riflebear said:

---

The radical far right liberal mind in a nut shell. They know their voters have no clue as long as they obstruct and tell lies.

---

They flip flop back and forth. It's 100% an attempt to stall nomination.

It's stupid because Dems are polling terribly everywhere, the RNC has raised a quarter of a billion dollars while the DNC is broke...Dems are going to lose horribly in midterms.

They're not smart people.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

The SCOTUS judge Kananaugh was nominated to replace, Anthony Kennedy, was seated in an election year by a Democratic Senate for a lame duck GOP POTUS.

---

That was an exception to the rule, and only after Bork was rejected and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew.

---

There's really no "rule" for Kennedy to be an exception to, that's just McConnell's fig-leaf justification for what he did to Garland. Bork was rejected for wholly justifiable reasons, Ginsburg not so much but he withdrew his own name. What happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented, and its ramifications will carry on for a while.

---

That's simply not true. To take just a couple of examples, a Republican Senate held up the replacement of Peter Vivian Daniel in 1861 so Abraham Lincoln could appoint his successor. Lincoln replaced four justices and created a new seat on the court for good measure, for a total of five appointments. Lincoln was succeeded by Democrat Andrew Johnson. The Senate rejected one of his nominees, refused to vote on the other one, and passed a law reducing the number of justices from ten to seven. When Republican Ulysses Grant was elected, Congress raised the number back to nine.

Supreme Court nominations have been politicized since the emergence of the two party system in the early 1800s. What happened to Garland was in no way unprecedented or surprising. What's unprecedented is the extreme level of character assassination, which Democrats have pioneered and which some people apparently consider more legitimate than voting "no" or allowing a nomination to expire.

---

So you're saying vaguely similar things that happened during the Civil War is more of a controlling precedent than what happened with a set of facts more on point in 1988? Ok, sure. I have to hand it to Republicans, y'all really will dig deep to justify anything.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

The SCOTUS judge Kananaugh was nominated to replace, Anthony Kennedy, was seated in an election year by a Democratic Senate for a lame duck GOP POTUS.

---

That was an exception to the rule, and only after Bork was rejected and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew.

---

There's really no "rule" for Kennedy to be an exception to, that's just McConnell's fig-leaf justification for what he did to Garland. Bork was rejected for wholly justifiable reasons, Ginsburg not so much but he withdrew his own name. What happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented, and its ramifications will carry on for a while.

---

That's simply not true. To take just a couple of examples, a Republican Senate held up the replacement of Peter Vivian Daniel in 1861 so Abraham Lincoln could appoint his successor. Lincoln replaced four justices and created a new seat on the court for good measure, for a total of five appointments. Lincoln was succeeded by Democrat Andrew Johnson. The Senate rejected one of his nominees, refused to vote on the other one, and passed a law reducing the number of justices from ten to seven. When Republican Ulysses Grant was elected, Congress raised the number back to nine.

Supreme Court nominations have been politicized since the emergence of the two party system in the early 1800s. What happened to Garland was in no way unprecedented or surprising. What's unprecedented is the extreme level of character assassination, which Democrats have pioneered and which some people apparently consider more legitimate than voting "no" or allowing a nomination to expire.

---

You're right. It is and always will be a political appointment.

How pathetic

riflebear said:

---

How pathetic

---

Paid fat radicals.

Disgusting.

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

---

And he says nothing happen and he says he wasn't even at a party like this, which is tough to determine because she can't even remember where or when the party was.

What is amazing is so many of you guys defended Bill for doing much worse, and I mean much much worse. And you same people defended Hillary for questioning the motives of the accusers and saying bad things about the accusers. None of you had a problem with any of their actions, and those accusers actually had evidence. And it was accusers, not accuser. It's remarkable how hypocritical you guys are.

For the record, I questioned the motives of Bill's accusers, just as I question the timing and motive of this accuser.

---

What does Bill have to do with this?

You badly misstated what the allegation is, and I corrected your mistake.

I have never said that I am convinced that the allegation is accurate. I have said I find it credible -- big difference -- and that there is insufficient evidence so far to move this beyond a he said-she said situation.

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

The SCOTUS judge Kananaugh was nominated to replace, Anthony Kennedy, was seated in an election year by a Democratic Senate for a lame duck GOP POTUS.

---

That was an exception to the rule, and only after Bork was rejected and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew.

---

There's really no "rule" for Kennedy to be an exception to, that's just McConnell's fig-leaf justification for what he did to Garland. Bork was rejected for wholly justifiable reasons, Ginsburg not so much but he withdrew his own name. What happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented, and its ramifications will carry on for a while.

---

It's one thing to delay the vote, especially when your party is in charge of the senate, it's another thing to delay the vote by any means necessary, which include ruining a man's life because of factless claims.

I'm still waiting for you to respond about the girl from hs that said you sexually assaulted her. She can't remember where it happened or when it happened, but she said it happened. Does your employer know? Does your wife know? Why don't do you do the honorable thing and own up to it and apologize?

---

If you could corroborate that allegation and show that you didn't just make it up today, it would be worth investigating at that point don't you think? Especially when the stakes are as high as a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. We're talking about like 3-5 days for some kind of LEO's to look into things and see what can he verified or not before Senator's can ask their questions, tops.

HuMcK said:

---

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

The SCOTUS judge Kananaugh was nominated to replace, Anthony Kennedy, was seated in an election year by a Democratic Senate for a lame duck GOP POTUS.

---

That was an exception to the rule, and only after Bork was rejected and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew.

---

There's really no "rule" for Kennedy to be an exception to, that's just McConnell's fig-leaf justification for what he did to Garland. Bork was rejected for wholly justifiable reasons, Ginsburg not so much but he withdrew his own name. What happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented, and its ramifications will carry on for a while.

---

It's one thing to delay the vote, especially when your party is in charge of the senate, it's another thing to delay the vote by any means necessary, which include ruining a man's life because of factless claims.

I'm still waiting for you to respond about the girl from hs that said you sexually assaulted her. She can't remember where it happened or when it happened, but she said it happened. Does your employer know? Does your wife know? Why don't do you do the honorable thing and own up to it and apologize?

---

If you could corroborate that allegation and show that you didn't just make it up today, it would be worth investigating at that point don't you think? Especially when the stakes are as high as a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. We're talking about like 3-5 days for some kind of LEO's to look into things and see what can he verified or not before Senator's can ask their questions, tops.

---

Agreed, we should get this taken care of ASAP and she should talk to members of Congress as her lawyer said earlier this week she was eager to do. That way we can see if there is any evidence that supports her claims. But without even a location, a rough date or witnesses from the party, there is literally nothing to go off of. And I can't say whether something happened or not, it's very possible something did happen, but sadly, the burden of proof is on the accuser, especially after the accuser waited so long and is lacking on details regarding the incident.

If she had said it happened at Joe's House in the summer of '82 and 2 of my friends who went with me can corroborate I was there and so was Brett. Even without a witness to the actual alleged crime, at least we can say they were both at this party. But we don't even have that. No one had even come forward to say such a party even occurred that both of them were at. If something did happen, it is extremely unfortunate that she can't remember any other details and no one is willing to come forward to back her up. But if the reason she can't remember is because it didn't happen, then that is just fcked up and it is a slap in the face to anyone that has really been sexually assaulted and it is disgusting that she did this is the name of politics.

My point is some have said Brett should just come clean. I think you (maybe it wasn't you, maybe it was someone else) claimed other nominees didn't have the potential for this type of allegation, which is just silly because his record other than this one suspect allegation is impeccable. Jinx said Brett should remove himself from consideration, as if he/she would make the same assertion if it involved allegations against a democratic nominee. All of this just stinks of partisan politics and it is disgusting to use sexual assault as a mechanism to do this. It may win you this one short-term political victory, but it will just continue the moral corruption of our society.

JXL said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

---

And he says nothing happen and he says he wasn't even at a party like this, which is tough to determine because she can't even remember where or when the party was.

What is amazing is so many of you guys defended Bill for doing much worse, and I mean much much worse. And you same people defended Hillary for questioning the motives of the accusers and saying bad things about the accusers. None of you had a problem with any of their actions, and those accusers actually had evidence. And it was accusers, not accuser. It's remarkable how hypocritical you guys are.

For the record, I questioned the motives of Bill's accusers, just as I question the timing and motive of this accuser.

---

What does Bill have to do with this?

You badly misstated what the allegation is, and I corrected your mistake.

I have never said that I am convinced that the allegation is accurate. I have said I find it credible -- big difference -- and that there is insufficient evidence so far to move this beyond a he said-she said situation.

---

What makes it credible? Is it the 35-year gap, or the complete lack of background information? Oh wait - it's credible because it's leveled at a conservative, is that it?

---

For a moment, before I read to the end, I thought you were in process of asking a serious question and seeking a serious response. Then I saw you were just being a tribal dip*****

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

The SCOTUS judge Kananaugh was nominated to replace, Anthony Kennedy, was seated in an election year by a Democratic Senate for a lame duck GOP POTUS.

---

That was an exception to the rule, and only after Bork was rejected and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew.

---

There's really no "rule" for Kennedy to be an exception to, that's just McConnell's fig-leaf justification for what he did to Garland. Bork was rejected for wholly justifiable reasons, Ginsburg not so much but he withdrew his own name. What happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented, and its ramifications will carry on for a while.

---

That's simply not true. To take just a couple of examples, a Republican Senate held up the replacement of Peter Vivian Daniel in 1861 so Abraham Lincoln could appoint his successor. Lincoln replaced four justices and created a new seat on the court for good measure, for a total of five appointments. Lincoln was succeeded by Democrat Andrew Johnson. The Senate rejected one of his nominees, refused to vote on the other one, and passed a law reducing the number of justices from ten to seven. When Republican Ulysses Grant was elected, Congress raised the number back to nine.

Supreme Court nominations have been politicized since the emergence of the two party system in the early 1800s. What happened to Garland was in no way unprecedented or surprising. What's unprecedented is the extreme level of character assassination, which Democrats have pioneered and which some people apparently consider more legitimate than voting "no" or allowing a nomination to expire.

---

So you're saying vaguely similar things that happened during the Civil War is more of a controlling precedent than what happened with a set of facts more on point in 1988? Ok, sure. I have to hand it to Republicans, y'all really will dig deep to justify anything.

---

You don't have to dig deep, you just have to dig a little. Start with John Quincy Adams, whose second nominee was delayed so Andrew Jackson could fill the spot. Or John Tyler, who had two nominees ignored for almost a year with no explanation from the Senate.

bubbadog said:

---

JXL said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

---

And he says nothing happen and he says he wasn't even at a party like this, which is tough to determine because she can't even remember where or when the party was.

What is amazing is so many of you guys defended Bill for doing much worse, and I mean much much worse. And you same people defended Hillary for questioning the motives of the accusers and saying bad things about the accusers. None of you had a problem with any of their actions, and those accusers actually had evidence. And it was accusers, not accuser. It's remarkable how hypocritical you guys are.

For the record, I questioned the motives of Bill's accusers, just as I question the timing and motive of this accuser.

---

What does Bill have to do with this?

You badly misstated what the allegation is, and I corrected your mistake.

I have never said that I am convinced that the allegation is accurate. I have said I find it credible -- big difference -- and that there is insufficient evidence so far to move this beyond a he said-she said situation.

---

What makes it credible? Is it the 35-year gap, or the complete lack of background information? Oh wait - it's credible because it's leveled at a conservative, is that it?

---

For a moment, before I read to the end, I thought you were in process of asking a serious question and seeking a serious response. Then I saw you were just being a tribal dip*****

---

The mere fact that you claim to find the ludicrous, decades old, obviously politically motivated and evidence-less claims to be "credible" makes your accusations of others' tribalism hilarious. You and jinx are the certified bone-in-nose, booga-booga, turtle shell rattling witch doctors of tribalism. This woman could have said Kavanaugh perpetrated sexual assault as a third grader with the help of his space alien overlord friend from Alpha Centauri named Slarkonpuglo 12, and you and jinx would claim she was 'credible'. To you, credibility is merely about at whom the accusation is aimed.

bubbadog said:

---

JXL said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

---

And he says nothing happen and he says he wasn't even at a party like this, which is tough to determine because she can't even remember where or when the party was.

What is amazing is so many of you guys defended Bill for doing much worse, and I mean much much worse. And you same people defended Hillary for questioning the motives of the accusers and saying bad things about the accusers. None of you had a problem with any of their actions, and those accusers actually had evidence. And it was accusers, not accuser. It's remarkable how hypocritical you guys are.

For the record, I questioned the motives of Bill's accusers, just as I question the timing and motive of this accuser.

---

What does Bill have to do with this?

You badly misstated what the allegation is, and I corrected your mistake.

I have never said that I am convinced that the allegation is accurate. I have said I find it credible -- big difference -- and that there is insufficient evidence so far to move this beyond a he said-she said situation.

---

What makes it credible? Is it the 35-year gap, or the complete lack of background information? Oh wait - it's credible because it's leveled at a conservative, is that it?

---

For a moment, before I read to the end, I thought you were in process of asking a serious question and seeking a serious response. Then I saw you were just being a tribal dip*****

---

So what about the accusation makes it credible?

JXL said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JXL said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

Fav Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

---

And he says nothing happen and he says he wasn't even at a party like this, which is tough to determine because she can't even remember where or when the party was.

What is amazing is so many of you guys defended Bill for doing much worse, and I mean much much worse. And you same people defended Hillary for questioning the motives of the accusers and saying bad things about the accusers. None of you had a problem with any of their actions, and those accusers actually had evidence. And it was accusers, not accuser. It's remarkable how hypocritical you guys are.

For the record, I questioned the motives of Bill's accusers, just as I question the timing and motive of this accuser.

---

What does Bill have to do with this?

You badly misstated what the allegation is, and I corrected your mistake.

I have never said that I am convinced that the allegation is accurate. I have said I find it credible -- big difference -- and that there is insufficient evidence so far to move this beyond a he said-she said situation.

---

What makes it credible? Is it the 35-year gap, or the complete lack of background information? Oh wait - it's credible because it's leveled at a conservative, is that it?

---

For a moment, before I read to the end, I thought you were in process of asking a serious question and seeking a serious response. Then I saw you were just being a tribal dip*****

---

So what about the accusation makes it credible?

---

It's designed to take down Kavanaugh, whom Jinxie has declared to be a "meanie."

bubbadog said:

---

JXL said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

---

And he says nothing happen and he says he wasn't even at a party like this, which is tough to determine because she can't even remember where or when the party was.

What is amazing is so many of you guys defended Bill for doing much worse, and I mean much much worse. And you same people defended Hillary for questioning the motives of the accusers and saying bad things about the accusers. None of you had a problem with any of their actions, and those accusers actually had evidence. And it was accusers, not accuser. It's remarkable how hypocritical you guys are.

For the record, I questioned the motives of Bill's accusers, just as I question the timing and motive of this accuser.

---

What does Bill have to do with this?

You badly misstated what the allegation is, and I corrected your mistake.

I have never said that I am convinced that the allegation is accurate. I have said I find it credible -- big difference -- and that there is insufficient evidence so far to move this beyond a he said-she said situation.

---

What makes it credible? Is it the 35-year gap, or the complete lack of background information? Oh wait - it's credible because it's leveled at a conservative, is that it?

---

For a moment, before I read to the end, I thought you were in process of asking a serious question and seeking a serious response. Then I saw you were just being a tribal dip*****

---

So, do you have a response? Or, do you just want to bag on other posters as a response?

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JXL said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

contrario said:

---

Why do you lie? Allegedly he shut the door and turned the music up and then tried to make advances on her. At which time she said no and ran away and he stopped.

---

That is not at all what she alleges.

Here is the allegation:

The two boys got her into the bedroom.
Kavanaugh pinned her on the bed and started trying to strip off her clothes, while the other guy watched and laughed.
She tried to scream, but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
She continued to struggle. The other boy jumped on the bed to try to help pin her down. This caused all three of them to fall off the bed. She was able to scramble up, run out of the room and lock herself in a bathroom. She waited in there until she heard them go downstairs, and then waited 5-10 minutes more before exiting the bathroom and leaving the house.

---

And he says nothing happen and he says he wasn't even at a party like this, which is tough to determine because she can't even remember where or when the party was.

What is amazing is so many of you guys defended Bill for doing much worse, and I mean much much worse. And you same people defended Hillary for questioning the motives of the accusers and saying bad things about the accusers. None of you had a problem with any of their actions, and those accusers actually had evidence. And it was accusers, not accuser. It's remarkable how hypocritical you guys are.

For the record, I questioned the motives of Bill's accusers, just as I question the timing and motive of this accuser.

---

What does Bill have to do with this?

You badly misstated what the allegation is, and I corrected your mistake.

I have never said that I am convinced that the allegation is accurate. I have said I find it credible -- big difference -- and that there is insufficient evidence so far to move this beyond a he said-she said situation.

---

What makes it credible? Is it the 35-year gap, or the complete lack of background information? Oh wait - it's credible because it's leveled at a conservative, is that it?

---

For a moment, before I read to the end, I thought you were in process of asking a serious question and seeking a serious response. Then I saw you were just being a tribal dip*****

---

So, do you have a response? Or, do you just want to bag on other posters as a response?

---

Read my exchange with Former Flash. If you're interested in a serious conversation, we can have one. JXL plainly is not.

Anyone surprised by this. DELAY DELAY DELAY

GrowlTowel said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

Garland didn't get a confirmation hearing.

Republicans didn't even meet with him.

McConnell stonewalled him.

You think Kavanaugh's being shabbily treated? That pales compared with the treatment Garland got.

---

You have got to be kidding? It was the Biden Rule that kept Garland off the bench not manufactured memories post committee hearing.

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-merrick-garland-supreme-court-2016-3

Vice President Joe Biden slammed Senate Republicans Thursday for citing the "Biden Rule" as reasoning for why they won't hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick.

In a Thursday speech, Biden called Republicans "frankly ridiculous" for relying on comments he made in 1992 about the dangers of holding Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the midst of presidential elections.
Biden said the so-called rule that supposedly prevents Supreme Court nominations in an election year "doesn't exist."

He said that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others in the GOP Senate leadership have quoted "selectively" from the remarks he made in 1992 on the floor of the Senate as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Those comments came after what the vice president called the "bruising and polarizing" confirmation process involving Justice Clarence Thomas.

In the part of Biden's 1992 speech that has been oft-cited by McConnell and other Republicans, Biden said then-President George H.W. Bush shouldn't name a nominee if a vacancy arose until after that year's November election.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all," he said. "Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself."

On Thursday, Biden said that statement, taken out of context, glosses over his main gripe from the time that Bush nominated Thomas, an "extreme candidate," in 1991 without consulting his committee just four days after Justice Thurgood Marshall retired.

"They completely ignore the fact that, at the time, I was speaking of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper Senate consultation," he said. "They completely neglected to quote my unequivocal bottom line, so let me set the record straight as they say: I said and I quote 'if the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter,' end of quote."

Biden told the group of law students at Georgetown University in Washington DC that, since there was no vacancy between Thomas' confirmation and the presidential election, he couldn't say what might have happened if a seat did open up. However, he added that his track record as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee gave a pretty good hint as to what the outcome of a nomination would have been.

"I was responsible for eight justices and nine total nominees on the Supreme Court more than, I hate to say this, anyone alive," he said. "Some I supported, a few I voted against. But in all that time, every nominee was greeted by committee members, every nominee got a committee hearing, every nominee got out of the committee even if they didn't have sufficient votes to pass within the committee."

He continued: "Every nominee, including Justice Kennedy in an election year, got an up-and-down vote. Not much of the time. Not most of the time, every single solitary time. To now hear all this talk about the Biden rule, it's frankly ridiculous. There is no Biden rule, it doesn't exist."

Biden later said "nobody is suggesting individual senators have to vote yes" on Garland, the chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

"Voting no is always an option," he said.

"Deciding in advance simply to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the Constitution leaves open," he continued. "It's a plain abdication from the Senate's duty. ... [It's] never occurred before in our history."

McConnell has led the stand against holding a hearing for Garland, insisting the next president should be the one to fill the seat, which was opened after Justice Antonin Scalia's recent death.

"The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said last Wednesday. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy."

But cracks have already begun to form within McConnell's party. Some GOP senators have agreed to meet with Garland, while others have said they'd push his nomination through during the lame-duck session if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were to win the presidency. Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois even said his fellow GOP senators should "man up" and hold a vote for Garland.

A number of polls show the majority of Americans are not in favor of the GOP's platform, and an overwhelming majority believes the Senate GOP is making a political play that doesn't have the best interest of the American people in mind.

Biden said that Garland's "reputation for moderation" makes McConnell's stance all the more puzzling.
"I've never seen it like this," Biden said. "Washington right now is dysfunctional. They're undermining the norms of how we conduct ourselves."

"Our politics our broken," he later said. "It's no secret, our Congress is broken."

Jinx 2 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

Garland didn't get a confirmation hearing.

Republicans didn't even meet with him.

McConnell stonewalled him.

You think Kavanaugh's being shabbily treated? That pales compared with the treatment Garland got.

---

You have got to be kidding? It was the Biden Rule that kept Garland off the bench not manufactured memories post committee hearing.

---

A number of polls show the majority of Americans are not in favor of the GOP's platform, and an overwhelming majority believes the Senate GOP is making a political play that doesn't have the best interest of the American people in mind.

---

LOL - this didn't age well. How did those 'polls' hold up?

Obama lost over 1,000 state seats nationwide while in office
GOP won back House & Senate
Trump WON election in a landslide electoral vote.

riflebear said:

---

You were saying Jinx?

---

https://www.law.com/2018/09/21/conservative-activist-ed-whelan-apologizes-for-tweets-about-kavanaugh-accuser/?kw=Conservative%20Activist%20Ed%20Whelan%20Apologizes%20for%20Tweets%20About%20Kavanaugh%20Accuser&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&cn=20180921&src=EMC-Email&pt=In%20Practice&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=LAW:%20In%20Practice:%20All%20Practices&utm_term=Lawcom_Lawcom%20In%20Practice

Conservative activist Ed Whelan, under fire for a series of tweets that were designed to boost attacks on the credibility of the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, apologized Friday on Twitter for what he called "an appalling and inexcusable" mistake in judgment.

Whelan, who has backed Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, posted tweets late Thursday that used yearbook photos, housing records and maps to suggest the accuser, California professor Christine Blasey Ford, might be confusing Kavanaugh with another high school classmate at Georgetown Preparatory in suburban Washington. He has since deleted those tweets.

Whelan tweeted Friday morning: "I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake."

Ford claims Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her during the 1980s, pinning her to a bed, groping her and covering her mouth to prevent her from screaming. Kavanaugh has denied the claims. His supporters, walking a cautious path, have suggested another person might have been responsible for the alleged attack. Kavanaugh has agreed to testify next week, and Ford's lawyers at Washington's Katz, Marshall & Banks are negotiating the contours of her potential testimony.

Whelan, a Harvard Law School graduate and a popular conservative voice on judicial nomination matters, came under criticism almost immediately for his tweets. Some observers questioned whether Whelan, who identified a former classmate of Kavanaugh as resembling him, could have committed libel. Ford, through her lawyers, told media outlets Thursday "there is zero chance that I would confuse them."

Whelan said in a statement Friday morning: "No one urged or in any way asked me to make the apology. It was entirely my decision." He also said: "I did not work with anyone in the White House or on the judiciary committee in preparing my tweet thread."

On Sept. 18, Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington and a former clerk to the late Antonin Scalia, predicted on Twitter that Kavanaugh, a week from then, "will have been clearly vindicated on this matter. Specifically, I expect that compelling evidence will show his categorical denial to be truthful."

Whelan has followed Kavanaugh's nomination from the beginning, including attendingPresident Donald Trump's East Room announcement of the D.C. Circuit judge's nomination in July, and live-tweeting the confirmation hearing.

There was debate on Twitter on Thursday night about whether and how much Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Trump officials had prior knowledge of Whelan's plan before he executed it on social media.

The Senate Judiciary Committee distanced itself from Whelan's tweets, saying the committee "had no knowledge of involvement" in Whelan's Twitter storm. Whelan said Thursday night in his posts that "I do not state, imply or insinuate" that Kavanaugh's classmate "or anyone else committed the sexual assault that Ford alleges."

Last year, Whelan co-edited a book of Scalia's speeches and writings titled "Scalia Speaks" along with Scalia's son Christopher. In his postings for the National Review, Whelan is a frequent and unabashed critic of liberal judges and the news media. He writes a regular feature called "This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism."

Jinx 2 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... said:

---

... Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination, but he won't. If he's confirmed, he will serve under the embarrassing shadow of the president who nominated him.

---

It doesn't seem to bother Sotomayor or Kagan.

---

Great point! And I certainly don't remember the Republicans acting like children and throwing temper tantrums in the 11th hour of the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan. And there was little doubt of the political leanings of both.

---

Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 and Kagan by a vote of 63-37. Neither was subject to the personal attacks that Democrats have used routinely since the Bork nomination. Garland wasn't confirmed, obviously, because Supreme Court nominees typically are not confirmed in a president's last year without a favorable Senate majority.

---

Garland didn't get a confirmation hearing.

Republicans didn't even meet with him.

McConnell stonewalled him.

You think Kavanaugh's being shabbily treated? That pales compared with the treatment Garland got.

---

You have got to be kidding? It was the Biden Rule that kept Garland off the bench not manufactured memories post committee hearing.

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-merrick-garland-supreme-court-2016-3

Vice President Joe Biden slammed Senate Republicans Thursday for citing the "Biden Rule" as reasoning for why they won't hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick.

In a Thursday speech, Biden called Republicans "frankly ridiculous" for relying on comments he made in 1992 about the dangers of holding Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the midst of presidential elections.
Biden said the so-called rule that supposedly prevents Supreme Court nominations in an election year "doesn't exist."

He said that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others in the GOP Senate leadership have quoted "selectively" from the remarks he made in 1992 on the floor of the Senate as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Those comments came after what the vice president called the "bruising and polarizing" confirmation process involving Justice Clarence Thomas.

In the part of Biden's 1992 speech that has been oft-cited by McConnell and other Republicans, Biden said then-President George H.W. Bush shouldn't name a nominee if a vacancy arose until after that year's November election.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all," he said. "Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself."

On Thursday, Biden said that statement, taken out of context, glosses over his main gripe from the time that Bush nominated Thomas, an "extreme candidate," in 1991 without consulting his committee just four days after Justice Thurgood Marshall retired.

"They completely ignore the fact that, at the time, I was speaking of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper Senate consultation," he said. "They completely neglected to quote my unequivocal bottom line, so let me set the record straight as they say: I said and I quote 'if the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter,' end of quote."

Biden told the group of law students at Georgetown University in Washington DC that, since there was no vacancy between Thomas' confirmation and the presidential election, he couldn't say what might have happened if a seat did open up. However, he added that his track record as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee gave a pretty good hint as to what the outcome of a nomination would have been.

"I was responsible for eight justices and nine total nominees on the Supreme Court more than, I hate to say this, anyone alive," he said. "Some I supported, a few I voted against. But in all that time, every nominee was greeted by committee members, every nominee got a committee hearing, every nominee got out of the committee even if they didn't have sufficient votes to pass within the committee."

He continued: "Every nominee, including Justice Kennedy in an election year, got an up-and-down vote. Not much of the time. Not most of the time, every single solitary time. To now hear all this talk about the Biden rule, it's frankly ridiculous. There is no Biden rule, it doesn't exist."

Biden later said "nobody is suggesting individual senators have to vote yes" on Garland, the chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

"Voting no is always an option," he said.

"Deciding in advance simply to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the Constitution leaves open," he continued. "It's a plain abdication from the Senate's duty. ... [It's] never occurred before in our history."

McConnell has led the stand against holding a hearing for Garland, insisting the next president should be the one to fill the seat, which was opened after Justice Antonin Scalia's recent death.

"The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said last Wednesday. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy."

But cracks have already begun to form within McConnell's party. Some GOP senators have agreed to meet with Garland, while others have said they'd push his nomination through during the lame-duck session if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were to win the presidency. Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois even said his fellow GOP senators should "man up" and hold a vote for Garland.

A number of polls show the majority of Americans are not in favor of the GOP's platform, and an overwhelming majority believes the Senate GOP is making a political play that doesn't have the best interest of the American people in mind.

Biden said that Garland's "reputation for moderation" makes McConnell's stance all the more puzzling.
"I've never seen it like this," Biden said. "Washington right now is dysfunctional. They're undermining the norms of how we conduct ourselves."

"Our politics our broken," he later said. "It's no secret, our Congress is broken."

---

Gee that is super. Biden makes the rule and decades later says that it only applies to "extreme candidates?"

Doesn't "extreme candidate" really just mean "republican candidates?" You know that is what he meant.

These people are crazy

And people wonder why no one takes CNN or MSNBC seriously.

Pretty sloppy.

Keep moving back deadlines to work with her and their resist Soros letter keeps playing games asking for more days. End it now. We know the game they are playing, they are doing everything to make them look bad in the media and make everyone think these 11 angry white men are bullying a 'sexual assault' victim.

These Liberals are so fake and corrupt it's sickening

riflebear said:

---

And people wonder why no one takes CNN or MSNBC seriously.

---

pardon my French, but what in the actual **** are you talking about?

Come to DC to testify...

"I am afraid to fly"

We will fly the committee out to you...

"You are belittling me..that's sexist. I'll get back to you with a date in 2000-never. "