Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[John V]

The accuser, Ford, is risking everything.  She's not some paid protester.  She has a career and is a respected person.  Just making the accusation could ruin her, because of how our society tends to view female accusers as either liars or whores.  Or just dimsmissing that sort of behavior as  "boys will be boys". As you have so aptly demonstrated.

She's a college professor in California. She's more likely to get a promotion than lose anything.

---

Every time I post on this forum lately I regret it. The world is full of assholes and trolls.

Also I have you on ignore AM, so you can stop responding to me I can't see it anyway.

And you don't have to worry anymore anyway. Clearly your contributions are more important so it's all yours.

Sorry, but we can't let a single unsubstantiated accusation ruin an accused's life because emotion.

[Mister Agenda]

Too bad Feinstein had an apparent case of Catholicitis and sat on it for months.

She should have made it public before the woman who trusted her with the information agreed to it?

---

Too bad Feinstein had an apparent case of Catholicitis and sat on it for months.

Yeah, I think the logical inference from the timing is that they couldn't substantiate it, so they saved it for last-minute emotional effect.

The timing of the 65 women who vouch that the man didn't rape THEM would indicate that the administration was aware that someone might accuse Kavenaugh of rape.

---

And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

Anonymous hearsay is meaningless, until it is no longer anonymous, and no longer hearsay. You have gotten your wish, it seems on that account. More details have been presented as well. It's likely his accuser will be cross-examined, and other witnesses secured.

You really believed it would stop at 'Feinstein says someone said something'?

---

It's an accusation, asshole  ( try to learn the diference ) not "evidence."

Correct, it shouldn't be considered evidence.

No one has called it evidence but RR. An accusation does warrant investigation. And Kavanaugh is not facing jail over this, the evidence does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt for it to quite rightly derail his nomination. I don't have to have enough evidence to convict when choosing not to select a potential employee if I have merely sufficient reason to think they've committed a crime that would lead me to think they are not a good fit for my team. No one has a right to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Not to mention it's what, 50 days before the midterms? I believe a precedent has been set that we should 'wait for the people to speak' before trying to rush through a Supreme Court nomination.

---

Why do you think the Dems waited until now, after hearings have been conducted, to release it?

Feinstein waited for the accuser's permission to go forward with it. She clearly would rather not have had to put herself out to the public if she didn't feel it was absolutely necessary to check Kavenaugh's appointment. She's already paying the predictable price for it.

[Divinity]

Republicunts are truly disgusting people who'd gladly have a rapist in the white house as long as he hates gays, women, blacks, and Mexicans.

[John V]

She should have made it public before the woman who trusted her with the information agreed to it?

No need to make it public. There were closed-door sessions in addition to the public hearings. And, it could have been offered with the accuser's name redacted.

The timing of the 65 women who vouch that the man didn't rape THEM would indicate that the administration was aware that someone might accuse Kavenaugh of rape.

How so?

No one has called it evidence but RR. An accusation does warrant investigation.

You would think. Yet, during the normally scheduled hearings, the accusation wasn't brought up. Go figure.

And Kavanaugh is not facing jail over this, the evidence does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt for it to quite rightly derail his nomination. I don't have to have enough evidence to convict when choosing not to select a potential employee if I have merely sufficient reason to think they've committed a crime that would lead me to think they are not a good fit for my team. No one has a right to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Agreed, but...

Not to mention it's what, 50 days before the midterms?

Yes, delay in hope of securing a senate majority is the obvious intent.

I believe a precedent has been set that we should 'wait for the people to speak' before trying to rush through a Supreme Court nomination.

Then they should make that argument, instead of withholding charges during the regular hearings and springing them afterward.

Feinstein waited for the accuser's permission to go forward with it. She clearly would rather not have had to put herself out to the public if she didn't feel it was absolutely necessary to check Kavenaugh's appointment. She's already paying the predictable price for it.

No need to make it public. There were closed-door sessions in addition to the public hearings. And, it could have been offered with the accuser's name redacted.

---

Republicunts are truly disgusting people who'd gladly have a rapist in the white house as long as he hates gays, women, blacks, and Mexicans.

Yep, we're just a bunch of deplorables.

And you forgot Muslims.

[Amarok]

I just see a disrepency in reasoning from other encounters, and wonder which one is true this time. It seems applicable to the conversation.   Is testimony about an event from 40 years ago evidence or not?      Do we launch a scientific investigation into the matter, before we can believe it?  All applicable to this topic.

Their is no discrepancy fool this is you just pulling it out your ass to score ideology points and failing even at that .

[vorlon13]

Too bad Feinstein had an apparent case of Catholicitis and sat on it for months.

She should have made it public before the woman who trusted her with the information agreed to it?

---

Yeah, I think the logical inference from the timing is that they couldn't substantiate it, so they saved it for last-minute emotional effect.

The timing of the 65 women who vouch that the man didn't rape THEM would indicate that the administration was aware that someone might accuse Kavenaugh of rape.

---

And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

Anonymous hearsay is meaningless, until it is no longer anonymous, and no longer hearsay. You have gotten your wish, it seems on that account. More details have been presented as well. It's likely his accuser will be cross-examined, and other witnesses secured.

You really believed it would stop at 'Feinstein says someone said something'?

---

Correct, it shouldn't be considered evidence.

No one has called it evidence but RR. An accusation does warrant investigation. And Kavanaugh is not facing jail over this, the evidence does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt for it to quite rightly derail his nomination. I don't have to have enough evidence to convict when choosing not to select a potential employee if I have merely sufficient reason to think they've committed a crime that would lead me to think they are not a good fit for my team. No one has a right to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Not to mention it's what, 50 days before the midterms? I believe a precedent has been set that we should 'wait for the people to speak' before trying to rush through a Supreme Court nomination.

---

Why do you think the Dems waited until now, after hearings have been conducted, to release it?

Feinstein waited for the accuser's permission to go forward with it. She clearly would rather not have had to put herself out to the public if she didn't feel it was absolutely necessary to check Kavenaugh's appointment. She's already paying the predictable price for it.

Victim is 15. Seems to be the very definition of Catholicitis to me in regards to Feinstein.

[Rev. Rye]

Pedantic

No, you had a valid point. In the metoo movement, after a person is accused, a number of additional accusations usually follow, and then the person's career is ruined. In the unusual case where there's a lone accusation, that usually fades.

Well, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The longevity of a single claim seems to be tied more to the nature of the alleged offense than anything else, or even the nature of the evidence for or against it. This might be on the lesser end (dodgy attitude towards consent with a high school girl while he was still in high school, at least better than Roy Moore), but, still, this is probably not something we want in someone who's heading for one of the highest offices in the land, especially when he once said that the President is above the law (this may or may not have legitimately changed, depending on whether or not his recent repudiation of his claims is sincere, and the only way to be sure is not the sort of situation we want to subject America to.)

[Angrboda]

"It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway -- and it is -- action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."  Mitch McConnell quoting Biden in March of 2016.

Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites and liars. And now they're claiming, without evidence, that Democrats are acting in bad faith. It's nothing more than projection from people who believe that everyone else is like them, lacking in morals.

[RoadRunner79]

"It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway -- and it is -- action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."  Mitch McConnell quoting Biden in March of 2016.

Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites and liars. And now they're claiming, without evidence, that Democrats are acting in bad faith. Nothing but a party full of cunts.

For one, this precedent of Biden’s is concerning the presidency. Two, we are almost always coming up on some kind of election, how far ahead are you proposing? Also, I believe that this was concerning after the election, when a candidate was on their way out.

[CapnAwesome]

It's an accusation, asshole  ( try to learn the diference ) not "evidence."  What is curious is how fascist morons are so quick to dismiss it when it is a member of your tribe but couldn't wait to pounce on Al Franken for much less.

You're a hypocrite, RR.  Go do penance or something because I'm pretty sure your fucking god does not approve.  Or maybe he does now that you all have re-defined him.

There is a difference between this and Franken, which is evidence.