Kavanaugh sexual misconduct in High School

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,140]

Again, this type of behavior doesn't only just happen once. If this were true, he would have done this on multiple occasions with other women. Where are they?

[MDC 7,498]

Member when Donald stumped for Roy Moore? The Groper in Chief seems to like pedos and rapists.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,140]

Member when Donald stumped for Roy Moore? The Groper in Chief seems to like pedos and rapists.

 

Just like everyone who voted for Bill Clinton.

 

Check and mate, b@tch.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

And if they were "extremely intoxicated"? Would you want their career capped due to something unprovable they might have done while drunk? As teens?

 

If they did it (that is the key and we still don't know that yet) and lied about it afterwards, I would expect that they would not be able to be President or on the Supreme Court. I don't think it might preclude from all jobs, though.

[crackattack 520]

 

What part of "is what would make it disqualifying" don't you understand?

Im saying if that happened...that is why its disqualifying and any list of felon can do this and that is idiotic to compare to a seat on the SC.

No it's not. A felon can reach the heights of their dreams/goals, yet an unprovable teenage drunken groping accusation sone 35 years ago can derail a dream job.

 

The comparison works perfectly. Convicted criminals can still achieve greatness, yet an accusation, a focking unprovable accusation can ruin a dream job or goal or heights of a career. A focking accusation from 35 years ago by drunken teens.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,140]

 

If they did it (that is the key and we still don't know that yet) and lied about it afterwards, I would expect that they would not be able to be President or on the Supreme Court. I don't think it might preclude from all jobs, though.

 

That's the point - you'll NEVER be able to prove it happened.

 

You really think this has merit? Jesus H. Christmas.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

That's the point - you'll NEVER be able to prove it happened.

 

You really think this has merit? Jesus H. Christmas.

 

I don't know if it has merit. Ignoring it solely on the basis of how long ago it happened is not how I think it should be handled. Let's see what they both have to say and whether it warrants further investigation.

 

Early on, I said that the bar is pretty high to disqualify someone in this instance. I still think that is the case. However, it should be part of the process for reviewing the candidate.

[vuduchile 1,945]

I regret starting this thread.

[crackattack 520]

 

If they did it (that is the key and we still don't know that yet) and lied about it afterwards, I would expect that they would not be able to be President or on the Supreme Court. I don't think it might preclude from all jobs, though.

So you want a 13-17 y/o drunken, one time, non charged, not convicted, behavior to stifle possible future opportunities? They could be the best in their field of expertise for decades after, yet be capped by a one time unprovable drunken incident decades later? I don't.

[Sho Nuff 720]

No it's not. A felon can reach the heights of their dreams/goals, yet an unprovable teenage drunken groping accusation sone 35 years ago can derail a dream job.

 

The comparison works perfectly. Convicted criminals can still achieve greatness, yet an accusation, a focking unprovable accusation can ruin a dream job or goal or heights of a career. A focking accusation from 35 years ago by drunken teens.

 

Depends on the dreams and goals. Sorry...this isn't some, everybody gets a trophy thing...but the highest court in the land ruling on major issues in our country. Each and every one of them should be above reproach and even if its deep in their past...not focking lie about it and try to ruin this woman even more. That makes it disqualifying and I think most in this country would agree with that regardless of party.

 

Just an accusation alone should not ruin it...that isn't what Im saying...but if he actually did it...and the subsequent lying...yes, that should ruin his chances. Sorry, not everybody gets to be an SC justice.

[avoiding injuries 1,595]

 

I don't know if it has merit. Ignoring it solely on the basis of how long ago it happened is not how I think it should be handled. Let's see what they both have to say and whether it warrants further investigation.

 

Early on, I said that the bar is pretty high to disqualify someone in this instance. I still think that is the case. However, it should be part of the process for reviewing the candidate.

Forget about the length of time its been since her ACCUSATION. How about her lack of memory to the place, month, year, other attendees of the party? Wouldnt you expect someone to remember some of those details? I mean...she was almost raped and killed if it wasnt for Mr Judge falling on them. One exception...Mr Judge wasnt there. So not only does she have no witnesses, the only witness she did have is saying he wasnt here.

What a cluster fock this whole thing is.

[Reality 3,121]

Oh Dear God

 

This. 100000000X this..

 

You people on the left are un-focking real.

[crackattack 520]

 

Depends on the dreams and goals. Sorry...this isn't some, everybody gets a trophy thing...but the highest court in the land ruling on major issues in our country. Each and every one of them should be above reproach and even if its deep in their past...not focking lie about it and try to ruin this woman even more. That makes it disqualifying and I think most in this country would agree with that regardless of party.

 

Just an accusation alone should not ruin it...that isn't what Im saying...but if he actually did it...and the subsequent lying...yes, that should ruin his chances. Sorry, not everybody gets to be an SC justice.

The point is, you'll never know the absolute truth. Ever. If she says it happened, and he and his witnesses say it didn't, well? Isn't the claim their were 4 people in the room and 3 are denying it? That's 3 to 1. From a decades old case. With no video, no physical, or no other eye witness evidence, right? It's her word against 3 others.

 

I'm no lawyer, but that's not enough. Her talking to a therapist is moot. "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove". In this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty by public opinion. Not guilty by just her claim. Guilty by proof. Does she have any besides her claim?

[MDC 7,498]

I suspect the Dems are bringing this up just to bait Trump into a vaguely misogynist Twitter meltdown. Even if it were true it is totally unprovable at this point. This is the only angle that makes sense to me.

[Big Guy 1,413]

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER'S LAWYER IS VICE CHAIR OF SOROS FUNDED ORG OPPOSING KAVANAUGH

 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/271357/kavanaugh-accusers-lawyer-vice-chair-org-opposing-daniel-greenfield#.W6A7mo3op8N.facebook

 

This is simply another down & dirty smear job, it's what the left does!

[KSB2424 3,148]

 

This. 100000000X this..

 

You people on the left are un-focking real.

 

In 2016 I was at a breaking point with the GOP. I didn't like Trump whatsoever either...... I was at a cross roads politically speaking. I voted Gary Johnson as a protest vote in the election.

 

But after what I've seen from the left the past year, my choice has never been more clear. Straight R on every ballot. Democrats have lost their damn minds.

[crackattack 520]

 

In 2016 I was at a breaking point with the GOP. I didn't like Trump whatsoever either...... I was at a cross roads politically speaking. I voted Gary Johnson as a protest vote in the election.

 

But after what I've seen from the left the past year, my choice has never been more clear. Straight R on every ballot. Democrats have lost their damn minds.

I agree with you completely. I don't care for Trump either, but the Democratic party has become unrecognizable. A complete melt down.

[Voltaire 5,322]

You mean she brought up the power he may have over her...how about the power at 15 years old of the boy's mother being a judge as a reason not to come forward.

You aren't really helping your own case here.

Seems to me that if there was an incident that she'd long put it behind her, but that she began plotting to torpedo his career when she noticed he got appointed to the DC circuit. "Fock that a$$hole Brett Kavenaugh!" It could be because she hates his politics or also it could be because he has a grudge against the guy, a grudge that could very well be for the reason she claims.

[Voltaire 5,322]

I regret starting this thread.

Don't. Someone else would have.

[Reality 3,121]

 

In 2016 I was at a breaking point with the GOP. I didn't like Trump whatsoever either...... I was at a cross roads politically speaking. I voted Gary Johnson as a protest vote in the election.

 

But after what I've seen from the left the past year, my choice has never been more clear. Straight R on every ballot. Democrats have lost their damn minds.

 

I agree with you completely. I don't care for Trump either, but the Democratic party has become unrecognizable. A complete melt down.

 

That's where I am at as well. I rarely even vote in midterms but, I'll be there first thing on election day yanking the lever for the Republicans. It can't get here soon enough as far as I am concerned.

[Voltaire 5,322]

 

Depends on the dreams and goals. Sorry...this isn't some, everybody gets a trophy thing...but the highest court in the land ruling on major issues in our country. Each and every one of them should be above reproach and even if its deep in their past...not focking lie about it and try to ruin this woman even more. That makes it disqualifying and I think most in this country would agree with that regardless of party.

 

Just an accusation alone should not ruin it...that isn't what Im saying...but if he actually did it...and the subsequent lying...yes, that should ruin his chances. Sorry, not everybody gets to be an SC justice.

 

I'm glad you can tell which one is lying. Unfortunately, I can't. Tell us please, how you reached that conclusion.

 

Edit, also I don't think he's beyond reproach, he's an insider's insider with a bunch of sh*tbag indsider instincts and insider fixes.

[KSB2424 3,148]

 

I'm glad you can tell which one is lying. Unfortunately, I can't. Tell us please, how you reached that conclusion.

 

I'll never forget when I asked NewbieJr this question in a similar instance. His reply "I can look into their eyes".

[crackattack 520]

 

 

That's where I am at as well. I rarely even vote in midterms but, I'll be there first thing on election day yanking the lever for the Republicans. It can't get here soon enough as far as I am concerned.

Well, our state is pretty red anyway .

[Voltaire 5,322]

 

I'll never forget when I asked NewbieJr this question in a similar instance. His reply "I can look into their eyes".

We should hae never run that focker off. God Bless Sho Nuff for holding down the fort as we really need him more than ever. I hate participating in piling on him.... but...

[Voltaire 5,322]

One thing the Dems on the panel should enjoy is a frank conversation. Kavenaugh has been speaking in circles and giving non-answer answers (just like all of the other eight SCOTUS members sitting on the bench right now did before him). That strategy will have to get tossed out the window.

[Alias Detective 1,409]

Depends on the dreams and goals. Sorry...this isn't some, everybody gets a trophy thing...but the highest court in the land ruling on major issues in our country. Each and every one of them should be above reproach and even if its deep in their past...not focking lie about it and try to ruin this woman even more. That makes it disqualifying and I think most in this country would agree with that regardless of party.

 

Just an accusation alone should not ruin it...that isn't what Im saying...but if he actually did it...and the subsequent lying...yes, that should ruin his chances. Sorry, not everybody gets to be an SC justice.

Do you have proof this happened? To call someone a liar without it is irrational.

[cbfalcon 825]

Do you have proof this happened? To call someone a liar without it is irrational.

 

Sho hasn't called her a liar without proof as far as I've seen here.

[Voltaire 5,322]

 

Sho hasn't called her a liar without proof as far as I've seen here.

He hasn't. In the post AD was quoting, Sho called Kavenaugh a liar.

[Alias Detective 1,409]

Sho hasn't called her a liar without proof as far as I've seen here.

Don’t be an obtuse dickhead. Alright?

[kilroy69 1,252]

The dems used this tactic to perfection with roy moore. Why not try it with a scotus nominee? This is literally their playbook now and it is going to cause the metoo movement to collapse under the weight of unsubstantiated allegations that can neither be proven nor disproven.

[Cdub100 3,933]

I wonder what her political beliefs are and is she radical about them ?

She has ties to you'll never guess....

 

Fusion GPS

[Voltaire 5,322]

She has ties to you'll never guess....

 

Fusion GPS

Every pundit and lobbyist in Washington is arming up for this.

 

Keep an eye out for my favorite Anita Hill gem maybe getting re-used... "a little nutty, a little slutty."

 

I liked that description so much that it's stuck with me for 25 or however many years ago that was.

[Mr. Hand 482]

She has ties to you'll never guess....

 

Fusion GPS

Seriously? The left has officially lost it. A total disgrace.

[MDC 7,498]

The dems used this tactic to perfection with roy moore. Why not try it with a scotus nominee? This is literally their playbook now and it is going to cause the metoo movement to collapse under the weight of unsubstantiated allegations that can neither be proven nor disproven.

Youre really using Roy Moore as an example of a guy done in by dirty pool? Lol

[Sho Nuff 720]

The point is, you'll never know the absolute truth. Ever. If she says it happened, and he and his witnesses say it didn't, well? Isn't the claim their were 4 people in the room and 3 are denying it? That's 3 to 1. From a decades old case. With no video, no physical, or no other eye witness evidence, right? It's her word against 3 others.

 

I'm no lawyer, but that's not enough. Her talking to a therapist is moot. "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove". In this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty by public opinion. Not guilty by just her claim. Guilty by proof. Does she have any besides her claim?

 

His witness says he doesn't remember. Not exactly a great denial there.

And the point seemed to be more that you stated that it didn't matter if he did it at 17 and lied about it all this time. I took exception to that (and Orrin Hatch made the same inference as well).

No...there isn't a claim that there were 4 people in the room and 3 have not denied it.

[Sho Nuff 720]

She has ties to you'll never guess....

 

Fusion GPS

Sure she does...

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

In 2016 I was at a breaking point with the GOP. I didn't like Trump whatsoever either...... I was at a cross roads politically speaking. I voted Gary Johnson as a protest vote in the election.

 

But after what I've seen from the left the past year, my choice has never been more clear. Straight R on every ballot. Democrats have lost their damn minds.

 

Then your head has been in the sand as far as what the GOP has been pulling.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Seems to me that if there was an incident that she'd long put it behind her, but that she began plotting to torpedo his career when she noticed he got appointed to the DC circuit. "Fock that a$$hole Brett Kavenaugh!" It could be because she hates his politics or also it could be because he has a grudge against the guy, a grudge that could very well be for the reason she claims.

 

Unless she couldn't put it behind here and it caused her major issues in her life (which it appears it did).

A grudge against the guy? Let me guess...family foreclosure BS....why do some look for every illogical reason she might be lying...rather than the logical conclusion at this point that is very possible he did do this?

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

I'm glad you can tell which one is lying. Unfortunately, I can't. Tell us please, how you reached that conclusion.

 

Edit, also I don't think he's beyond reproach, he's an insider's insider with a bunch of sh*tbag indsider instincts and insider fixes.

 

Just like before with you when you said even if he did it...the discussion was, if he did it, it was 17 years ago so what should it matter.

The assumption that he did it was in the conversation at the time. That is how I can tell he was lying...because it was that hypothetical. Crack stated even if he did it at 17 it shouldn't matter...I disagreed.

 

I want better than all of this out of SC justices.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Do you have proof this happened? To call someone a liar without it is irrational.

FFS...can any of you follow along with the context of a conversation?

I was disagreeing with Crack when he stated even if he did it it should not be disqualifying.

Instead people will whine that I just posted a bunch in a row replying to people talking to me.