old memories and cover-ups.