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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

I fear she may change her various recollections under oath.

Her lawyer is saying they don't have to prove their story is true - Kavanaugh has to prove it isn't

That's what I've been saying. Her letter is enough. Kavanaugh is the one who needs to convince the Senate to confirm him.

This isn't an investigation. It's a confirmation hearing.

So an accusation, i.e. words on a paper, are enough? That suggests anyone could say anything about anybody to derail whatever they want. Is that the game?

Nope. Surely you realize there must be a plausible connection for an accusation to be taken seriously? So no, if someone who has lived in Wyoming all their life tries to accuse someone from Vermont who's a much different age of an attack at a high school party in Wyoming, and it's obvious that there's no plausible way the two were in the same place at the same time, no one is going to take that seriously.

So anything plausible is okay? If you are saying this is the standard it is quite frightening. This could become so abusive so quickly on both sides of the aisle.

Do you really think that Feinstein and Grassley haven't received thousands of letters and phone calls about Kavanaugh? They've properly dealt with all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

I fear she may change her various recollections under oath.

Her lawyer is saying they don't have to prove their story is true - Kavanaugh has to prove it isn't

That's what I've been saying. Her letter is enough. Kavanaugh is the one who needs to convince the Senate to confirm him.

This isn't an investigation. It's a confirmation hearing.

So an accusation, i.e. words on a paper, are enough? That suggests anyone could say anything about anybody to derail whatever they want. Is that the game?

Nope. Surely you realize there must be a plausible connection for an accusation to be taken seriously? So no, if someone who has lived in Wyoming all their life tries to accuse someone from Vermont who's a much different age of an attack at a high school party in Wyoming, and it's obvious that there's no plausible way the two were in the same place at the same time, no one is going to take that seriously.

So anything plausible is okay? If you are saying this is the standard it is quite frightening. This could become so abusive so quickly on both sides of the aisle.

How so? Good luck coming up with a bunch of accusers for fake sexual assaults that succeed. Worked really well for the duke LAX accuser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

Give it a rest. Just because an 85 year old Senator thinks that her attorney hasn't responded to a couple recent phone calls made hours earlier doesn't mean she isn't responding.

In the meantime, Susan Collins has already proposed a format that's completely different than what Grassley outlined, so it's not surprising that her attorney is being deliberate. Note that she's a private citizen on a different coast who's being asked to provide a public victims account on national TV... I don't think it's unusual to take some before agreeing to logistical details. Most depositions I'm involved with take months to schedule, and her appearance is requested in 5 business days.

You obviously have an agenda. Drop it and let the process work.

Unlike the other 85 year old Senator who knew these allegations for around six weeks and interviewed the "assailant" and never even asked him about it.

Who cares whether Feinstein asked him it. Irrelevant. Go back to your yardwork and let the real lawyers weigh in.

It’s absolutely relevant. She sat on this information for months, and now wants a full blown FBI investigation.
Tell me she isn’t trying to delay. It won’t work.

Feinstein's motivations don't really matter. There's now a credible witness that has appeared, and there's no reason for the matter not to be vetted. Time is not of the essence here. Flake and Collins agree, so it's irrelevant. Back to the point: there's nothing unusual about a Congressional witness not having their counsel return phone calls hours after they occur. Your hit job is failing. Please go to the bullpen and bring in someone better at this.

Nice try attempting to brush off the delay tactics by Feinstein. We see this whole episode for what it is.
All the other attempts at derailing this nominee failed... so out of that back pocket they pull the #MeToo card.
Klassy.

Exactly. Their desperation is going ballistic.

Merrick Garland put a permanent end to anything but hardball tactics when appointing to the SC. That's how it is now. Live with it. Unless Trump calls a truce and nominates a moderate instead. Which he will never do.

Please name 3 moderates you'd be happy with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

Give it a rest. Just because an 85 year old Senator thinks that her attorney hasn't responded to a couple recent phone calls made hours earlier doesn't mean she isn't responding.

In the meantime, Susan Collins has already proposed a format that's completely different than what Grassley outlined, so it's not surprising that her attorney is being deliberate. Note that she's a private citizen on a different coast who's being asked to provide a public victims account on national TV... I don't think it's unusual to take some before agreeing to logistical details. Most depositions I'm involved with take months to schedule, and her appearance is requested in 5 business days.

You obviously have an agenda. Drop it and let the process work.

Unlike the other 85 year old Senator who knew these allegations for around six weeks and interviewed the "assailant" and never even asked him about it.

Who cares whether Feinstein asked him it. Irrelevant. Go back to your yardwork and let the real lawyers weigh in.

It’s absolutely relevant. She sat on this information for months, and now wants a full blown FBI investigation.
Tell me she isn’t trying to delay. It won’t work.

Feinstein's motivations don't really matter. There's now a credible witness that has appeared, and there's no reason for the matter not to be vetted. Time is not of the essence here. Flake and Collins agree, so it's irrelevant. Back to the point: there's nothing unusual about a Congressional witness not having their counsel return phone calls hours after they occur. Your hit job is failing. Please go to the bullpen and bring in someone better at this.

Nice try attempting to brush off the delay tactics by Feinstein. We see this whole episode for what it is.
All the other attempts at derailing this nominee failed... so out of that back pocket they pull the #MeToo card.
Klassy.

Exactly. Their desperation is going ballistic.

Merrick Garland put a permanent end to anything but hardball tactics when appointing to the SC. That's how it is now. Live with it. Unless Trump calls a truce and nominates a moderate instead. Which he will never do.

Please name 3 moderates you'd be happy with.

Merrick Garland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

Give it a rest. Just because an 85 year old Senator thinks that her attorney hasn't responded to a couple recent phone calls made hours earlier doesn't mean she isn't responding.

In the meantime, Susan Collins has already proposed a format that's completely different than what Grassley outlined, so it's not surprising that her attorney is being deliberate. Note that she's a private citizen on a different coast who's being asked to provide a public victims account on national TV... I don't think it's unusual to take some before agreeing to logistical details. Most depositions I'm involved with take months to schedule, and her appearance is requested in 5 business days.

You obviously have an agenda. Drop it and let the process work.

Unlike the other 85 year old Senator who knew these allegations for around six weeks and interviewed the "assailant" and never even asked him about it.

Who cares whether Feinstein asked him it. Irrelevant. Go back to your yardwork and let the real lawyers weigh in.

It’s absolutely relevant. She sat on this information for months, and now wants a full blown FBI investigation.
Tell me she isn’t trying to delay. It won’t work.

Feinstein's motivations don't really matter. There's now a credible witness that has appeared, and there's no reason for the matter not to be vetted. Time is not of the essence here. Flake and Collins agree, so it's irrelevant. Back to the point: there's nothing unusual about a Congressional witness not having their counsel return phone calls hours after they occur. Your hit job is failing. Please go to the bullpen and bring in someone better at this.

Nice try attempting to brush off the delay tactics by Feinstein. We see this whole episode for what it is.
All the other attempts at derailing this nominee failed... so out of that back pocket they pull the #MeToo card.
Klassy.

Exactly. Their desperation is going ballistic.

Merrick Garland put a permanent end to anything but hardball tactics when appointing to the SC. That's how it is now. Live with it. Unless Trump calls a truce and nominates a moderate instead. Which he will never do.

Please name 3 moderates you'd be happy with.

Merrick Garland.

Um, three, please. That's only one.

[Anonymous]

DT has a successful appointee to the court. Here is a tip DT - avoid the drunken HS jacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

I fear she may change her various recollections under oath.

Her lawyer is saying they don't have to prove their story is true - Kavanaugh has to prove it isn't

That's what I've been saying. Her letter is enough. Kavanaugh is the one who needs to convince the Senate to confirm him.

This isn't an investigation. It's a confirmation hearing.

So an accusation, i.e. words on a paper, are enough? That suggests anyone could say anything about anybody to derail whatever they want. Is that the game?

Nope. Surely you realize there must be a plausible connection for an accusation to be taken seriously? So no, if someone who has lived in Wyoming all their life tries to accuse someone from Vermont who's a much different age of an attack at a high school party in Wyoming, and it's obvious that there's no plausible way the two were in the same place at the same time, no one is going to take that seriously.

So anything plausible is okay? If you are saying this is the standard it is quite frightening. This could become so abusive so quickly on both sides of the aisle.

In 95% of cases that are reported, there already IS abuse on one side -- the assaulter. False accusations are incredibly rare. Are you hyper concerned about people being falsely accused of larceny? of murder? Those have similar false accusation rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um, three, please. That's only one.

Merrick Garland.

[Anonymous]

Is me too the last card to bury BK? What's next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, three, please. That's only one.

Merrick Garland.

Anita Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is me too the last card to bury BK? What's next?

Boofing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, three, please. That's only one.

Merrick Garland.

Anita Hill

Barack Obama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is me too the last card to bury BK? What's next?

Boofing.

What's that? Halloween?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is me too the last card to bury BK? What's next?

Boofing.

What's that? Halloween?

Don't ask.

No, it's not booing.

[Anonymous]

If you were one of the women who signed the letter would you be interviewing lawyers right now?