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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the hearing and airing this matter. I expect the woman thinks she is right but is in fact confused on the details of the incident including the people involved.

The GOP: when you just can’t help but vilify women.

At least dems are equal opportunity vilifiers - men, women, doesn't matter. If you're not a liberal, be prepared to be taken down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

You misread that one. They have no alternative.

I think a lot more of than three of them said they can’t vote for him without a public hearing. They tied leadership’s hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

Or they are showing the same bravado that they were displaying during Ronny Jackson's nomination to VA secretary role.

Or they know Trump needs to pull this nomination because it was deeply unpopular to begin with, and now the wheels are coming off. But Trump won’t and they are backed into a corner. On one hand, women are actually more than half of voters and are highly energized. They ram this through, the backlash will be enormous. On the other hand, Trump is insisting. This lets them say she was treated fairly. And if it all blows up— oh well, McConnell didn’t want Kavanaugh to begin with.

Interesting fact: only two SCOTUS nominees more unpopular than Kavanaugh in modern times— Bork and Harriet Miers.

Link? Source?

Mind you, this is BEFORE these new allegations

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/brett-kavanaugh-is-polling-like-robert-bork-and-harriet-miers/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They picked Monday because they don’t want to leave time for any more info to come out, or for more accusers to come forward. They want to make it a simple he-said-she-said situation, and then just jam the nomination through.

We should have higher standards for a Supreme Court Justice. Can’t they find someone who *hasn’t* tried to rape a fifteen year old girl?

A week is an eternity in Trump time.

I’m a former (female) federal law clerk, and my grapevine says there are female law clerks out there. Wow, would it be tough to come forward though. Your career would be over.

You don’t think so, law is a pretty liberal profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They picked Monday because they don’t want to leave time for any more info to come out, or for more accusers to come forward. They want to make it a simple he-said-she-said situation, and then just jam the nomination through.

We should have higher standards for a Supreme Court Justice. Can’t they find someone who *hasn’t* tried to rape a fifteen year old girl?

A week is an eternity in Trump time.

I’m a former (female) federal law clerk, and my grapevine says there are female law clerks out there. Wow, would it be tough to come forward though. Your career would be over.

You don’t think so, law is a pretty liberal profession.

I don’t think their careers would be ruined, not you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the hearing and airing this matter. I expect the woman thinks she is right but is in fact confused on the details of the incident including the people involved.

The GOP: when you just can’t help but vilify women.

Just as you vilify any and all conservative some. Hello pot.

Yes, I vilify any and all conservative “some.”

“I expect the woman thinks she is right but is in fact confused on the details of the incident including the people involved.“ if you aren’t little miss clueless and condescending. She knows the details; you haven’t bothered to read real news articles.

DP. She actually does not know many of the details, and I've read all the news articles. Much of what she "remembers" is fuzzy. Maybe this incident happened, maybe not. But there's certainly not nearly enough hard evidence to ruin this man's reputation. He's not automatically guilty just because someone claims he did something 30+ years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

You misread that one. They have no alternative.

I think a lot more of than three of them said they can’t vote for him without a public hearing. They tied leadership’s hands.

At least 5: Sasse, Collins, Murkowski, Flake and Corker

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They picked Monday because they don’t want to leave time for any more info to come out, or for more accusers to come forward. They want to make it a simple he-said-she-said situation, and then just jam the nomination through.

We should have higher standards for a Supreme Court Justice. Can’t they find someone who *hasn’t* tried to rape a fifteen year old girl?

I'm just positive you mean "ALLEGEDLY," right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the hearing and airing this matter. I expect the woman thinks she is right but is in fact confused on the details of the incident including the people involved.

So who were the 4-5 other people at this alleged party? Why hasn’t the accuser identified them and why haven’t they corroborated, at a minimum, whether Jufge and Zkavanaugh were there? The current accusations, without more, provide a woefully inadequate basis to derail a nomination (or, conversely, if they do, just watch the character assassination that will accompany future nominations by both Democrats and Republicans).

Exactly. There is simply nothing to go on here. It's purely a she/said, he/said scenario. And he denies it completely.

[Anonymous]

She didn't even tell his name to the therapist.

This story just does not ring true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They picked Monday because they don’t want to leave time for any more info to come out, or for more accusers to come forward. They want to make it a simple he-said-she-said situation, and then just jam the nomination through.

We should have higher standards for a Supreme Court Justice. Can’t they find someone who *hasn’t* tried to rape a fifteen year old girl?

A week is an eternity in Trump time.

I’m a former (female) federal law clerk, and my grapevine says there are female law clerks out there. Wow, would it be tough to come forward though. Your career would be over.

You don’t think so, law is a pretty liberal profession.

If you are a federal law clerk, you are likely to have a career in Federal Court, Federal Government like the US Attirneys office or DOJ or Big Law. It’s all still and big old boys club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the hearing and airing this matter. I expect the woman thinks she is right but is in fact confused on the details of the incident including the people involved.

The GOP: when you just can’t help but vilify women.

NP. How are these accusations fair to Judge Kavanaugh’s wife and daughters?

What is fair or unfair? He chose to accept a nomination knowing that this allegation was going to surface. Rumors are, there are others. Maybe his wife will be able to teach a lesson to the daughters, whom he used a props at his hearing. THAT was gross at the time and even worse in retrospect.

What’s disgusting is jumping to conclusions. Facts matter. Thus, the hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

Or they’re hoping against hope no more victims emerge.

There’s already chatter about additional people.

Links? Sources? Didn't think so.

There certainly have been many rumors today. Wait and see. Quite a few posters here yesterday were insisting Professor Ford would not go public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the hearing and airing this matter. I expect the woman thinks she is right but is in fact confused on the details of the incident including the people involved.

The GOP: when you just can’t help but vilify women.

NP. How are these accusations fair to Judge Kavanaugh’s wife and daughters?

DP. They're not. Not to them and frankly - without more evidence - not to Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

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