Kavanaugh vote postponed. Judiciary Committee hearing on Sexual Assault complain Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She was walking to the bathroom and got pulled into the bedroom. How is that putting oneself in a dangerous position?

She says was walking to the bathroom and got pulled into the bedroom. How is that putting oneself in a dangerous position?

Fixed it for you.

Yep. And what if someone else at that party says that she was drunk and begging for it? See the problem here? What someone SAYS happens isn't TRUTH.

Good point.

Actually this is a good point. That is all cops need to not convict a rape, somebody said something.

Notice, too, not one liberal will comment on the post above that no prosecutor would touch a case like this. Which is why it works in politics, because all politics needs to destroy someone is the support of the press and the gullibility of the American people.

[Anonymous]

The judiciary committee will decide this. The constituents of the members of the committee will believe her or will believe him and that will decide it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judiciary committee will decide this. The constituents of the members of the committee will believe her or will believe him and that will decide it.

I think she should press charges in Maryland. And I think he should counter those charges and sue her for whatever he can.

[Anonymous]

Who needs a prosecutor? No one is getting convicted of a crime here. Question is...is she telling the truth and if so, can't we find a better candidate for the sumpreme court

[Anonymous]

We can find a better candidate. Merrick Garland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who needs a prosecutor? No one is getting convicted of a crime here. Question is...is she telling the truth and if so, can't we find a better candidate for the sumpreme court

That is what I am confused about. Why did Kavanaugh lawyered up?

[Anonymous]

I’m in the minority but I think this sets a very bad precedent. If we have to go back to HS to get dirt on someone then we’re all in trouble. If he did it, he was dumb and should consider himself lucky no one pressed charges and he turned his life around. But to delay this process for something that happened 35 years ago without any criminal charges is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She was walking to the bathroom and got pulled into the bedroom. How is that putting oneself in a dangerous position?

She says was walking to the bathroom and got pulled into the bedroom. How is that putting oneself in a dangerous position?

Fixed it for you.

Yep. And what if someone else at that party says that she was drunk and begging for it? See the problem here? What someone SAYS happens isn't TRUTH.

Good point.

Actually this is a good point. That is all cops need to not convict a rape, somebody said something.

Notice, too, not one liberal will comment on the post above that no prosecutor would touch a case like this. Which is why it works in politics, because all politics needs to destroy someone is the support of the press and the gullibility of the American people.

Montgomery county allowed a rapist (the rent a cop at RM) out with no bond and he raped again. Then they refused to give his wife a restraining order against his step daughter.

So ... you technically are right ... that cops would not touch this case. Heck, they did the same in HS... if that is a sexual assault then they all are rapey... oh wait.

Also, this is a sexual assault and SOL has past, so they can't even convict if they wanted.

You can thank the Catholic Church for the lobby on the SOL for sexual assaults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m in the minority but I think this sets a very bad precedent. If we have to go back to HS to get dirt on someone then we’re all in trouble. If he did it, he was dumb and should consider himself lucky no one pressed charges and he turned his life around. But to delay this process for something that happened 35 years ago without any criminal charges is absurd.

The SOL is up. There is no reason for him to say, "I did that and I am sorry". If he had "good character" he would do that. But he doesn't ... move onto a Conservative geek that respects women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That sound you hear? Nervous sweat dripping off the wrinkled brows of every other white male over 45 in this area who treated women poorly in the 80s/90s and is now ensconced in a UMC life. Check those statutes of limitations, bros. Just not while your wives are hovering.

Perhaps check how you're raising your boy.

Don’t have boys, but good luck raising yours.

Do you get the point?

Don’t let boys sexually assault women (allegedly)?

Nobody LETS boys sexually assault women first of all.

I hope you are teaching your daughter not to put herself into a dangerous position either.

1. I’m teaching my 16 year old son that consent means enthusiam. And that sex is not something you ever talk or force someone into— physically or by being emotionally manipulative. If the other party is not as enthusiastic as you are, it’s a no go. If the other party is in no condition to give consent, it’s a no go.

2. I’m teaching my 14 year old DD to always stay with at least one other girl, to never go into a situation alone with a boy, like being driven home, unless she knows him well and trusts him, to always pour her own drink, etc., etc.

Now I know I also need to teach her not to go to the bathroom at parties.

My DD should be able to enjoy herself at a party, the same as my son, without keeping a hand on her drink at all times or keep track of her friends. But in the real world she can’t.

[Anonymous]

People this is just the first person. I'm not saying he has attempted to rape or sexually assault other women but there are women who worked as clerks and employees of the federal judiciary who want to speak but are fearful. As most of you are aware, Kavanaugh is closely associated with Judge Alex Kozinski who "retired" immediately after more than 15 women came forward about sexual misconduct and a hostile work environment.

The attorney who took Kozinski down reached out to The Senate Judiciary Committee in July about women who wanted to speak out about Kavanaugh.

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/cyrus-sanai-federal-court-employees-attempted-to-come-forward-to-chuck-grassley-and-dianne-feinstein-neither-responded/

[Anonymous]

If the standard of proof for criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and for a civil money judgment is "preponderance of the evidence," what should the standard of proof for lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who needs a prosecutor? No one is getting convicted of a crime here. Question is...is she telling the truth and if so, can't we find a better candidate for the sumpreme court

That is what I am confused about. Why did Kavanaugh lawyered up?

He has exposure for both perjury and now sexual assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m in the minority but I think this sets a very bad precedent. If we have to go back to HS to get dirt on someone then we’re all in trouble. If he did it, he was dumb and should consider himself lucky no one pressed charges and he turned his life around. But to delay this process for something that happened 35 years ago without any criminal charges is absurd.

I think it depends on the dirt.

Blackout drinking and being generally stupid, let it lie. Sexually assault (attempted rape is described) a young woman not so much. What is described is not a "youthful indiscretion" and, if true, should not be washed over because it is an old claim.

I have a 13 year old daughter. There is nothing amusing about this anecdote just because it happened 35 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the standard of proof for criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and for a civil money judgment is "preponderance of the evidence," what should the standard of proof for lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court be?

Be a good jurist and not have a criminal or ass-clown past.