Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

It's also possible that you are a child molester....and there's every bit as much credible evidence of it as there is of Kavanaugh being guilty of sexual assault or perjury.

Also, don't lie and say you are taking a "wait and see approach" when you are already suggesting perjury as a possibility before there's even a shred of credible evidence.

 

The man is an embarrassment. He demeans the Senate with his disdain for women who don't know "their place," in my opinion.

 

Yeah, sure, like I said. You're going to deny it over and over again as if you know everything before everyone else does...even as Conservative senators call for a second hearing lol...

Yes, what I said was if either is true then both are grounds for impeachment. Therefore Kavanaugh is a risk.

IF being the keyword there.

 

The facts are that we are talking about an accusation that has no credibility. i'm fine hearing her out, but accusations based on "repressed memories" from over 3 decades ago "discovered" in psychotherapy are not credible accusations......and the American Psychological Association would agree that psychotherapy "discovering" repressed memories is pseudo-scientific BS that is more likely to create false memories than to truly discover a "repressed memory".

That said, you want it to be true, so you overlook all of that.

Well by that same "logic" IF you are a child molester, then I would say that's grounds for you to lose your job and be thrown in jail for the rest of your life. Therefore you are a risk to your company.

 

According to you...

That said, you don't want it to be true...

Yeah sure, the thing is, I'm not being accused of sexual assault. Unsure of what this has to do with Kavanaugh, you're reaching.

 

One thing that strike me during his testimony is his selective crystal clear photo memory and selective muddy as hell memory. I figure that's the memory of a person that is being selective on when to be forth coming and when to hide. IOW, lack of candid and honesty.

 

No....according to anyone with a fully functional brain. The accusation could end up being true, not that there would be any way of proving it, and the accusation would still not be credible due to how it came about. Continue reading beyond where you stopped and you'll get to the part that explains that to you.

No, I don't care if it's true or not, the fact is that it isn't a credible allegation. If there was some evidence supporting the baseless allegation that would be one thing, but that isn't the case.

There's every bit as much evidence that you are a child molester as there is that Kavanaugh did anything wrong. If evidence and credible accusations don't matter, then you are suggesting that people should treat you as if you are a child molester because that might be true. Perhaps fire you from your job while an investigation is carried out.....you know, just take a "wait and see approach".

 

Yeah, like I said. You're going to continue to call everyone that doesn't agree with you stupid and dumb and blah blah blah, it's tiring.

Also, you do realize that sexual assault allegations begin like this right? A woman (or man for that matter) comes out and tells their story, that pretty much how this whole #meToo thing started. There isn't much difference between how this one came about than any others other than some of the more popular cases had multiple other women coming out and corroborating the story.

As mentioned before, this isn't a trial, her story simply has to be believable to get vulnerable senators to vote no. Thus him being a risky candidate at this point.

No, there isn't.

Unless you know of someone that is accusing me of said crime? If not, are you? Because that would be some pretty serious slander.

 

these are intellectually dishonest MoFo, intentionally misreading the actual court document.

No, B K’s mother didn’t foreclose on his accuser’s parents' house

A review of the filings shows that Judge Kavanaugh signed an order in 1997 dismissing the foreclosure after the Blaseys refinanced their home. The 10th item on the court docket reads, “ORDER OF COURT (KAVANAUGH, J./RICE, M.) THAT THE VOLUNTARY MOTION TO DISMISS IS HEREBY GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE AND THAT THE BOND FILED BY HARRY J. KELLY AS TRUSTEE SHALL BE RELEASED AND RETURNED FILED.”

The records show Martha Kavanaugh was one of several judges involved in the case. The records show she made no ruling pertaining to a seizure of the Blasleys’ home. The records also show that her involvement in the case was minimal. Basically, she dismissed it, and that's it.

She even dismissed the foreclosure “with prejudice,” meaning that, on the merits, the case was over and could not be refiled on the same grounds. Also, in case you were wondering, the Blaseys still retain ownership of the home listed in the court filings, according to the most current data available from the state of Maryland’s Department of Assessment and Taxation. So no, it does not appear that they lost their home.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...other-didnt-foreclose-on-his-accusers-parents

 

This entire bit shows that you either didn't read, or failed to comprehend what I wrote, here, I'll post it for you again so you can try to do a better job this time.

accusations based on "repressed memories" from over 3 decades ago "discovered" in psychotherapy are not credible accusations......and the American Psychological Association would agree that psychotherapy "discovering" repressed memories is pseudo-scientific BS that is more likely to create false memories than to truly discover a "repressed memory".

Either respond to what I've bolded, or don't bother responding. There is a massive difference between a woman coming out and telling her story that wasn't "discovered" by pseudoscience and one that was.

Yes, there is clearly you aren't following along here.

 

That's the thing, you wrote it. You're no source or authority on the subject, no matter how much you think and believe that you are.

Funny, you're part of the APA now?

Looks like they have a different story...

http://www.apa.org/topics/trauma/memories.aspx?item=1

Funny, no mention of 'pseudo-scientific BS'...in fact they say it is possible, just rare...

Let's read on...

Hmmm...

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/...cle_c27b1182-2aea-11e0-a704-001cc4c002e0.html

Looks like what YOU wrote was a load of BS, that this is very much debated science, that it is possible but that it is rare and that yes, it could be fake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory

I mean this entire wiki page basically screams "This is not decided science" yet, don't worry, Bobbythegreat has figured it all out for us!

 

Going by Mark Judge's writings, it is more likely than not, that he, and possibly kavanaugh, did some very bad things in high school.

 

I think you are responding to the one person I have blocked but the fact that he obviously responded to this notion of Kavanaugh being impeachable proves my point - that the right is paranoid enough about Dems to where they have to think that Dems will impeach Kavanaugh given the chance with clear evidence.

Now let me be clear in reality I do not think he would actually be impeached unless it was a bi partisan decision. That’s something McConnell wouid do but Schumer wouid never have the balls to be that partisan.

But it’s baffling to me that Trumpers don’t want to pull Kavanaugh for the sheer fact that we all know they are paranoid about Democrats being this monster demon squad and there is an obvious path here to impeachment in a year or two. The only logical reasoning here wouid be that they are just cultishly following Trump and don’t have a strategic mind for these things anymore.

I say go for it. Waste another couple weeks cheerleading Kavanaugh for team Trump. If he gets jammed through have fun dealing with that stink on your party’s hands for years when you easily just have another Gorsuch instead. Go for it Bobby. Own the libs!!

 

Not happening.

 

Not Brett Kavanaugh. His friend's name was Bart O'Kavanaugh. We need to be careful to not impugn Kavanaugh's spotless reputation.

 

I think the problem is that if we are willing to believe that some people are capable of making false accusations for political or monetary gain, then you could always try to derail an appointment before an election by dragging an accusation out.

I have no idea if there was misconduct. However, I'm not a big fan of the timing or the way it has been handled so far.

I also hate that any natural question as to credibility of an accusation can be met with "you don't know how abuse impacts the victim.".

That takes off the table questions about delayed reporting, inconsistent statements, continuing relationships with the alleged attacker etc.

Seems to turn our entire sense of and process for justice on its head. Becomes more "prove you didn't" while the accused's life is ruined.

 

I hear you. But I think this isn't something that can simply be replayed by some bad actor.

This also put a lot of pressure in the vetting processing and not selecting someone with a low moral character --- really, the standard for a SCJ should be someone with an extremely high moral (ethical) character first, then the intellectual capability to perform the job.

 

In this case, I am unsure if there is a fair way to handle Ford's accusations.

 

this is from yesterday

​

Today, CNBC is reporting that B K is back at the WH waiting to see Trump. it appears that he is getting the cold shoulder treatment