WestCanMan

Is the Keith Ellison accusation decades old? Or is it roughly 1 month old. His election hasn't even come up yet. There's far more evidence against him being a woman-beater than there is about Kavanaugh being a rapist, but Democrats gave him the nomination for Attorney General anyways. How's that for hypocrisy? Look at every comment Schiff ever made re: Russian collusion. He wasn't just guessing and getting it 100% wrong every time, he was lying. Do any Democrats ever say "dial it down"? Look at the stupid comments by the Hawaiian Senator Hirono or whatever - "All accusers have to be believed!" But they don't believe anyone who was raped by Bill or beaten up by Ellison. Where's your proof that Trump is racist? I've never seen an accuser provide any evidence of that yet. Trump had sex with grown women who were in a position to do whatever they wanted, they were independently well-off. They weren't employees like Bill's actual rape victims were. He didn't beat them up like Ellison did. So he got NDAs signed, he cheated on his wife. It's a morality issue, not criminality. But how many men do you know that wouldn't sleep with either of those two women, given the chance? Can you name a material fact that Trump lied about as President? Once again, your post is full of "inaccuracies" and baseless accusations. You call Republicans liars and hypocrites for standing behind people who haven't committed crimes and you stand behind Democrats who are serial liars and criminals. Then you insult everyone else lol.

You know as well as I do that she covered for Bill for 20 years, and she publicly blasted his accusers, so stop chucking around childish insults.

Hillary is the poster girl for female misogyny. Meryl Streep is just a runner-up for once.

The whitehouse limited the investigation to claims that were currently on the books because that’s enough to do an investigation on, and because they’re aware of the fact that Democrats don’t really care about a girl who might have suffered through an attempted rape in the early 80’s. They’ll keep bringing baseless allegations just to keep the investigation going. Anyone who’s being honest knows that the Dems just want to delay this appointment in the hopes of getting to the Mid-Terms before Trump can appoint a SCJ.

The “details” are never insignificant when something happens that’s significant enough to trigger ptsd. On the car ride home, was she feeling shame or fear or loathing and was she wondering who she could tell or what they would think/do? If she walked home, traumatized, that would be another thing she would remember. Was there someone with her that made her feel safe or was she running and hiding in fear? When she ran to the bathroom didn’t they run after her? Did they say things through the door? Did she stay in there for a really long time thinking they might still be outside? Did she tell her best friend, or if she didn’t why not? The need to talk to someone about it would have been huge. If she didn’t talk about it then the internal pressure to get it off her chest would have been enormous. She would also feel like she needed to tell her friends to help keep them safe. Despite all that she told no one, and didn’t think about it enough to remember much of it. But let’s be real, these aren’t things that she would forget anyways. Dan you’re saying that he should admit to something that, according to every shred of evidence that’s in, never happened. It’s something that would destroy his reputation and cost him a job that he worked all his life for. Is that even a real thing? To make a false confession just because it’s easier than telling the truth, while knowing that it costs you everything? You assume he lied multiple times because that’s what CNN said, but you should know by now that CNN has no relationship with the truth whatsoever. If you pay close attention you can see that they are always spinning stories all the time, when they’re not telling outright lies or ignoring pertinent details because “they don’t fit our narrative.” THEY EVEN LIE AND SPIN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DAMN WEATHER! Anderson Cooper stands in the ditch to make a foot of flood water seem like 4 feet. Then they say that America needs to stop burning coal because of global warming.... What I just said is 100% true and easily verifiable if you would like me to show you links. So now YOU KNOW they are liars. Have you ever heard the saying “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?” How many times will you let CNN dupe you before you ditch them? Donna Brazile was working for CNN when she gave debate questions to Hillary. Their own Van Jones was caught on hidden video saying that Trump-Russia collusion is just a big nothingburger about a year ago but on camera it’s still very real baby. They know that Obama’s government locked kids apart from their families but they still say “Trump’s policy of separating kids from their families”. CNN kicked off their coverage of the Michael Brown shooting by saying that a policeman just drove up and shot him from inside his car while he was doing nothing, in front of “hundreds of witnesses”. Then they said that it was irresponsible to show video of MB committing a violent robbery moments earlier. Then when the truth came out about the whole story CNN kept plugging the story along as if it happened just the way that they initially reported it. CNN blames the pulse nigt club shooting on guns and the NRA, but AK47’s are illegal and alah_ _____ isn’t an NRA slogan. Honestly quoting CNN is a non-starter for any reasonable conversation.

He has hundreds of character witnesses speaking about his integrity, demeanour, lifestyle, class, professionalism, etc. One guy said he threw some ice at someone when he was in college. A girl said the she went to a bunch of gang rape parties where he featured prominently but zero people backed her claim, and that’s a claim that requires some backing, so can we agree to throw that one in the loony bin? So aside from the Ford case, there’s not much that you can really stack up against all that Kavanaugh has going for him, right? Re:the Ford case, he got mad when US Senators got within inches of destroying his family, career, and reputation with an attempted rape allegation, although his accuser can’t name a year or location, doesn’t who she was there with, how she got there, how she got home and she named 4 witnesses who say they don’t remember the attempted rape. 1) That’s not a “case” it falls directly into the category of “baseless allegation”, do you agree? Wouldnt you be frustratedif you were in his shoes? There are dozens of US SENATORS acting like there’s enough evidence here to call him a monster, but there’s actually close to ZERO evidence. Just a sob story from a woman who lied about her fear of flying, claustrophobia, ptsd, knowledge of polygraphs, etc. Even her back-story has fallen apart, with lifelong friends and boyfriends directly countering key elements of her “testimony” but 49 US Senators still cry wolf. In any real courtroom in any civilized country in the world Dr Ford doesn’t even get a hearing but because Kavanaugh doesn’t rhyme with Clinton every single Democrat Senator, and every legal expert appearing on CNN, MSNBC etc is dumping garbage on his reputation, and they are all instantly giving 100% credibility to anyone at all who slanders Kavanaugh’s name. 2) Am I right? I specifically asked two questions there. I’d be really appreciative of an honest answer to them.

Ok whatever floats your boat DJ. You’re obviously not going to listen to the vast majority of people so there’s no point in going any further with this.

The Dems did everything they could to stop Gorsuch too. He didn’t even have one of them on his side until it was well known that every single Republican and the Vice President were going to push him through. Then 3 Dems stepped up hust so that they could get vited in again after his nomination was basically a done deal.

He’s said to have started one fight in his adult life, so from 1985 until now, and you’re calling him an aggressive drunk? Is one fight really proof that Kavanaugh is a belligerent drunk? Or the fact that one of his friends ended up in jail? Can a successful rape case be brought against basically anyone who has been in a bar fight now? Does one fight automatically prove that a person is unfit to ever serve as a SCJ? C’mon DJ, let’s keep things in perspective. The Dems would do anything to keep a Trump-nominated judge from the SC. They’ve already tried every dirty trick in the book, now the best they have is “he got in a bar fight”. LMAO

Spare me the CNN histrionics. Do you know what Devil’s triangle is? Did you ever even hear of it before this case? I googled it and I just found a bunch of crap about Kavanaugh on Urban Dictionary. Can you put all those words in context? I know he used them but I don’t know how he used them. He was a teenager writing about stuff in a private journal. If he felt like it was incriminating he wouldn’t have provided it. And who is to say that he lied about how much he drank? He has hundreds of character witnesses backing that claim and a couple people going against it.

What are some of his lies? If you compare the number of people who go against his testimony (4?) to the number of people who back it up (200?), it doesn't look like he's a liar at all. You just see what you want to see. You're using selective, biased vision to assume a man is guilty. You're being led around by the nose, Nancy Pelosi and Gloria Feinstein own your brain. People who attack BK's temperament are all omitting one key detail from their decision-making process: if he knows that he's innocent, then he also knows that this is just a political hitjob. Just like what happened to Bork, just like what happened to Clarence Thomas. Sure a 3 yr old would get upset about that type of political hitjob. So would you, or anyone else. Judge Kavanaugh's career goes back to when he was in high school, studying like mad, just like Wayne Gretzky's career goes back to when he was 6 yrs old practicing 20 hrs a week on his backyard rinks. So now Kavanaugh has the last 40 years of his life's work all going up in smoke because of the testimony of a woman who he knows is lying, and you think he should be calm about this? He was one vote away from being a goner because of this. How mad would you be? It's not just his career that's at stake, it's his personal reputation that he has cultivated over the last 40 years. Tens of millions of people who don't know him truly believe that he's actually a rapist now. If someone lied about you and convinced that many people that you were a rapist would you just stay calm and cool? Your own kids are even asking you. Honestly, ever argument put forth by Hirono, Feinstein and the rest of the Democrats, and CNN, REEKS of bias, ignorance and stupidity. If you limited their arguments to "what they actually know" they'd be completely silent. They just jump to that pulpit and make accusations like they're handing out candy.

Dr Ford believers, wake up. All you have to go on is a sob story. You're judging a person guilty based on nothing more than a sob story with ZERO EVIDENCE. Think about it. If you were in Gloria Feinstein's boots back in July, when she found out about this, and you felt like it was a credible story, what would you do? You'd have it investigated. Right away. In accordance with Dr Ford's wishes you would try to protect her anonymity as well as possible if you had a heart, but you would have an investigation, for sure. You'd want to get the dirt as fast as possible, because we all know that DF really didn't want this guy nominated. As of last week they had ZERO evidence. Just a sob story. Dr Ford told a sob story with zero details of the evidential variety. That's not the same thing as testifying. She didn't go out on a limb, she just made vague accusations. End of story.

Her testimony was written down for her, and she didn't use any specific details in her testimony that had any chance whatsoever of being disproven. She told a story about an attempted rape, but she didn't really testify per se. I could say that Don Jonas's dad tried to rape me in 1982. My testimony could be a really sad, scary story. But if I don't have to name a date, location, or the names of any possible witnesses, how can Dan Jonas Sr prove that I'm lying? Did I really testify if I didn't put any actual verifiable facts in my "testimony"?

It's possible that she had a different backstory to go on. It's also worth remembering that she read that whole confession from a letter. Especially the part about the names of the 4 boys. She said that they were burned in her head but while she was saying their names she was reading them from a piece of paper. They say that when you tell a lie you need to leave out specific details so that you can't get caught up on something. She kept it all simple, and read it from a script. She was emotional, but her testimony was basically factless from an investigative POV. Where does the FBI go? Who do they talk to? What year do they talk about? They have nothing to go on, at all. Even her own lifelong friends don't have anything to tell the FBI, they didn't know about it. It's total BS.

The fact that she's so emotional could just be because she's lying under oath. The threat of a perjury charge is very real. If she's committing perjury it makes sense for her to leave out specifics like how she got there, how she got home, what day it was, what year it was, what other people were at the party aside from the boys she named, where the party occurred.... If she went into specifics then it would be far easier to prove that she was lying. It's much easier to prove it didn't happen at a certain time and place, a lot harder to prove that it didn't happen at any party, anywhere, over the course of two summers, 36 years ago. Never gonna happen. This accusation will stand regardless of her inability to find a single shred of outside evidence.

Not to mention the fact that by her testimony, there were at least 3 people in the room involved in the "attempted rape" and one was on top of her a split second before she got away. It would be pretty hard for a girl to get away from 3 boys her own age, with serious criminal intent, even if two of them "fell off the bed". I also have a problem with her being pushed from behind into a room that was directly across the hall from the room she was going into. When you're pushed from behind it usually makes you go straight ahead. Remember, she only had one beer.

1)"Not remembering anything" isn't accurate. You make it sound as if they were too drunk to remember what happened at a specific place and time. There is no specific place and time, they're just supposed to remember if something like that ever happened anywhere. Their answer meant that they don't remember an event like that taking place. It's a generic answer to a non-specific question. Perfectly normal. 2)Ford's testimony made her a lot of money on the books. Who knows how she's benefitting from this in ways unbeknownst to us? For tens of millions of people across the US, it would be enough just to be involved in stopping a Trump nominee from being appointed to office. The fact that someone came out and testified against him means nothing to me. At least SOME evidence is required. There's none. She appeared credible because she cried during her testimony - maybe she was just shaken up because she knew that she was committing perjury on national TV? And if she was committing perjury, the easiest way to not get busted for it is to leave the date & location out of her story, just to make it harder to prove that she was lying. "I don't know where it was, I don't know when it happened, I don't remember who I went with, how I got there, how I got home, but I only drank one beer." LMAO, how can anyone ever prove that she is lying? They'd have to claim to know what happened at every single party that took place over the course of TWO SUMMERS! Her testimony is not credible at all in my opinion. 3)There's a difference between someone getting blackout drunk once or twice in college, and someone who does it habitually. He has hundreds of character witnesses that say he wasn't a drunk. And even if he really did get blackout drunk once or twice in college, that's not proof that he ever did it in high school. It's also quite normal for a non-drinker to get blackout drunk very quickly the first time they try booze. If you're insinuating that this somehow makes him more likely to be a rapist, or that it proves he lied under oath about "not being a frequent drunk" then you're out to lunch. 4)And he can't be characterized as a "belligerent drunk" if he was somehow involved at the start of one altercation just because one of his friends ended up in jail, so how is this testimony proof that he was generally belligerent? You haven't even heard his rebuttal to this, you're just assuming that every time someone comes forward with a new allegation it's as pure as the driven snow. Furthermore, this one single person whose testimony is up against hundreds.

I heard that there was even some spanking involved. He's one sick puppy.

Agreed, 100%. I'd actually call it a "several decades after the fact attempted rape case, in which all 4 of the alleged witnesses have no knowledge of the event, the plaintiff doesn't know the year or location of the event, and her own lifelong friend never even heard about it." If no new evidence comes in then it's nothing at all. I'm just saying that if it somehow gains enough credibility that an unbiased person would say that it likely happened, Kavanaugh's ship is sunk. It's nowhere near that right now.

The earth has had higher CO2 levels before without the rise in temperature that you're talking about.

Is Diane Feinstein a lawyer herself? If she is then she has a fiduciary relationship with that woman and isn't allowed to leak any information that the client wanted to keep confidential. DF wouldn't be sent to jail or anything but she would almost certainly be disbarred. It's doubtful that Trump should be the one to order that type of investigation though. I don't know anything about the legal relationship between a Senator and a civilian pawn. I doubt that as a US Senator you would be bound to protect the confidentiality of a mere civilian when your greater sense of loyalty should be to the office you serve in. Reefermadness what emperor started the Russian Collusion investigation? How can it possibly be going on for so long with no evidence of any collusion whatsoever? The FISA warrant was never supposed to be renewed without new evidence, and no new evidence was ever presented. And let's not kid ourselves, we both know that you're rejoicing at the feet of whatever great leader threw that accusation out there.

I think the actual words used to describe her were "lifelong friend". That doesn't necessarily make her a best friend, but you'd think that she would at least know by now whether or not Dr Ford was ever raped. Especially by such a high profile person, and so long ago. How does the topic just never come up in 36 years?

I agree with you re: the hypocrisy of the liberal crowd, and that we can't stop kids from becoming productive adults because of some run-of-the-mill juvenile mistakes, but rape isn't one of them lol. It's a serious thing to be a lawyer, but entirely another to sit on the highest bench in the land, establishing legal precedents that take generations to overturn. The Supreme Court of the United States doesn't have room for a sex offender in my opinion, respect for the law is a cornerstone of any advanced society. Disrespect for the law is already bad enough in the States right now, for various reasons: 1) the fact that Hillary Clinton has gotten away with disregarding subpoenas, 2) the last administration openly advocated disrespect of police while it supported rioting, looting & arson, and 3) high-ranking members of the FBI are being fired and demoted for crimes and because of problems related to their general lack of integrity. I think the States would become a zoo if they allowed Kavanaugh to be a SCJ if it turns out that there's reliable evidence that he did the things that he is accused of.

If it was true then at least something that you said would have to make sense, but that’s not the case, as evidenced by the fact that you’ve completely given up on defending your silly counter-points. You just want to stick to your ad-hominem arguments, and all you have to defend them is a vague reference to science along with some more ad-hominem attacks lol. Your type of debating only works when you’re surrounded by a bunch of useful idiots who chime in with more ad-hominem attacks of their own, like a bunch of crows cawing at a raccoon. You've got zilch reefermadness, but I know that you’re not one to let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Wrong. The other cases have far more evidence, and the Dems don’t care about any of them. That’s the only point being made there. If it becomes apparent that this accusations against BK is likely to be true, and the Republicans don’t care, then you can say gotcha. That won’t happen.