Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation Hearing Now with Poll

[The Black Forrest]

I don't think Maryland has one for these crimes.....

Fair enough. Asking cause I generally don't know in this case if they would even apply. That being said, would Federal SOL apply anyway here, considering the time frame?

It's anybodies guess at this point. The gal didn't want to be involved but it seems her name was identified. Who leaked it? Anybodies guess. We could blame the demos and yet there was all that effort to mention he was a cool guy and the 65 other women who wrote to say he was a good guy.

It's a reality show now.

If I had to guess......I don't think she wants to press charges. Basically; a "you should know about this" effort and the demos are going to use it to delay till after the elections.

We shall see; there are a few more moves to be done now.....

[Telconi]

I don't think Maryland has one for these crimes.....

There is no statute of limitations for rape or non-sexual assault in the State of Maryland, correct.

So why isn't the local PD picking this up?

[Shofercia]

Fair enough. Asking cause I generally don't know in this case if they would even apply. That being said, would Federal SOL apply anyway here, considering the time frame?

It's anybodies guess at this point. The gal didn't want to be involved but it seems her name was identified. Who leaked it? Anybodies guess. We could blame the demos and yet there was all that effort to mention he was a cool guy and the 65 other women who wrote to say he was a good guy.

It's a reality show now.

If I had to guess......I don't think she wants to press charges. Basically; a "you should know about this" effort and the demos are going to use it to delay till after the elections.

We shall see; there are a few more moves to be done now.....

It's a reality show now? I thought that was Trump's entire presidency

Sorry NSG, but if we're serious all the time, we'll turn into CNN's Crossfire, and I don't want that.

[Neutraligon]

Here's my compromise proposal: let the FBI investigate it fully, put whatever resources are needed, and given them five weeks; hold the nomination up for five weeks, and then vote on the confirmation during the last two weeks of October. Then the FBI can opine whether or not it's a case worth pursuing in Court. If it is, no nomination. If it's not, Kavanaugh gets the nod. That way he's confirmed before the election, which is what Republicans want, unless he's guilty of sexual assault, in which case the Republicans won't get the nomination before the election, which is what the Democrats want. Win-win.

Why 5 weeks? Doesn't seem like a win win to me. What if 5 weeks are not enough time? Also seem hypocritical to me for the Republicans to get their nominee through before the election when they where making all these excuses about Obama's nomination and waiting for the American people to have a say.

[Shofercia]

Here's my compromise proposal: let the FBI investigate it fully, put whatever resources are needed, and given them five weeks; hold the nomination up for five weeks, and then vote on the confirmation during the last two weeks of October. Then the FBI can opine whether or not it's a case worth pursuing in Court. If it is, no nomination. If it's not, Kavanaugh gets the nod. That way he's confirmed before the election, which is what Republicans want, unless he's guilty of sexual assault, in which case the Republicans won't get the nomination before the election, which is what the Democrats want. Win-win.

Why 5 weeks?

My guess was that the Democrats can use procedural tricks to hold up the nomination until after the election if the investigation takes more than five weeks. Remember, if the Democratic Senators in the eleven Trumpy states vote for the confirmation, they lose some of their core supporters; if they vote against, they might lose some folks in the middle. It's a lose-lose proposition for them, so they're doing everything they can to hold up his nomination. If the investigation goes for longer than that, and it turns out that there isn't enough data to start a trial, then this whole thing was a Democratic shenanigan, and yet they can still reap the reward. I don't want to reward political parties for their shenanigans.

[Shofercia]

Here's my compromise proposal: let the FBI investigate it fully, put whatever resources are needed, and given them five weeks; hold the nomination up for five weeks, and then vote on the confirmation during the last two weeks of October. Then the FBI can opine whether or not it's a case worth pursuing in Court. If it is, no nomination. If it's not, Kavanaugh gets the nod. That way he's confirmed before the election, which is what Republicans want, unless he's guilty of sexual assault, in which case the Republicans won't get the nomination before the election, which is what the Democrats want. Win-win.

Why 5 weeks? Doesn't seem like a win win to me. What if 5 weeks are not enough time? Also seem hypocritical to me for the Republicans to get their nominee through before the election when they where making all these excuses about Obama's nomination and waiting for the American people to have a say.

The Republicans took a risk - they could've lost that election. They won. However, they still had some risk. The Democrats aren't risking much here. And if the FBI decides that, after four weeks of investigating, five weeks isn't enough, that'd be on them to say, and we'll go from there. Maybe then we can extend it, but also then we'd have concrete evidence verified by the FBI.

[Neutraligon]

Why 5 weeks?

My guess was that the Democrats can use procedural tricks to hold up the nomination until after the election if the investigation takes more than five weeks. Remember, if the Democratic Senators in the eleven Trumpy states vote for the confirmation, they lose some of their core supporters; if they vote against, they might lose some folks in the middle. It's a lose-lose proposition for them, so they're doing everything they can to hold up his nomination. If the investigation goes for longer than that, and it turns out that there isn't enough data to start a trial, then this whole thing was a Democratic shenanigan, and yet they can still reap the reward. I don't want to reward political parties for their shenanigans.

Seems to me far for the Democrats to block the nominee and let the American people decide...just like the Republicans wanted with Obama's nominee.

Why 5 weeks? Doesn't seem like a win win to me. What if 5 weeks are not enough time? Also seem hypocritical to me for the Republicans to get their nominee through before the election when they where making all these excuses about Obama's nomination and waiting for the American people to have a say.

The Republicans took a risk - they could've lost that election. They won. However, they still had some risk. The Democrats aren't risking much here. And if the FBI decides that, after four weeks of investigating, five weeks isn't enough, that'd be on them to say, and we'll go from there. Maybe then we can extend it, but also then we'd have concrete evidence verified by the FBI.

What risk? none really. If they lost, then things would have been pretty much the same as before. If they won, they won big. Seems to me the same situation exists for Democrats today, if they lose then things a pretty much the same as before, if the win they win big.

[Telconi]

My guess was that the Democrats can use procedural tricks to hold up the nomination until after the election if the investigation takes more than five weeks. Remember, if the Democratic Senators in the eleven Trumpy states vote for the confirmation, they lose some of their core supporters; if they vote against, they might lose some folks in the middle. It's a lose-lose proposition for them, so they're doing everything they can to hold up his nomination. If the investigation goes for longer than that, and it turns out that there isn't enough data to start a trial, then this whole thing was a Democratic shenanigan, and yet they can still reap the reward. I don't want to reward political parties for their shenanigans.

Seems to me far for the Democrats to block the nominee and let the American people decide...just like the Republicans wanted with Obama's nominee.

Then why don't they?

[Neutraligon]

Seems to me far for the Democrats to block the nominee and let the American people decide...just like the Republicans wanted with Obama's nominee.

Then why don't they?

...Isn't that exactly what is going on here? They are holding up the nomination until as close to the election as they can get it...if not after the election.

[Shofercia]

My guess was that the Democrats can use procedural tricks to hold up the nomination until after the election if the investigation takes more than five weeks. Remember, if the Democratic Senators in the eleven Trumpy states vote for the confirmation, they lose some of their core supporters; if they vote against, they might lose some folks in the middle. It's a lose-lose proposition for them, so they're doing everything they can to hold up his nomination. If the investigation goes for longer than that, and it turns out that there isn't enough data to start a trial, then this whole thing was a Democratic shenanigan, and yet they can still reap the reward. I don't want to reward political parties for their shenanigans.

Seems to me far for the Democrats to block the nominee and let the American people decide...just like the Republicans wanted with Obama's nominee.

Bit of a difference here. There's no realistic way that the Republicans can have a net loss of more than one Senate seat. And Trump is going to still be president. The people aren't deciding on the SCOTUS nominee in this election. Kavanaugh is going to be nominated and confirmed, pending FBI's check. The only question is when will he be confirmed, unless he actually went around sexually assaulting people.

With Garland, it wasn't a sure shot. The presidency was up for grabs, and the president nominates the Judge. If this was 2020, you'd be right. But it's 2018. A midterm election.

[Shofercia]

The Republicans took a risk - they could've lost that election. They won. However, they still had some risk. The Democrats aren't risking much here. And if the FBI decides that, after four weeks of investigating, five weeks isn't enough, that'd be on them to say, and we'll go from there. Maybe then we can extend it, but also then we'd have concrete evidence verified by the FBI.

What risk? none really. If they lost, then things would have been pretty much the same as before. If they won, they won big. Seems to me the same situation exists for Democrats today, if they lose then things a pretty much the same as before, if the win they win big.

It's not even remotely the same. The President nominates, and the Senate confirms. Neither is realistically up for grabs this election. The President isn't being elected, and there's no realistic way that the Democrats can win the Senate majority.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Why 5 weeks? Doesn't seem like a win win to me. What if 5 weeks are not enough time? Also seem hypocritical to me for the Republicans to get their nominee through before the election when they where making all these excuses about Obama's nomination and waiting for the American people to have a say.

The Republicans took a risk - they could've lost that election. They won. However, they still had some risk. The Democrats aren't risking much here. And if the FBI decides that, after four weeks of investigating, five weeks isn't enough, that'd be on them to say, and we'll go from there. Maybe then we can extend it, but also then we'd have concrete evidence verified by the FBI.

I very much doubt the FBI even if they had one hundred years to investigate, would turn up any hard/gotcha evidence in this, considering the time that's already passed.

[Shofercia]

The Republicans took a risk - they could've lost that election. They won. However, they still had some risk. The Democrats aren't risking much here. And if the FBI decides that, after four weeks of investigating, five weeks isn't enough, that'd be on them to say, and we'll go from there. Maybe then we can extend it, but also then we'd have concrete evidence verified by the FBI.

I very much doubt the FBI even if they had one hundred years to investigate, would turn up any hard/gotcha evidence in this, considering the time that's already passed.

Maybe, maybe not, but they can at least say "this is something we should continue to investigate" or "there's no way we can get enough evidence for a trial" and then the issue would be settled.

[Neutraligon]

Seems to me far for the Democrats to block the nominee and let the American people decide...just like the Republicans wanted with Obama's nominee.

Bit of a difference here. There's no realistic way that the Republicans can have a net loss of more than one Senate seat.

So basically the Republicans had far less of a risk against the Democrats then than do the Democrats now.

And Trump is going to still be president.

Which again makes the risk for Democrats now is greater should they lose then it was for Republicans should they lose.

The people aren't deciding on the SCOTUS nominee in this election. Kavanaugh is going to be nominated and confirmed, pending FBI's check. The only question is when will he be nominated.

He is being decided for as much as Obama's nominee was being decided for, because if the Democrats win the election, guess who isn't passing the Senate.

[Neutraligon]

What risk? none really. If they lost, then things would have been pretty much the same as before. If they won, they won big. Seems to me the same situation exists for Democrats today, if they lose then things a pretty much the same as before, if the win they win big.

It's not even remotely the same. The President nominates, and the Senate confirms. Neither is realistically up for grabs this election. The President isn't being elected, and there's no realistic way that the Democrats can win the Senate majority.

So basically there is no risk to either party if they wait longer then 5 weeks. Or...the Democrats are taking a great deal of risk in the hopes that their base supports them and will turn out during the midterm...something Democrats are not known for doing. Either way, the five week limit you are imposing makes no sense.

[Tobleste]

1. I haven't even heard of that judge, I have heard Al Franken though.

2. Not every voter in Alabama is republican therefore him losing isn't proof of republican concerns. Obviously some didn't turnout but most didn't seem bothered while democratic turnout raised. The republican president endorsed him, he was supported by the local GOP and was within a few percent of becoming a senator.

3. So Trump apologised for joking about assaulting people? I take it all back, we're clearly dealing with a high moral bar here.

4. You can presume his innocence while not assuming she's lying and think it's worth investigating given the level of power he's about to get.

I'm not saying every single democrat cares about sexual assault or that every single republican doesn't. I'm saying that dems mostly seem more concerned while republicans are less bothered.

1. I'm saying that there are good people in every party, and bad people in every party.
2. Alabama had no issues selecting another Republican as a Senator, even with the raised turnout. If Republicans didn't vote for him, it was because they were ashamed, which clearly shows that they care about the issue.
3. Not saying that Trump's super moral; I am saying that if he needed to apologize, the party clearly cares about the issues.
4. I'm all for investigating it. However, until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm presuming that he's innocent, which infers that she might be lying.

Oh, and here's some evidence: Alabama voting for Sessions:



Alabama voting for Moore:



If Moore simply carried all of Sessions' voters, he'd win.

1. Agreed, though when it comes to caring about sexual assault, the distribution of 'good people' is even across the two parties.
2. Some didn't.
3. The party does need votes from independents. I think the apology was for them.
4. I'm fine with arguing that she might be lying. My problem is that some have taken "Innocent until proven guilty" and used it to justify believing "she's lying and it's all #FakeNews".

[Ethel mermania]

Very creative with the route of trying to deny a confirmation... Gonna Clarence Thomas Kavanaugh.

Because giving a potential rapist with some questionable views on the rights of women the ability to make them law is a good thing?

He dens being at the party and her family had run ins with his mother.

The yahoo article mentions both sides

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/everyth ... 53697.html

The problem is that this is a political ploy to delay the nomination. True or not This should have come out during the hearing. Feinstein had the letter.

[The Black Forrest]

Because giving a potential rapist with some questionable views on the rights of women the ability to make them law is a good thing?

He dens being at the party and her family had run ins with his mother.

The yahoo article mentions both sides

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/everyth ... 53697.html

The problem is that this is a political ploy to delay the nomination. True or not This should have come out during the hearing. Feinstein had the letter.

The gal didn't want it known. It was more of "you should know this" situation.

[Vassenor]

Because giving a potential rapist with some questionable views on the rights of women the ability to make them law is a good thing?

He dens being at the party and her family had run ins with his mother.

The yahoo article mentions both sides

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/everyth ... 53697.html

The problem is that this is a political ploy to delay the nomination. True or not This should have come out during the hearing. Feinstein had the letter.

And that proves this is all false how?

[Ethel mermania]

He dens being at the party and her family had run ins with his mother.

The yahoo article mentions both sides

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/everyth ... 53697.html

The problem is that this is a political ploy to delay the nomination. True or not This should have come out during the hearing. Feinstein had the letter.

The gal didn't want it known. It was more of "you should know this" situation.

Then why is she coming forward now? Sorry to say, to bad, the time was the hearings

[Ethel mermania]

He dens being at the party and her family had run ins with his mother.

The yahoo article mentions both sides

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/everyth ... 53697.html

The problem is that this is a political ploy to delay the nomination. True or not This should have come out during the hearing. Feinstein had the letter.

And that proves this is all false how?

Doesn't matter. The time for her to come forward was during the hearing.

[Hakons]

He dens being at the party and her family had run ins with his mother.

The yahoo article mentions both sides

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/everyth ... 53697.html

The problem is that this is a political ploy to delay the nomination. True or not This should have come out during the hearing. Feinstein had the letter.

And that proves this is all false how?

It doesn't prove that it is false, but it does show that Feinstein is doing some nasty politics. Maybe, just maybe, she should have released this information during the time they had to interview Kavanaugh. That is the time to judge a nominees history and ethics. It was a disservice the judiciary committee, the victim, and the American people to withhold this information until now. Of course, it's about on par with how democrats have acted during this particular nomination process.

[Jerzyland]

There is no statute of limitations for rape or non-sexual assault in the State of Maryland, correct.

So why isn't the local PD picking this up?

I dunno. Incompetence?

MD does have a GOP governor, Larry Hogan, who must be a political contortionist. He's distanced himself as far as possible from Trump without leaving the party or getting burned.

[Gig em Aggies]

The gal didn't want it known. It was more of "you should know this" situation.

Then why is she coming forward now? Sorry to say, to bad, the time was the hearings

Its kind of odd of all the years she could have come forward it was this year. I bet someone on the left found this gal and asked her to "come forward" so they could sully Kavanaugh as a SCOTUS nominee and in reality this isn't about the SCOTUS pick it's about how many more ways can we shoot ourselves in the foot while trying to ruin trump.

[Jerzyland]

And that proves this is all false how?

Doesn't matter. The time for her to come forward was during the hearing.

Moot point now. There's been a hearing scheduled by Grassley on Monday with Ford and Kavanaugh.