[martin14]

Tricks Tricks:

I'm confused, why do we care if she's afraid of flying? I haven't followed this very closely.

Because she said she wouldn't come to DC, because she was afraid of flying.

A lie, a rather big one.

xerxes xerxes:

And yet, the witness who supposedly can vouch for Kavanaugh on the night in question isn't being to called to testify to that effect.

There is no need. There is no evidence anything ever happened.
The others alleged to be there have sworn statements sent to the Committee.

[xerxes]

There absolutely is a need. That's a rebuttal witness. If a person is making an accusation and there is another person who can counter said accusation that isn't the person accused, then that's the kind of person this Senate committee should be hearing from.

The reason Mark Judge isn't being called is because he was a drunken boor back then and would completely ensure Kavanaugh's ship is sunk.

[BartSimpson]

Under our system of law the burden of proof is upon the accuser.

Period.

[Tricks]

martin14 martin14:

Because she said she wouldn't come to DC, because she was afraid of flying.

A lie, a rather big one.

Isn't she in DC for the hearing?

[N_Fiddledog]

xerxes xerxes:

There absolutely is a need. That's a rebuttal witness. If a person is making an accusation and there is another person who can counter said accusation that isn't the person accused, then that's the kind of person this Senate committee should be hearing from.

The reason Mark Judge isn't being called is because he was a drunken boor back then and would completely ensure Kavanaugh's ship is sunk.

I think there were 4 witnesses Ford alleged were at the alleged party. They all say they don't have a clue what she's talking about.

Perhaps rather than fixating on Judge you can tell us why the other 3 weren't called? I imagine there's a reason.

And it isn't just those four who weren't called. There's the penis poker, Porny Daniel's lawyer's train-puller and the 2 guys claiming Ford has mixed up them with Kavanaugh and Judge.

People keep coming forward from both sides wanting to get in on the show but the hearing was to listen to Ford and Kavanaugh.

The circus in the background is more just something the Democrats would like to use to delay the Kavanaugh vote by pretending an FBI investigation is called for or would solve anything.

[N_Fiddledog]

[BartSimpson]

Kavanaugh is demonstrating why he was a good choice for the USSC.

[raydan]

He can't even talk at the same time as the video.

[llama66]

martin14 martin14:

llama66 llama66:

Is it bad if I don't care about this? At all?

You should care.
If allegations with absolutely zero evidence, in fact less than zero,
take out a SC nomination, the job of every man in the West is under threat
from whatever woman, whenever, wherever.
Who needs no evidence, just her say so.

Including yours.

Not my circus, not my monkeys.

But really, if you see my comments in the Swedish banning of the distracted boyfriend meme, and the Sex-Toy-Robot thread you'd see I'm pretty cognizant of the fact that baseless "he raped me" allegations destroy lives every day.

[xerxes]

$1:

Perhaps rather than fixating on Judge you can tell us why the other 3 weren't called? I imagine there's a reason.

Probably because while they were at the party, Judge was the only witness to what did or didn't happen.

[Freakinoldguy]

xerxes xerxes:

You can be afraid of something and still do it. Especially if it's for something important like this hearing, or a funeral like she testified which was why she was in Baltimore.

But, she said she hadn't wanted to testify and it wasn't till after she viewed the nominee list she decided to prevent Kavanaugh from being the nominee but she had never intended to become the Democrat's poster girl for sexual assault especially on this public a platform.

Riddle me this though. Who are the two men the Republicans interviewed that claim to have been the ones who committed the assault and why won't she name names? It makes me wonder if the 1 beer she claims to have ingested that night was alot more or if she's having thoughts put in her head along with lawyers at the behest of Dianne Feinstein who put this whole witch hunt into motion. The reason I ask is because if she's a courageous rape victim willing to come forward and suffer the consequences then what does it make two men who are willing to admit to committing a crime?

Unfortunately the partisanship continues. Nothing was resolved by her testimony because the democrats think she was a credible witness while the republicans think Kavanaugh was just as credible.

My solution would be to appoint him and then commence an investigation. If there's something there, you can remove him from office but if there's no proof other than her word then he should have the right to sue her for defamation of character.

$1:

Although an appointment to the United States Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, the U.S. Constitution includes language that allows a justice to be impeached and forcibly removed from office. Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."

https://legalbeagle.com/6596992-rules-r ... stice.html

[Freakinoldguy]

You've gotta see Senator Graham go off on the Democrats. It's worth the watch.

[BartSimpson]

Kavanaugh will not be investigated after he's appointed.

But if he isn't appointed then the judge who comes next for the seat (probably next week) will be voted on within days of the nomination just to prevent a repeat performance of this shitshow AND I expect that Trump will nominate the meanest, most ardent right-winger to the seat just to punish the Democrats for what they're doing to a good man like Kavanaugh.

Also, this is going to cost the Democrats a whole big shitload of Catholic votes in the northeast.

[BartSimpson]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

You've gotta see Senator Graham go off on the Democrats. It's worth the watch.

I don't think I've ever seen Linda so angry!

[xerxes]

$1:

My solution would be to appoint him and then commence an investigation. If there's something there, you can remove him from office but if there's no proof other than her word then he should have the right to sue her for defamation of character.

Don't you think it would better to do an investigation first, to remove all doubt either way? Because once he's on the court, it's nigh impossible to remove him should the allegations prove true.