|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 17 2018 04:58 Introvert wrote:We already know who the third guy is: Show nested quote +The Kavanaugh classmate quoted in the New Yorker is Mark Judge, a writer in Washington, D.C. Judge spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Friday afternoon, strongly denying that any such incident ever occurred. "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge told TWS.
Judge says he first learned he was named in the letter during an interview with the New Yorker. "[Ronan Farrow] said: As you know, you're named in the letter. And I did not know," he said.
The Kavanaugh classmate told TWS that the New Yorker did not provide him the name of the woman alleging wrongdoing, a specific date of the alleged incident, or the location where the incident is alleged to have occurred. The woman alleging misconduct has requested that her identity be protected, according to media reports.
After Judge categorically denied ever witnessing an attempted assault by Kavanaugh, I asked him if he could recall any sort of rough-housing with a female student back in high school (an incident that might have been interpreted differently by parties involved). "I can't. I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys. It was an all-boys school, we would rough-house with each other," he said said. "I don't remember any of that stuff going on with girls."
Judge says he still does not know the name of the woman who made the allegations. He came out and denied anything before people outed him. https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/kavanaugh-classmate-named-in-letter-strongly-denies-allegations-of-misconduct That's the 2nd guy, the one that supposedly helped Kavanaugh to assault the women. His denial is pretty meaningless.
The third guy people are talking about is the guy that broke it up before anything worse could happen.
|
On September 17 2018 04:58 Introvert wrote:We already know who the third guy is: Show nested quote +The Kavanaugh classmate quoted in the New Yorker is Mark Judge, a writer in Washington, D.C. Judge spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Friday afternoon, strongly denying that any such incident ever occurred. "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge told TWS.
Judge says he first learned he was named in the letter during an interview with the New Yorker. "[Ronan Farrow] said: As you know, you're named in the letter. And I did not know," he said.
The Kavanaugh classmate told TWS that the New Yorker did not provide him the name of the woman alleging wrongdoing, a specific date of the alleged incident, or the location where the incident is alleged to have occurred. The woman alleging misconduct has requested that her identity be protected, according to media reports.
After Judge categorically denied ever witnessing an attempted assault by Kavanaugh, I asked him if he could recall any sort of rough-housing with a female student back in high school (an incident that might have been interpreted differently by parties involved). "I can't. I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys. It was an all-boys school, we would rough-house with each other," he said said. "I don't remember any of that stuff going on with girls."
Judge says he still does not know the name of the woman who made the allegations. He came out and denied anything before people outed him. https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/kavanaugh-classmate-named-in-letter-strongly-denies-allegations-of-misconduct
Judge is actually the second guy. The "third guy" is the one who allegedly stopped Judge and Kavanaugh. Here's a nice little snippet from a book Judge wrote about his time in high school (an all boys school, but don't worry Kavanaugh knew 65 females who now remember what a great guy he was):
![[image loading]](https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/judgeokavanaugh.png?w=990)
Another snippet:
Judge says his own black-out drinking while he and Kavanaugh were Georgetown Prep students “reached the point where once I had the first beer, I found it impossible to stop until I was completely annihilated.”
He describes, for instance, what happened after a night of heavy drinking with friends at a Georgetown bar. “The next thing I knew, I was lying on a bathroom floor. I was curled up in the fetal position with saliva running out of the side of my mouth,” Judge writes.
...Judge and his buddies spent a lot of time in the book trying to get laid.
www.motherjones.com
Pretty crazy that this allegation has come out. It looks like for now Republicans are planning to go forward with the vote, barring more corroboration of this allegation or a new allegation. It seems pretty clear though that this allegation needs to be investigated.
|
1 roach on the table is a 1000 in the walls. This will just be the first credible accuser. More will follow. Also, what is it about anti-choice guys and also being anti-consent? It always baffles me how "women shouldn't be able to abort" and "women shouldn't be able to say no to me" seem to get along.
|
On September 17 2018 05:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 04:58 Introvert wrote:We already know who the third guy is: The Kavanaugh classmate quoted in the New Yorker is Mark Judge, a writer in Washington, D.C. Judge spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Friday afternoon, strongly denying that any such incident ever occurred. "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge told TWS.
Judge says he first learned he was named in the letter during an interview with the New Yorker. "[Ronan Farrow] said: As you know, you're named in the letter. And I did not know," he said.
The Kavanaugh classmate told TWS that the New Yorker did not provide him the name of the woman alleging wrongdoing, a specific date of the alleged incident, or the location where the incident is alleged to have occurred. The woman alleging misconduct has requested that her identity be protected, according to media reports.
After Judge categorically denied ever witnessing an attempted assault by Kavanaugh, I asked him if he could recall any sort of rough-housing with a female student back in high school (an incident that might have been interpreted differently by parties involved). "I can't. I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys. It was an all-boys school, we would rough-house with each other," he said said. "I don't remember any of that stuff going on with girls."
Judge says he still does not know the name of the woman who made the allegations. He came out and denied anything before people outed him. https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/kavanaugh-classmate-named-in-letter-strongly-denies-allegations-of-misconduct That's the 2nd guy, the one that supposedly helped Kavanaugh to assault the women. His denial is pretty meaningless. The third guy people are talking about is the guy that broke it up before anything worse could happen.
Read the story again:
Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.
While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.
“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”
Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.
|
not really surprising to see an allegation like this; it's not the first time nominees for positions have had trouble when someone comes forward.
And it's not like the republicans actually care about the quality of candidates anyways, that's been well proven.
|
I was going off of 10thdoc summery which wasn't accurate.
So he is the drunk buddy that jumped in to get some action himself and gave her an opening to get out.
My original point that his statement means nothing stands.
|
On September 17 2018 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:
I was going off of 10thdoc summery which wasn't accurate.
So he is the drunk buddy that jumped in to get some action himself and gave her an opening to get out.
My original point that his statement means nothing stands.
Everyone is suspect.
Her story is unprovable, Feiinstein's timing is horrible, and Kavanaugh's denial could be legit, as he may have been drunk enough to not remember it. Or he could be lying. Although I don't know of Collins and Murkowski will demand a delay, which really is the whole point. Anything to get past the midterms.
The thing that really gets me is that Feinstein sat on this until the last second, and never once brought it up at any time she could have. I don't think she saw this as credible, especially with the discrepancy between the therapist's notes and her story.
|
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility."
|
On September 17 2018 05:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:
I was going off of 10thdoc summery which wasn't accurate.
So he is the drunk buddy that jumped in to get some action himself and gave her an opening to get out.
My original point that his statement means nothing stands. Everyone is suspect. Her story is unprovable, Feiinstein's timing is horrible, and Kavanaugh's denial could be legit, as he may have been drunk enough to not remember it. Or he could be lying. Although I don't know of Collins and Murkowski will demand a delay, which really is the whole point. Anything to get past the midterms. The thing that really gets me is that Feinstein sat on this until the last second, and never once brought it up at any time she could have. I don't think she saw this as credible, especially with the discrepancy between the therapist's notes and her story.
No. These accusations are easily provable. There are a solid 5 plausible witnesses, 4 of them not being Kavanaugh. That she first talked about this in a therapy session in 2012 before any nomination is strong evidence that she isn't doing this for political reasons. If you choose to pretend this isn't credible, that is all you, not the evidence.
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.97fc549c6e57
Also, in case you were wondering why Feinstein sat on the accusation, realize you are repeating a lie.
By late August, Ford had decided not to come forward, calculating that doing so would upend her life and probably would not affect Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter***?” she said.
Her story leaked anyway. On Wednesday, The Intercept reported that Feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school, and that Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democratic colleagues.
There was no sitting. Ford decided not to come forward. Feinstein honored that decision (unlike Kavanaugh who went for the puss even though she said no). But then the letter leaked. And of course, it turns out that yes, she was right, Republican spin monkeys would find ways to lie to themselves to make it not matter***.
|
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny.
|
On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility."
And what do you think we are doing right now?
She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them.
On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny.
That would be more true if we knew this months ago. It doesn't count as "ramming through" right now.
|
On September 17 2018 05:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 05:41 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:
I was going off of 10thdoc summery which wasn't accurate.
So he is the drunk buddy that jumped in to get some action himself and gave her an opening to get out.
My original point that his statement means nothing stands. Everyone is suspect. Her story is unprovable, Feiinstein's timing is horrible, and Kavanaugh's denial could be legit, as he may have been drunk enough to not remember it. Or he could be lying. Although I don't know of Collins and Murkowski will demand a delay, which really is the whole point. Anything to get past the midterms. The thing that really gets me is that Feinstein sat on this until the last second, and never once brought it up at any time she could have. I don't think she saw this as credible, especially with the discrepancy between the therapist's notes and her story. No. These accusations are easily provable. There are a solid 5 plausible witnesses, 4 of them not being Kavanaugh. That she first talked about this in a therapy session in 2012 before any nomination is strong evidence that she isn't doing this for political reasons. If you choose to pretend this isn't credible, that is all you, not the evidence. Show nested quote +
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.97fc549c6e57Also, in case you were wondering why Feinstein on the accusation, realize you are repeating a lie. Show nested quote +
By late August, Ford had decided not to come forward, calculating that doing so would upend her life and probably would not affect Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter***?” she said.
Her story leaked anyway. On Wednesday, The Intercept reported that Feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school, and that Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democratic colleagues.
There was no sitting. Ford decided not to come forward. Feinstein honored that decision (unlike Kavanaugh who went for the puss even though she said no). But then the letter leaked. And of course, it turns out that yes, she was right, Republican spin monkeys would find ways to lie to themselves to make it not matter***.
That therapy session doesn't mention Kavanaugh, so it's only moderately helpful.
The other 4 witnesses are her, Judge, and the two other people we haven't heard from yet. If we kick out Kavanaugh, we have to kick her out too. Judge denies it, but he would. That leaves two, neither of which saw the incident, by her reckoning.
Meanwhile Feinstein DID sit on it, she didn't bring up accusation, name or no name, for months. She could have done what she did last week, and mention something to him without the woman's name. But she didn't. She didn't even go to those hearings.
I will say I don't know what happened, but right now, the story leans a little one way. I want more info, but I'm also concerned what this sort of last second stall tactic means.
|
On September 17 2018 05:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility." And what do you think we are doing right now? She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them. Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny. That would be more true if we knew this months ago.
Months ago Kavanaugh's name wasn't even a fart on the wind. That's how fast this thing has been moving. Do we really think he deserves this much benefit of the doubt? This isn't a case where you go "well, there's no good reason not to go full speed here". It's the Supreme Court. That should be reason enough. If we can't take the time to do it right, don't do it at all. When you catch wind that your candidate is sketchy AF, you slow the hell down and you start asking questions. You don't double down and speed things up even more.
|
On September 17 2018 06:02 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 05:53 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility." And what do you think we are doing right now? She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them. On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny. That would be more true if we knew this months ago. Months ago Kavanaugh's name wasn't even a fart on the wind. That's how fast this thing has been moving. Do we really think he deserves this much benefit of the doubt? This isn't a case where you go "well, there's no good reason not to go full speed here". It's the Supreme Court. That should be reason enough. If we can't take the time to do it right, don't do it at all. When you catch wind that your candidate is sketchy AF, you slow the hell down and you start asking questions. You don't double down and speed things up even more.
The time from his nomination to the scheduled vote is about average, from what I remember. The high stakes make this bad both ways, you get that right? That one party has very good reason to try and stall this past the midterms if at all possible?
|
On September 17 2018 05:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:
I was going off of 10thdoc summery which wasn't accurate.
So he is the drunk buddy that jumped in to get some action himself and gave her an opening to get out.
My original point that his statement means nothing stands. Everyone is suspect. Her story is unprovable, Feiinstein's timing is horrible, and Kavanaugh's denial could be legit, as he may have been drunk enough to not remember it. Or he could be lying. Although I don't know of Collins and Murkowski will demand a delay, which really is the whole point. Anything to get past the midterms. The thing that really gets me is that Feinstein sat on this until the last second, and never once brought it up at any time she could have. I don't think she saw this as credible, especially with the discrepancy between the therapist's notes and her story.
You can't be serious. Almost everything you typed is a lie perpetuated by Senate Rs and Faux News.
User was warned for this post.
|
On September 17 2018 06:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:02 NewSunshine wrote:On September 17 2018 05:53 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility." And what do you think we are doing right now? She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them. On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny. That would be more true if we knew this months ago. Months ago Kavanaugh's name wasn't even a fart on the wind. That's how fast this thing has been moving. Do we really think he deserves this much benefit of the doubt? This isn't a case where you go "well, there's no good reason not to go full speed here". It's the Supreme Court. That should be reason enough. If we can't take the time to do it right, don't do it at all. When you catch wind that your candidate is sketchy AF, you slow the hell down and you start asking questions. You don't double down and speed things up even more. The time from his nomination to the scheduled vote is about average, from what I remember. The high stakes make this bad both ways, you get that right? That one party has very good reason to try and stall this past the midterms if at all possible?
You have it backwards. One party has very good reason to try and shove him through before the public can voice how they feel about it. If he's really a worthy candidate, he'll make it through anyway. Have some faith if you're so sure.
|
On September 17 2018 06:10 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:07 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 06:02 NewSunshine wrote:On September 17 2018 05:53 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility." And what do you think we are doing right now? She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them. On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny. That would be more true if we knew this months ago. Months ago Kavanaugh's name wasn't even a fart on the wind. That's how fast this thing has been moving. Do we really think he deserves this much benefit of the doubt? This isn't a case where you go "well, there's no good reason not to go full speed here". It's the Supreme Court. That should be reason enough. If we can't take the time to do it right, don't do it at all. When you catch wind that your candidate is sketchy AF, you slow the hell down and you start asking questions. You don't double down and speed things up even more. The time from his nomination to the scheduled vote is about average, from what I remember. The high stakes make this bad both ways, you get that right? That one party has very good reason to try and stall this past the midterms if at all possible? You have it backwards. One party has very good reason to try and shove him through before the public can voice how they feel about it. If he's really a worthy candidate, he'll make it through anyway. Have some faith if you're so sure.
Nope, the party wanting him in followed standard procedure. The only reason the Democrats have a "rush" narrative is because they want to see every document that ever went through the Bush White House for his tenure, an unprecedented request. Now one party waits until all hearings are done, all questions answered, all interviews had, and all oaths taken to leak this to some media outlets and get them started as late as possible.
|
Norway28852 Posts
I think it's honestly fairly likely that a) woman's account is pretty much completely accurate and b) kavanaugh's denial is genuine because he doesn't remember. Not saying that makes it okay or excuses it, but.. if I'm ranking outrageous sexual behavior revealed post-metoo then this ends up pretty low on my list. (reasons; he was 17 and that was 30 years ago, he was stumbling drunk, one time happening unless anybody else comes forward.)
Can't really blame conservatives for not jumping ship, cuz could see myself support a politician that I otherwise agreed with if this was a singular example of the worst behavior they displayed during their high school years and if that was more than 30 years ago. I mean, repentance is a requirement for forgiveness, so normally it'd require a 'I behaved in an unforgivable manner for which I am extremely sorry but it was a long time ago and I am a different man today' type of statement - but her account makes it believable that he genuinely does not remember, and I can't expect people to apologize for things they don't know that they did. I think sexual allegations of this sort are incredibly damning if there's a pattern to them, but much less so if they are singular stories.
I mean there's something shady do the whole these 65 women can confirm that I was nothing like that story seemingly being prepared before it unfolds and all that, but I haven't really delved into the technicalities of that.
I also get the 'just another example of a powerful man getting away with being a horrible person' perspective and I don't disagree with that either.. And I obviously don't want to see him confirmed as a supreme court justice, and I get fighting every battle possible to delay or hinder that from happening. But I get why this doesn't sway the minds of people who supported him before this.
|
On September 17 2018 06:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 06:02 NewSunshine wrote:On September 17 2018 05:53 Introvert wrote:On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility." And what do you think we are doing right now? She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them. On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny. That would be more true if we knew this months ago. Months ago Kavanaugh's name wasn't even a fart on the wind. That's how fast this thing has been moving. Do we really think he deserves this much benefit of the doubt? This isn't a case where you go "well, there's no good reason not to go full speed here". It's the Supreme Court. That should be reason enough. If we can't take the time to do it right, don't do it at all. When you catch wind that your candidate is sketchy AF, you slow the hell down and you start asking questions. You don't double down and speed things up even more. The time from his nomination to the scheduled vote is about average, from what I remember. The high stakes make this bad both ways, you get that right? That one party has very good reason to try and stall this past the midterms if at all possible?
The average nominee isn’t accused of attempted rape. They can delay the vote for an investigation.
Now, mind you, they won’t. They don’t care of the attempted rape happened or not. And judging by you posting neither do you.
|
On September 17 2018 05:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:
The woman has put her name to it and the therapist notes are basically corroboration because they describe someone high up in washington. It deserves to be investigated. Tellingly, before the woman came forward Introvert said "This all means nothing until this woman comes forward (she must be getting intense pressure at this point) and we can judge her story's credibility." And what do you think we are doing right now? She also said she doesn't remember exactly where or when. So, who can help back up her story? Is one of the accused going to add that? Of course not. She named two other people that were supposedly there. We haven't heard from them. Show nested quote +On September 17 2018 05:52 NewSunshine wrote:
If everyone is suspect, the course of action is not then to railroad Kavanaugh through before anyone can react and discuss it. If he truly deserves the highest office in the country, surely he can withstand some scrutiny. That would be more true if we knew this months ago. It doesn't count as "ramming through" right now.
Based on what you are saying it would seem that, in your mind, even if she came forward she could never be judged to be credible. Your standards are apparently that she should remember exactly where or when it happened, and we should hear from everyone else who was present. Those things were never likely, and if anything they lean in favor of delaying the vote until this matter is investigated, so that we can judge her credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
