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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surely Ms Ford told at least her best friend when this happened.

She did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surely Ms Ford told at least her best friend when this happened.

Just stop. You have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s clear you are male by this comment. You don’t know the shame that is attached to sexual assault victims. The blame that society heaps onto girls/women. In sexual assaults the victim is always blamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely Ms Ford told at least her best friend when this happened.

She did.

Excellent. That additional testimony should help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely Ms Ford told at least her best friend when this happened.

She did.

Excellent. That additional testimony should help.

Help what? Her BFF isn't gong to testify on Monday. Neither is her shrink.

And probably she shouldn't either. Her word isn't the important part of this issue. His word is. He is the one who is trying to prove that he's a man of integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Never said it was amusing they were all in HS that’s the difference. We make very bad choices in HS, add parties and drinking to the mix and we know what happens. Doesn’t make it ok but I am not going to deny someone due process just because one party can’t figure out how to get the goods on someone without trudging up their childhood. We’re not talking about adults in college.

Holding a woman down, placing your hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming, and attempting to RAPE her, is more than a "bad choice". I'm not sure what kind of people you spend time with, but you might want to consider better friends. I have three boys in their 20s. They are at least as disgusted by this as I am. I hope you're not raising boys.

JFC. What have we as a country come to when an alleged attempted rape is dismissed as a "bad choice"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He'll withdraw later this week, continuing to deny the allegations but not wanting to put his wife and daughter through it. Trump can then nominate someone new almost immediately. Plenty of time to confirm someone before January (in unlikely event GOP loses the Senate)

Liberals are disgusting - they are banking on that and it’s why they did it. It’s the hallmark of me too

In actuality the so-called hallmark of Me Too is that men can't stop raping women. You suggesting Me Too is strictly political is what is disgusting.

Men 'can't stop raping' women so your automatic conclusion is all women are to be believed?

How about your prosecute those in your wheelhouse and then I'll believe you. Hollywood is FULL of accused pedophiles and rapists, and so far, the only one prosecuted is Cosby. Even Weinstein seems to be protected.

Harvey Weinstein is free on bail right now. He faces possible life imprisonment if convicted of three charges.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-harvey-weinstein-bail-20180709-story.html

[Anonymous]

According to Grassley, they are only bringing in Ford and Kavanaugh. No expert witnesses, no polygraph, no Mark Judge, nothing.

This isn't being taken as an investigation.

[Anonymous]

We need some kind of evidence that he was even there at that event.

Weren't there lots of her friends there who can at least confirm his attendance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to Grassley, they are only bringing in Ford and Kavanaugh. No expert witnesses, no polygraph, no Mark Judge, nothing.

This isn't being taken as an investigation.

It's not an investigation. It's a confirmation hearing. Really, Ford doesn't even need to be there. Her letter is enough. All Kavanaugh needs to do is convince people that he's not a liar. Somehow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We need some kind of evidence that he was even there at that event.

Weren't there lots of her friends there who can at least confirm his attendance?

IIRC she went there with one friend.

This is a total sham and a he said/she said setup. They’re not at all interested in what actually happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to Grassley, they are only bringing in Ford and Kavanaugh. No expert witnesses, no polygraph, no Mark Judge, nothing.

This isn't being taken as an investigation.

It's not an investigation. It's a confirmation hearing. Really, Ford doesn't even need to be there. Her letter is enough. All Kavanaugh needs to do is convince people that he's not a liar. Somehow.

By lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to Grassley, they are only bringing in Ford and Kavanaugh. No expert witnesses, no polygraph, no Mark Judge, nothing.

This isn't being taken as an investigation.

That’s not going to satisfy the people forcing the hearing. What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is going to shred Ford like they did Hill. They will stop at nothing to discredit women.

These are (somewhat) different times than when Hill testified. I don't think people, in particular women, will be pleased if the GOP goes the way of smear.

What I hadn't remembered (or maybe hadn't understood at the time) was that the Senate was under the solid control of the Democrats at the time of the Clarence Thomas nomination. I think it was something like 57 Democrats to 43 Republicans. There is no one alive today who was alive the last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic nominee. That was Rufus Wheeler Peckham, nominated by Grover Cleveland in 1895.

Amazing.

[Anonymous]

How much alcohol did they have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We need some kind of evidence that he was even there at that event.

Weren't there lots of her friends there who can at least confirm his attendance?

IIRC she went there with one friend.

This is a total sham and a he said/she said setup. They’re not at all interested in what actually happened.

+1,000