WestCanMan

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.

Sad, but apparently true.

Bias? How so? Kavanaugh needs to follow the constitution, that’s it. If the laws/constitution need to be changed that’s up to Congress and the Senate. His record for making the best possible decision is impeccable. Dems don’t have an argument against that.

The truth of the matter is that there was not enough evidence presented to even get a search warrant against him, even if the statute of limitations had not expired. "I don't remember where or when the event happened, and all of the people who I said were witnesses say that they didn't witness these events" isn't enough evidence to get a search warrant. Kavanuagh would never have had to answer to such vague accusations in the normal world. Demmies want Kavanaugh to say "That crying woman is a liar" so that they can say "Look how mean he is to that crying woman", and that would be enough for them to defeat his nomination. It's just like when the Demmies wanted Trump to insult Putin right to his face (along with his whole country) just to give credibility to the Dems' own stupid Trump-Russia collusion "investigation". Honestly when Dems speak it just tweaks my gag reflex something fierce.

I have a feeling that Democrats are far more worried about the fact that he will obey the constitution than they are about whether or not he was a serial gang-rapist. Ted Kennedy left a drowning girl in his car and went home to bed, the Demmies still don't care at all. Bill Clinton preyed on his female employees, raping them and sexually harassing them, Dems now know all about it and they still don't say that "his victims need to be believed" lol - they don't care at all. There are two witnesses and actual evidence of Keith Ellison abusing his wife and the Dems just nominated him to run for Attorney General. The Dems obviously don't care about that either. Hollywood elites pretend to care that Kavanaugh was accused of the "attempted rape" of someone his own age, and yet they gave an Academy Award and a huge round of applause to a 43 year old Roman Polanski who roofied a 13 year old girl and then sodomized her. From Wiki: This is an actual joint statement (ok it's just a summary of all their recent statements) from the Democrat party and the screen actor's guild:

It's really sad to see how low those Dems will go to get their way. When Michelle OBlahblah said "When they go low, we go high", what that really meant was "We will keep on going low until they go low as well, and then we'll start to go high." They're still waiting for the Republicans to sink to their level, if that's even possible.