Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation Hearing Now with Poll

[Jerzyland]

The opposite party didn't have to kick him out. The Dems did their due diligence when the matter arose. This is something the GOP should have learned a long way back.

I don't think they particularly care what you think they should do.

After all... they are the careless party. In fact, so careless they nominated yet another masher to high office. OTOH, he was nominated by the pussy grabber-in-chief.

But no worries personally on my part whether they care what I think. These people are gonna get their butts bloody well kicked in 7 weeks. And I am going to be happier than a butcher's dog.

Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination.

[San Carlos Islands]

Lol, do you realize how crazy you sound? Look at this guy's family, look at the classmates saying the claim is false. Like I said, this how they tried to take down Clarence Thomas. It's another false claim to take a politician down.

Also, you know that list of sixty-five women who all came forward to support him?

Yeah, it turns out most of them didn't know what they were signing, and now only two of them still stand by him.

Meanwhile over two hundred have signed a letter supporting the accuser.

> Shareblue
> Huffpost

Number one, the person who has more support from whoever, doesn't mean everything. More people supporting someone doesn't make a story any truer. It's irrelevant!

As of most these things, the claim is false, it always is... Until there is proof anything happened, not just the word of someone who wants to take a person down; I see no reason to believe her.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[Vassenor]

> Shareblue
> Huffpost

Number one, the person who has more support from whoever, doesn't mean everything. More people supporting someone doesn't make a story any truer. It's irrelevant!

As of most these things, the claim is false, it always is... Until there is proof anything happened, not just the word of someone who wants to take a person down; I see no reason to believe her.

Innocent until proven guilty.

You mean like she's innocent until proven guilty of orchestrating a conspiracy to take him down?

[Fartsniffage]

> Shareblue
> Huffpost

Number one, the person who has more support from whoever, doesn't mean everything. More people supporting someone doesn't make a story any truer. It's irrelevant!

As of most these things, the claim is false, it always is... Until there is proof anything happened, not just the word of someone who wants to take a person down; I see no reason to believe her.

Innocent until proven guilty.

You are aware that this is a job interview, not a trial?

[San Carlos Islands]

> Shareblue
> Huffpost

Number one, the person who has more support from whoever, doesn't mean everything. More people supporting someone doesn't make a story any truer. It's irrelevant!

As of most these things, the claim is false, it always is... Until there is proof anything happened, not just the word of someone who wants to take a person down; I see no reason to believe her.

Innocent until proven guilty.

You mean like she's innocent until proven guilty of orchestrating a conspiracy to take him down?

She's not the one being accused of a crime.

Yeah, she's a lying bitch, and I hope she gets charged for slander after Kavanaugh makes it to the bench.

[Vassenor]

You mean like she's innocent until proven guilty of orchestrating a conspiracy to take him down?

She's not the one being accused of a crime.

Yeah, she's a lying bitch, and I hope she gets charged for slander after Kavanaugh makes it to the bench.

Slander is a crime. Conspiracy is a crime.

And if the number of people who support someone is irrelevant, why did you immediately jump to BUT THE CHARACTER WITNESSES? Especially when my point wasn't about the numbers, but instead about their testimony being obtained under false pretences.

[Grinning Dragon]

I don't think they particularly care what you think they should do.

After all... they are the careless party. In fact, so careless they nominated yet another masher to high office. OTOH, he was nominated by the pussy grabber-in-chief.

But no worries personally on my part whether they care what I think. These people are gonna get their butts bloody well kicked in 7 weeks. And I am going to be happier than a butcher's dog.

Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination.

Why should he withdraw, it's his word against hers.

[Shofercia]

> Shareblue
> Huffpost

Number one, the person who has more support from whoever, doesn't mean everything. More people supporting someone doesn't make a story any truer. It's irrelevant!

As of most these things, the claim is false, it always is... Until there is proof anything happened, not just the word of someone who wants to take a person down; I see no reason to believe her.

Innocent until proven guilty.

You mean like she's innocent until proven guilty of orchestrating a conspiracy to take him down?

Did you just claim that the accuser is innocent until proven guilty? That reminds me of something:

[Vassenor]

After all... they are the careless party. In fact, so careless they nominated yet another masher to high office. OTOH, he was nominated by the pussy grabber-in-chief.

But no worries personally on my part whether they care what I think. These people are gonna get their butts bloody well kicked in 7 weeks. And I am going to be happier than a butcher's dog.

Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination.

Why should he withdraw, it's his word against hers.

Same as it was with Franken.

[Shofercia]

She's not the one being accused of a crime.

Yeah, she's a lying bitch, and I hope she gets charged for slander after Kavanaugh makes it to the bench.

Slander is a crime. Conspiracy is a crime.

And if the number of people who support someone is irrelevant, why did you immediately jump to BUT THE CHARACTER WITNESSES? Especially when my point wasn't about the numbers, but instead about their testimony being obtained under false pretences.

San Carlos hoping that she gets charged, isn't the actual equivalent of her being charged. If she were charged with slander, then she can claim that she is innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, if she were called a liar, that would simply be name calling. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and the accuser doesn't magically get to shift that burden, just because someone stated that they were lying.

[Telconi]

> Shareblue
> Huffpost

Number one, the person who has more support from whoever, doesn't mean everything. More people supporting someone doesn't make a story any truer. It's irrelevant!

As of most these things, the claim is false, it always is... Until there is proof anything happened, not just the word of someone who wants to take a person down; I see no reason to believe her.

Innocent until proven guilty.

You mean like she's innocent until proven guilty of orchestrating a conspiracy to take him down?

I don't see anyone saying she should be punished for these things without proof.

[San Carlos Islands]

She's not the one being accused of a crime.

Yeah, she's a lying bitch, and I hope she gets charged for slander after Kavanaugh makes it to the bench.

Slander is a crime. Conspiracy is a crime.

And if the number of people who support someone is irrelevant, why did you immediately jump to BUT THE CHARACTER WITNESSES? Especially when my point wasn't about the numbers, but instead about their testimony being obtained under false pretences.

Yeah it is.

She's the one making false claims and he's a victim of it. She has no proof about anything, yet she's still saying this.. Bold move to take someone down.

> Not about the numbers...

"Yeah, it turns out most of them didn't know what they were signing, and now only two of them still stand by him.

Meanwhile over two hundred have signed a letter supporting the accuser."

[Telconi]

Why should he withdraw, it's his word against hers.

Same as it was with Franken.

Indeed, and Franken's choice to fall on his own sword doesn't mandate anyone else do the same. Only one person lost Franken his job, and that was Franken.

[Shofercia]

You mean like she's innocent until proven guilty of orchestrating a conspiracy to take him down?

I don't see anyone saying she should be punished for these things without proof.

It's like when two siblings fight. If the parents don't have proof of who started it, they either punish both, or punish neither. We don't have proof who's lying and who's being honest, so the burden of proof is on the accuser. If she wants Kavanaugh punished, i.e. not nominated to SCOTUS, she has the burden of proof. If he wants her punished, (and it doesn't seem like he does,) he has the burden of proof.

[Vassenor]

Slander is a crime. Conspiracy is a crime.

And if the number of people who support someone is irrelevant, why did you immediately jump to BUT THE CHARACTER WITNESSES? Especially when my point wasn't about the numbers, but instead about their testimony being obtained under false pretences.

Yeah it is.

She's the one making false claims and he's a victim of it. She has no proof about anything, yet she's still saying this.. Bold move to take someone down.

> Not about the numbers...

"Yeah, it turns out most of them didn't know what they were signing, and now only two of them still stand by him.

Meanwhile over two hundred have signed a letter supporting the accuser."

So no response to the actual argument? You know, the false pretences bit?

And I take it you can prove that they are false claims beyond reasonable doubt?

[Shofercia]

Slander is a crime. Conspiracy is a crime.

And if the number of people who support someone is irrelevant, why did you immediately jump to BUT THE CHARACTER WITNESSES? Especially when my point wasn't about the numbers, but instead about their testimony being obtained under false pretences.

Yeah it is.

She's the one making false claims and he's a victim of it. She has no proof about anything, yet she's still saying this.. Bold move to take someone down.

> Not about the numbers...

"Yeah, it turns out most of them didn't know what they were signing, and now only two of them still stand by him.

Meanwhile over two hundred have signed a letter supporting the accuser."

In criminal Court, in the US, it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil Court, against a public figure, like Kavanaugh, must show that there was malice involved. In this case, neither party can meet a sufficient burden of proof. So we can either do the mature thing and let this go, or do the childish thing, and act like the Mass Media and President Trump interact with one another.

[Petrasylvania]

Remember when Bill Clinton also received benefit of the doubt? Oh right...

Let's go with a bit more recent example. Al Franken, did he also received any benefit of the doubt? He was a comedian joking around. Kavan ugh should withdraw his nomination.

A nominee for justice on the SCOTUS must be beyond reproach. This man clearly is not.

There the Democrats made the mistake of trying to be the adults on the high road when the Republicans keep tunnel ratting like the Viet Cong.

[Shofercia]

Ive NEVER heard of a supreme court nomination hearing being like this before, people being arressted etc etc

See the fight over Brandeis' nomination in 1916.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Bra ... reme_Court



More recently, when Nixon inexplicably nominated Harrold Carswell in 1970, the best that Senator Hruska could come up with to support Carswell was, rather hilariously:

Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Harrol ... nomination

"Won't someone please represent the idiots?! They deserve representation too!"

In that case, I nominate Hank Johnson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

[Vassenor]

Also this seems to be a hell of a lot of character assassination for a false claim that will burn itself out in time.

[Galloism]

I see Vassenor, once again, doesn't want to back up their post.

Also, you know that list of sixty-five women who all came forward to support him?

Yeah, it turns out most of them didn't know what they were signing, and now only two of them still stand by him.

Where's the source that they didn't know what they were signing?

For those who haven't read it, the sexist assumption that women are sweet simple innocent flowers that just can't understand what they're signing isn't supported by Vassenor's article. That assumption is entirely Vassenor's, as is the sexist assumption contained therein. The article simply states how the original signers responded to comment, or not at all.

Most of the signers did not respond to request for comment at all - either positive or negative. Possibly because they changed their mind, but it could also be because they don't want to be part of the media circus.

[Vassenor]

Also it's not that the FBI doesn't think the case is worth investigating.

It's that Trump is refusing to let them investigate it.

[Shofercia]

Also this seems to be a hell of a lot of character assassination for a false claim that will burn itself out in time.

One person hoping, and the rest of the forum opining how the US Legal System works is not the same as character assassination. An example of actual character assassination, would be what you're trying to do with President Trump constantly, where for you, he is the root of all evil.

[Jerzyland]

Also it's not that the FBI doesn't think the case is worth investigating.

It's that Trump is refusing to let them investigate it.

Obstructor-in-chief. He wears a number of criminal hats.

[Telconi]

Also it's not that the FBI doesn't think the case is worth investigating.

It's that Trump is refusing to let them investigate it.

Why, what a verifiable and well sourced story you have there.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Also it's not that the FBI doesn't think the case is worth investigating.

It's that Trump is refusing to let them investigate it.

Raw Story?

Bad source is bad.