Seriously????? Yep Sorry impossible due to numerous factors. At best it will be a judgement call but considering most of the caller's had made up minds PRIOR to any nomination they could have voted as soon as the handshakes had finished after the announcement of the nomination Think I heard on news NO - legal age for drinking was lower "then" But but but since it appears the lady cannot remember the year of "then" it could be her age at "then" ?could? be 15 and I don't think the legal drinking age was that low for a number of years around "then" Doubt it. His categorical denial, I think, rules that out Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not at all. In other words, she pinned the blame on the politicians and Party responsible for trashing the confirmation process, for making it a highly partisan show - the Republicans in Congress, and the Republican Party. And she's right.
If Jeff Flake, for example, revokes his rubber stamp on the Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh's appointment is stalled in that committee. This is a gut check on the Republican committee members, and they might not all fail: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-...enate-judiciary-committee-meets-live-updates/
It has already appeared, in Mark Judge's statements. Kavanaugh has yet to account for several apparent lies he told in public, including but not limited to a couple told under oath to Senate Judiciary Committee members in previous confirmations as well as this one. One more hardly breaks the bank. Nothing is ruled out by anything, with these people. Kavanaugh is a corrupt Party hack, and that means he is not his own man - he will do whatever Kellyanne Conway or any other Republican Party hack would do, including brazenly disown prior brazen lies. And in his case, he's probably not his own man - his disappearing gambling debts, his concealed partisan record, the aura of weakness, of misogyny and bullied resentment and sycophantic loyalty, he brings everywhere, his development in the wingnut creche ( https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391 ), point to his being saddled with serious vulnerabilities. If he isn't owned, by somebody, it's a miracle. Here is a public, well considered, formal, prepared, personally delivered, on record, fully and completely intended declaration by Brett Kavanaugh; July 9, 2018, White House: Everybody reading that knows two things about it: 1) It's absurdly, childishly, sycophantically, unnecessarily, false. 2) Kavanaugh did not write it. Trump or a Trump speech minion wrote it. The idea that there are things this man will not say, or do, is dangerously naive.
And there is so much to review. His history, when under oath, is a huge red flag: In fact, there’s clear evidence showing that Kavanaugh lied under oath during the 2006 confirmation hearing for his spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I should know: I was one of the senators on the Judiciary Committee who questioned him. I asked Kavanaugh about his involvement as White House staff secretary in the highly controversial 2001 nomination of Charles Pickering Sr. to the 5th Circuit. Many of us were concerned about a 1994 hate crimes case in which Pickering decided that a 25-year-old, who had participated with two others in a cross burning, was deserving of a reduced sentence. During the Senate’s consideration of Pickering’s nomination, we had also learned that the federal trial judge solicited and collected letters of support from lawyers who had appeared in his courtroom, some of whom had cases still pending before him. This was a clear breach of judicial ethics, so I asked Kavanaugh about it: Sen. Russ Feingold: My first question is this. Did you know that Judge Pickering planned to solicit letters of support in this manner before he did so? And if not, when did you become aware that Judge Pickering had solicited these letters of support? Brett Kavanaugh: The answer to the first question, Senator, is no. This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling. But newly released emails show that Kavanaugh appeared to be the primary person handling Pickering’s nomination, at least by 2003, and was heavily involved in pushing for his confirmation as early as March 2002. There are emails showing that Kavanaugh coordinated meetings with and about Pickering; that he drafted remarks, letters to people on the Hill and at least one op-ed for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales about Pickering; that he advised Gonzales on Pickering strategy; and much more. One Department of Justice official even asked for Kavanaugh’s “blessings and instructions” before calling the nominee. Others may have been involved, but Kavanaugh played a decisive leadership role in managing Pickering’s nomination and then lied to me about it. In another example, Kavanaugh had worked to advance multiple controversial judicial nominations from President George W. Bush during a time when a Republican Senate staffer named Manuel Miranda accessed and downloaded thousands of computer files belonging to Democratic senators. Because Kavanaugh could have been in receipt of the stolen documents, he was grilled by senators of both parties on the matter at his first confirmation hearing in 2004 and he denied any involvement. But emails released this year show that Kavanaugh received material from numerous emails, draft letters and memos laying out the legal arguments Democrats were going to make regarding Bush’s judicial nominees, including talking points written by a staffer to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). One email even had the subject line “Spying” on it. Kavanaugh not only received that message, which mentioned a “mole,” but forwarded it to Gonzales. Leahy asked Kavanaugh about this regrettable episode in the 2004 confirmation hearing, and Kavanaugh’s responses were both unsatisfying and evasive. Taking all his testimony together, we see a clear pattern emerge: Brett Kavanaugh has never appeared under oath before the U.S. Senate without lying. So we can take his categorical denials of sexual assault and molestation with a grain of salt the size of Jupiter. That should disqualify him from the outset. These allegations, even more so. And his views on issues like women's rights and LGBT rights, should be a slam dunk "no". Well it would be for any reasonable person. Then I remember we are talking about Republicans. Reasonable does not apply.
The latest: A Kavanaugh proxy just tried to call it "horseplay" rather than attempted rape on an interview with CNN. "Well, look - her allegations cover a whole range of conduct, from boorishness, and . . . to rough horseplay to attempted rape." When asked why Carrie Severino (the interviewee in question) said that Ford alleged "horseplay" (which she did not) Severino said "you have to look at the . . . uh . . . there's a . . . there's thirty five years of memory that we're trying to play with here. . . ." Three takeaways from this: 1) There's no question that Kavanaugh and the rest of the right wing will be trying to "play with" Ford's memory quite a bit over the next few days. 2) In the modern right wing echo chamber, this represents the seed of a new meme. "Well, look, people are talking about how Ford said it was rough horseplay. What's wrong with that?" "New reports indicate Kavanaugh just engaging in 'horseplay' - Ford cannot explain discrepancy." "Tonight FOX News reports on the latest allegations that it was only horseplay!" 3) We may be seeing the latest change in Kavanaugh's story. "It wasn't attempted rape! That incident that never happened was just rough horseplay." I am thinking that there's no way the right wing can allow the hearing on Monday. It will either be cancelled on some pretext or they will withdraw the nomination. They are already hurting for support come November - and the spectacle of Grassley grilling a woman who was a victim of attempted rape, while supporting the guy who did it, will not play well with women. And consider Kavanaugh. Right now he's no doubt telling his wife and kids "it's all LIES! LIES I tell you!" Seeing his accuser live on TV, describing what happened, makes that a lot harder to stomach.
Duh. But the GOP broke with non-partisanship when they denied Merrick Garland a hearing. What was the reason they gave?
It gets worse for him. His friend, the eyewitness to the attack and attempted rape as described by Ford, has refused to testify about what he saw or did not see.. Mark Judge, the man who Christine Blasey Ford has said was in the room while Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her when they were in high school, has declined to speak before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats had called for him to do so. But in a statement to committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Judge claimed he had no memory of the incident and declined to speak publicly about the allegation. “I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved,” Judge said in a letter signed by his lawyer on Tuesday. “The only reason I am involved is because Dr. Christine Blasey Ford remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault.” “In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident,” he added. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.” So why won't he testify to that result? All his previous supporters, who wrote glowing letters of recommendation and whatnot, have gone silent.. And that letter the GOP presented with 65 signatures of women who knew him? Countered with: A group of women who went to Christine Blasey Ford’s high school are circulating a letter to show support for the woman who has alleged that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her while they were in high school. “We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story,” says a draft letter from alumnae of Holton-Arms, a private girls school in Bethesda, Maryland. “It demands a thorough and independent investigation before the Senate can reasonably vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court.” The women also say that what Ford is alleging “is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves.” That letter of support for her, is up to 200 signatures... The change of narrative, the whole horseplay bullshit is to be expected. This is the play, when things start hitting the fan. They have no other option but to downplay it to "horseplay". Oh, they are already on it.. The latest scheme by them is to accuse her of not intending to testify.. We're seeing a massive charade right now from Senate Republicans on a hearing into Christine Blasey Ford's allegations that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her when they were both in high school. Republicans are pretending that she'll get her chance to tell her story, but have set her up. They scheduled the hearing before they even contacted her or her attorney to negotiate a date, and then all started piling on with a narrative that she is refusing to appear. Even Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who supposedly engineered another hearing by insisting on a delay in the committee confirmation vote is piling on, pretending like she's refusing the committee invitation. "I think we'll have to move to the [vote]," he tells CNN's Jim Acosta, if she doesn't come to the hearing. Between that and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) trying to put Dr. Ford on trial, it appears that Republicans are united in an attempt to intimidate Dr. Ford before a hearing is even gaveled in, possibly to force her to change her mind about testifying and allowing them to proceed to the vote without a second hearing. They don't want a second hearing with a credible witness accusing Kavanaugh of assault. They don't want an FBI investigation into those allegations, because they fear what it will turn up. They refuse to call additional witnesses. They fear those witnesses, that investigation, Dr. Ford's testimony will be one more demonstration that Kavanaugh is a liar. While ignoring the reason for her non response.. Firstly, they never even contacted her first about it and secondly, she and her family have had to leave their home due to death threats... Republicans wondering why they haven't heard from Brett Kavanaugh's accuser about the Monday hearing they scheduled without even contacting her might find some insight in this: She and her family have been forced out of her home due to the threats she's received. The New York Times writes of Prof. Christine Blasey Ford: Dr. Blasey, thrust suddenly into a spotlight that she never sought, has been inundated with vulgar email and social media messages, and even death threats, according to a person close to her, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private matter. “From what I’ve heard you have 6 months to live, you disgusting slime,” one message said. Dr. Blasey, who has two teenagers, has moved out of her house, is arranging for private security for herself and her family, and is effectively in hiding, the person said. But Dr. Blasey has also been buoyed by a flood of supportive messages from friends and strangers. The article goes on to say, "Her worst fears are coming true.” As Ford was being forced from her home, Republicans have been casting doubt on her account because she hasn't yet confirmed her appearance Monday for a hearing they scheduled without consulting her. Ya, they look like the people who should be in charge....
They first broke with non-partisanship in the '80s, stepping out with the manifestly unfit Robert Bork in 1987. After the purge of the mid-nineties, they no longer bothered to conceal their agenda - curbed only by calculation, the recent calculations including their increasing media hold and - - - - committed, I guess - - base.
he said--she said absent corroboration by Judge this ain't going nowhere it is just a payback delay(I suppose the republicans had it coming) highly partisan and has nothing to do with choosing a competent supreme court judge partisan political posturing really sux and there ain't a damned thing we can do about it
And now Lies Death threats Refusal of his close friend to testify on his behalf Potential perjury and disbarrment At least we found all this out now, and not in six months.
You ain't found out nothing! ......... all you have is an allegation "Let's skip the trial and go straight to the hanging."
A credible allegation from a credible source, backed with various evidence and conflicting with none at all. Against which we have the dubiously motivated assertion of a demonstrated liar and political hack. A demonstrated liar and political hack who is in line for an office in which the appearance of probity and honest judgment is a formal and explicit qualification, a significant job requirement.
One could start by not confusing actual and legitimate consideration of relevant matters with partisan posturing. That would help a lot - by rewarding the competent, honest, and relevant, with earned respect, one encourages such behavior in others.
Let all the parties in the allegation be polygraphed. If it's required of other federal officers, why not SCOTUS? Then let the chips fall where they may.
And confirmation from her therapist, who she told about it six years ago. And confirmation from Feinstein; Ford told her and Feinstein referred the matter to the FBI. Meanwhile, the other person who was in the room (Judge) - who could clear his friend - has refused to testify. Kavanaugh in 2015: "But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to to this day - which is: What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep. I think that's been a good thing for all of us." At least, until this week.
