Me toooooooooo?

Me too or I'd be dead.

In your dreams :)

 

And you believe Ford felt the same way. Of course until she seen an opportunity to make a political issue.

 

The only witnesses said it did not happen.

 

I have no idea what she felt or now feels. Nor any of the other accusers.

Or possibly a moral/character issue. We do not yet know because the accusations have not been properly reviewed and investigated.

 

Right. These witnesses were always present with Kavanaugh and Ford, and no one ever lies.

Got it.

 

I honestly don't think you do get it BB but of course I can't be sure.

This three ring circus (its what I honestly think) stinks and I'm sure many progressives know the truth - in all probability its a character assassination that breaks the 9th commandment.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Actually if Kavanaugh is toppled a woman which they will dislike even more (IMO) will be chosen.

They are not going to win congress and that is their greatest fear right after kavanaughphobia.

 

Possibly. Remember, we didn't have this with Gorsuch, so Kavanaugh's case is not just that he professes he is pro-life.

You need to temper your confidence about the election. You may be shocked.

 

This panic fiasco is because Kavanaugh makes the possibility of a Roe v. Wade overthrow perhaps even down to the state level (by making abortion murder) almost a certainty. The DNC wont get congress and an even more conservative justice will be chosen if the DNC puppets crucify Kavanaugh

Maybe, maybe not.

Just have to wait and see.

 

If you don't believe the witnesses who do you believe? The people who were not there? Hearsay? Hearsay not normally admissible in court for good reason.

 

WAIT!, the FBI could go check the room (if they know where it is) and collect the flies on the wall to interrogate them.

Oh wait flies don't live very long do they.

 

You keep forgetting that we have not had an unbiased investigation. There are witnesses both for and against at least the first accuser. I haven't been able to keep up with the rest yet.

I will believe credible witnesses, when there has been an investigation. All we have now are two or three different sides touting contradictory witnesses.

People who were not there but have heard the claims made years before any of the current situation has come up corroborate that the story is not concocted for current political reasons, which seems to be the main line of rebuttal by most supporters of Kavanaugh. Therefore, that adds some credibility to her claims, although we need more.

Again, we need an investigation. Why is the Republican leadership so afraid of it?

 

Its all nothing but stalling.

 

Frankly, the more I listen to Kavanaugh, the less I believe him.

Dogged by an accusation of a sexual assault in high school and pressed to defend his character, Brett Kavanaugh went on Fox News with a curious strategy. Instead of owning up to his high school drinking habits, he told what appear to be lies.

Kavanaugh insinuated that he never drank when he was underage, saying on Fox that when he was a senior, the “drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there.”

Not only is this not true with regard to the legal drinking age in Maryland at the time, it’s also extremely hard to square with the portrait he otherwise paints of himself as a hard-partying kid. Thirty-five years ago he seemed to have joked in his yearbook about being the treasurer of the Keg City Club, and in 2015 he quipped that “what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep.”
...
One big problem here is that Kavanaugh turned 18 in February 1983 and Maryland raised its drinking age to 21 back in July 1982. What he is perhaps misremembering is that the District of Columbia had a lower drinking age of 18 through the mid-1980s, so it was common at the time for high school seniors from the Maryland suburbs to buy beer legally in the District.

Anyone who has ever attended a party in high school or college at which alcohol was served is going to be rightly skeptical of the claim that Kavanaugh routinely attended house parties where underage drinking was banned. But his basic claim about the legal drinking age at the time is also provably false, a small fact that he probably neglected amid the larger implausibility of the overall argument.

Meanwhile, a very large volume of available evidence strongly suggests that Kavanaugh was a fairly serious partier at this point in his life.
...
To be clear, it’s not particularly unusual for high school students to be involved in drunken partying, and federal data on binge drinking indicates that it was significantly more common when Kavanaugh was in school.

But Kavanaugh’s drinking is unusually well-documented. A friend and classmate of his named Mark Judge actually wrote a book titled Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk that appears to discuss it.

As CNN has reported, Judge’s book reveals the story behind the 100-keg joke on the yearbook page. What happened, according to Judge, was that students were dismayed to learn that they would be required to spend their senior Sundays doing community service.

“‘We have to do something,’ I said. ‘They can’t get away with this our senior year.’

‘What are we going to do?’ Shane said, laughing. ‘Drink a hundred kegs and brag about it?’

No one laughed. For a second, no one even spoke. ‘It’s brilliant,’ I said.”

Judge and his high school buddies went on to create a newspaper called the Heretic, a riff on their school newspaper the Saint. One of the main objectives of the paper, as laid out by Judge in the book, was to chronicle “the 100-keg quest and everything that happened on the way.”

According to his book, Judge and his friends continued to publish and anonymously distribute the paper on campus, with a continued emphasis on the 100-keg quest in the pages. Judge wrote that by March of his senior year, the keg count was “into the mid-eighties.”​

The book also discussed a lightly disguised person named Bart O’Kavanaugh who puked in someone’s car and passed out on the way back from a party.

Drinking to excess is unhealthy and sets the stage for potentially illegal activity, including unsafe driving and violence. However, it’s hardly unforgivable and certainly not proof that Kavanaugh committed any of the serious offenses against women that have been charged. The disparity between Kavanaugh’s statements about his high school activities and the apparent facts, however, does raise a serious question about his honesty.
...
There’s no doubt that if he’s put back under oath and subjected to more specific questioning about his high school, he’ll give answers that pass legal muster. And conservatives will try to paint a picture of liberals engaging in ridiculous fussiness about decades-old parties and trying to spike a Supreme Court nomination over teen drinking.

The issue, however, is not perjury or partying, but honesty and integrity.

Kavanaugh has, time and again, chosen at high-pressure moments to offer misleading accounts to the public. The misleading about drinking happens to be unusually clear-cut rather than unusually significant.

But the fact that he is so willing to be misleading even when the evidence is clear-cut should make us suspicious about his slipperiness around slightly more ambiguous cases, like Miranda’s pilfered emails. Indeed, his general lack of probity is probably disqualifying on its own and certainly provides ample reason for senators to prefer a different, ideologically identical nominee.

But his statements also provide a critical reason to believe that in a he-said, she-said matchup between Kavanaugh and Christine Blassey Ford — a matchup that Kavanaugh has agreed to rather than having the FBI investigate or the Senate take testimony from other witnesses — we should be inclined to believe Ford and to disbelieve Kavanaugh.

 

And Republicans stalled for more than a year before replacing Scalia, so what's the problem?

 

Vox (website) - Wikipedia
Even wiki calls them left-leaning.......why am I not surprised?

 

The question is not whether they lean left or right, it is whether or not it is true.

They quote facts from his interview, from the law, his public statements, and from his yearbook. Did they misrepresent any of those public facts? If not, then can you demonstrate why the conclusions are not valid?

 

No. whether or not it is propaganda which could mean some truth, some deception cunningly pointed to a desired end.

 

That's why we have to use our brains to discern what is true and false in EVERYTHING we read and hear.

I do that. Do you?

 

I do.

 

This sounds similar to your defense of Dims where you replied with some mind numbing retort about being open to supporting them but not their platform. That’s a stretch of a spin, even for you.