Don Jonas

It's obviously a well done report because it"s full of words, and it obviously says there was a conspiracy against Kavanaugh because... you really want it to? Why are you saying Ford is guilty of perjury with no evidence, and instead pretending the report you haven't read confirms this? Don't you believe in innocent until proven guilty? How come that's only important for rapey Republicans?

Did it ring any bells that they couldn't possibly know whether or not the investigation was well done, being ex-honchos and all? They refused to talk to dozens of witnesses who saw Kavanaugh's binges firsthand in the 1980s. They refused to talk to Kavanaugh or Ford. There is one copy of the report. It is 1000 pages. There are 100 senators. It's not an investigation. It's a strategy to provide political cover. All in all, it's was most amazing to see people say, without any evidence at all, that she's a liar and guilty of perjury and then, in the same breath, whine about how someone should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a job interview. The cognitive dissonance would be incredible if they had to reconcile those two ideas. But the partisan nutjobs never seem to concern themselves with their own hypocrisy. I don't think they think it through enough.

Let me know what part you consider to be trolling and I'll try to fix.

Of course, the White House severely limited the investigation to be sure they wouldn't find anything. We already knew that all we have is Ford's word versus Kavanaugh's compulsive lying, so just to be sure they wouldn't even let them interview either of them.

No, it's not baseless. It's not unusual to forget insignificant details from an event that happened years ago. She remembered the important parts. If you were around in the 80s, you would know that what Ford described happened all the time. I remember "gang bang" in my junior high schoolyard where gangs of boys would descend on a girl and all grope her at once. The girls were expected to be cool about it and laugh it off. I don't recall any of the boys seeing any repercussions or consequences. It was all just good fun in the 1980s. That's why I think what Ford described likely happened and that there's even a possibility Kavanaugh simply doesn't remember it because it wasn't a significant event in his life. Shit like that happened all the time. But Kavanaugh ruined his reputation by lying under oath. The sex crimes would be forgivable if he copped to them, apologized, and said he has grown up since he was a teenager. His multiple instances of lying just show he hasn't grown up. He's still the entitled, belligerent brat he always was.

The vast majority of people? Again, not true. Not even close to true.

Actually it was the Republicans who said they wouldn't vote for anyone before Garland was nominated. You must have your timeline confused. How can you say he's wrongfully accused with any more conviction than I can say he's guilty? You are declaring Ford guilty of perjury. Why does innocent until proven guilty not apply to her?

It would have been completely pathetic if they rolled over after that Garland episode, don't you think? Still, by your description, they rolled over. And nobody came forward to speak negatively of his character because his character was fine. No conspiracy. No pathetic whining and blaming of everybody but those responsible for nominating a belligerent lying drunk.

Seeing as two years ago the Republicans were insisting it was undemocratic to seat a Supreme Court justice too soon before an election, it just a little hypocritical to be trying to ram through a perverted drunk* just weeks before voting day. * I figured since my colleagues on the right are saying Ford is guilty of lying with little to no evidence, I shall declare Kavanaugh a perverted drunk based on the more credible evidence I have backing up that position.

Then the existence of Neil Gorsuch must blow your mind, I guess.

You're trying to say he has hundreds of character witnesses that deny he was a drunk? Not true. One of his character witnesses denied he was an aggressive drunk, but it turned out that guy was arrested in a bar fight Kavanaugh started. So it sounds like he wasn't telling the truth either.

Do you know the answer to why Kavanaugh lied under oath so many times or do you only speculate and make conclusions about Ford?

You're right. Right after calling her a "credible witness". Didn't stop him from making fun of her for being traumatized by Kavanaugh and Judge's laughter though.

"Some cases," like job interviews, yes. That's always been the case. The ramped up attacks on Ford were predictable as soon as they realized how many times Kavanaugh lied under oath. They knew they would have to focus on destroying her if they were ever going to be successful. Vile, but par for the course with these people.

He lied. What's a sock puppet? Some lame attempt to save face because you have no defence other than attack an innocent woman who has more character and courage than you can even imagine? Best not to reply, you're right. You just keep digging your hole deeper.

Rather than attack assaulted women, why not be relevant and defend Kavanaugh. He lied about how he got into Yale. He lied about the stolen emails. He lied about “devil’s triangle”. He lied about “boufing”. He lied about how much he drank. He lied about not watching Dr. Ford’s testimony. He lied about the witnesses' testimony. He lied about not attending a party like the one described. All under oath. You will ignore each of those examples because they are indefensible. So that's why, in desperation, you attack Ford. I guess her honour and courage really eat at you.

Yes, I figured you couldn't answer. You're more attack dog than evil strategist.

How is this relevant? Other than to help prove my earlier point?

These people are answering their own question as to why women often don't come forward, especially in cases like this where there is no conclusive evidence. They will stop at nothing to drag the women through the mud, call them liars based on nothing (like how many doors are on her house WTF?), call in death threats, and do whatever they can to try and make them regret ever telling the truth. The worst parts of humanity. Right here in this thread.

So you brought up the Clintons for the same reason Kavanaugh did in his hearing? I would agree you and Kavanaugh are about equally non-partisan and politically neutral. Only problem is neutrality is a job requirement for him.

Trump's coke sniffles were obvious from the first debate and he won (illegitimately). Now you're saying he shouldn't be president?

Are you saying people should ignore credible sexual assault allegations against a potential Supreme Court justice? Did you know Trump (who BTW was just exposed in a massive tax fraud) called her allegations "credible"? You're saying it should all be ignored? Should they investigate the lies Kavanaugh told under oath? I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than you hate Democrats.

You can't be on the Supreme Court if you lie under oath, and you have no explanation for the numerous falsehoods he said. Your only response is to attack Ford's character, which is irrelevant to the fact he lied and a disgusting thing to do.