I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between not bringing a nominee to the Senate, when you are in control of the Senate ...... and accusing a man of rape, being a drink, and even implying child abuse. To me, there's a huge difference. I am sorry if there isn't to you.
Is that different than claiming a President is not a citizen, calling him a Muslim terrorist and a communist?
Stop with the righteous indignation
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
Kavanaugh’s evasive testimony probably wouldn’t have been allowed in his own courtroom By Deanna Paul
September 28, 2018 at 2:32 PM
When Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked Brett M. Kavanaugh on Sept. 27 if he had ever experienced memory loss because of alcohol use, he asked her the same question but later apologized. (Reuters) Whether inside a federal courtroom or an Ivy League classroom, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh assumes multiple roles. They all demand respect; in each, he sets the rules.
Yet the Yale-educated Harvard law professor, who has occupied the federal bench for more than 10 years, seemed to forget the basics of legal procedure and courtroom decorum during his Thursday testimony about an allegation of sexual assault from his teenage years.
Kavanaugh’s performance in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee was histrionic. He was frequently hostile and overly emotional, behaving in a manner he would likely not tolerate in his own courtroom. He also offered the committee evidence that, in a court of law, he would know to be inadmissible.
Related: Kavanaugh vote: Jeff Flake votes to advance nominee, but calls for FBI investigation
His behavior could be consistent with two scenarios, according to former U.S. attorney and Georgetown law professor Paul Butler: someone who is wrongly being prosecuted, or someone afraid of a truth-seeking process.
The difference, obviously, is that Kavanaugh is a judge on a high federal court, a position that requires a nonpartisan temperament and respect for the judicial confirmation process.
“He feels defiant,” Butler told The Washington Post after the highly charged hearing. “If the allegations are not true, then his career, his family and his reputation have been irrevocably damaged. Anyone in his situation — that was not guilty — would feel outraged.”
But how you look at Kavanaugh’s evasiveness during the Senate Judiciary hearing will depend on whom you believe.
The committee has a constitutional responsibility to “advise and consent,” and when allegations of this nature are introduced, it must respond. Kavanaugh, familiar with the process, knows that.
Related: The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.
The one-day hearing, in which each senator had five minutes to speak, spout or inquire, was a passive response. But even that appeared to be too much for the judge to tolerate. “You have replaced advise and consent with search and destroy,” he barked at the Democrats on the panel during his opening remarks.
That defiance seemed to be a device to deflect substantive answers during the hearing. Kavanaugh interrupted and talked over senators and sometimes asked them questions. He also sat in stone-faced silence. He acted in a manner that might compel a judge to hold a witness in contempt of court.
An exemplary moment came when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) questioned Kavanaugh about excessive drinking, asking whether he had ever “blacked out” after consuming alcohol.
KAVANAUGH: “Have you?”
KLOBUCHAR: “Could you answer the question, Judge? … Is that your answer?”
KAVANAUGH: “Yeah, and I'm curious if you have.”
KLOBUCHAR: “I have no drinking problem, Judge.”
KAVANAUGH: “Yeah, nor do I.”
Related: ‘Look at me when I’m talking to you!’: Crying protester confronts Jeff Flake in Capitol elevator
From the bench, Kavanaugh surely would have shut down the dialogue immediately, making clear who was running the show.
The hearing was called to look into whether a then-17-year-old Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl. “That’s extremely serious. The fact that he’s up for a Supreme Court position means that his conduct is relevant, and we need to find out what happened,” Butler said.
Yet Kavanaugh had little tolerance for the process.
“As a federal judge, you always want the best evidence, don’t you?” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked Kavanaugh at the hearing.
As a presiding justice, Kavanaugh’s answer must be yes. Yet as the accused, that’s not what he said. Kavanaugh demurred when asked whether he would welcome an FBI investigation into the allegation, saying, “I welcome whatever the committee wants to do.”
He decried the suggestion that he take a polygraph, saying that “they’re not admissible in federal court because they’re not reliable” — even though he has in the past supported polygraphs as a valuable government tool.
He also offered affidavits in lieu of witness testimony, referring to them on at least four occasions. Yet he failed to mention, however, that the documents would also not be admissible in court. Instead, as a presiding judge, Kavanaugh would have ordered the individuals to appear in court and testify under oath.
His testimony was at times halting and his tears heartbreaking. Some of his points were valid and helpful: Kavanaugh does have a stellar record advocating for female attorneys and selecting law clerks from diverse backgrounds — 21 of his 25 clerks have been women, according to the National Law Journal.
But he came across as an “instrumentalist” who said “things he thinks he needs to say to accomplish a goal,” Butler said. “I don’t think yielding to the truth is always his repertoire.”
Perhaps Kavanaugh felt the senators were his peers, or that he was on par and in their playing field.
“That’s the thing: He acted like a defendant,” Butler said. “He’s in another branch of the government. Everyone has their own role under the Constitution, and today the role of the senators was to question him as part of the advise-and-consent process.”
Ultimately, Butler said, Kavanaugh seemed resentful that the senators were doing their job, revealing a partisan temperament unbecoming of a justice on the nation’s highest court
"It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to Congressional investigators," he said. "It is illegal to obstruct Committee investigations."
The third woman to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct faced "inappropriate conduct" allegations of her own during her brief employment with an Oregon tech firm, according to reports.
In a lawsuit filed in 2000, Portland-based Webtrends alleged that Julie Swetnick, 55, falsely claimed to be a Johns Hopkins University alum and fabricated her prior work experience, the Oregonian reported.
The company voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after a month.
Swetnick’s attorney, Michael Avenatti, called the case “completely bogus.”
“This lawsuit never had any merit as evidenced by how quickly it was dismissed," Avenatti told the paper in an email. "It was originally filed in retaliation for my client making claims against the company."
Swetnick worked for the company off-site for a few months in 2000 as a professional services engineer, according to the paper.
Allegations laid out against her in the lawsuit include engaging in unwelcome sexually offensive conduct and making false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her.
The suit claimed Swetnick engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo with two male employees at a business lunch with clients present and that she claimed two other co-workers sexually harassed her.
Webtrends, a web analytics company, determined Swetnick acted inappropriately but could not prove the allegations against her co-workers.
“Based on its investigations, Webtrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating evidence existed to support Swetnick’s allegations against her coworkers,” the complaint said.
The Daily Caller reported that Swetnick took a leave of absence during her employment for sinus issues in July 2000 and was given short-term disability payments.
One week after the payments stopped in mid-August, Webtrends received a note from Swetnick’s doctor claiming she suffered a nervous breakdown and needed to take another leave of absence.
Weeks later, the company was informed that she had applied for unemployment benefits in Washington, D.C.
She never explained to Webtrends' human resources staff why she applied for the benefits and claimed they had illegally tried to obtain her privileged medical information.
In 2001, after her employment with the company ended, Swetnick’s ex-boyfriend filed a restraining order against her in Florida, Politico reported.
Richard Vinneccy claimed that Swetnick threatened him and his family after he ended their four-year relationship.
“She was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy told Politico.
"I know a lot about her. She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
Avenatti called Vinneccy’s assertions against his client “complete nonsense,” according to the report.
"No truth to this at all," he said.
Swetnick became the third women to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. In a sworn statement to a judge, she said Kavanaugh was “verbally abusive toward girls,” a “mean drunk” and would “spike” the punch at high school house parties.
Swetnick added that she remembered seeing Kavanaugh and other boys lined up outside a room at a party, waiting for their “turn” with an inebriated girl.
“In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present,” Swetnick says in her statement, though she didn't explicitly accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her. “During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me. I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking.”
On Thursday the White House instructed the FBI to question two women who have alleged sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
But the parameters of the new and limited FBI probe don’t include interviewing Swetnick, according to a report on Saturday in the Wall Street Journal.
OK, who triggered Vambo? Must have been a good one because he has meme post diarrhea... Poor poor Vambo doesn't grasp how misled and fragile his delusional worldview is people. You can NOT trigger him then leave him alone with an internet connection or this is what happens! It will take days for him to recreate his safe space... I hope you are happy!
I find the narrative that Cons have created very interesting. "If you don't accept this accused sexual deviant, you will be so sorry, because we will unleash a woman on you."
I find the narrative that Cons have created very interesting. "If you don't accept this accused sexual deviant, you will be so sorry, because we will unleash a woman on you."
You haven't proven that he is yet. You're all upset because a woman made an accusation and we all said okay, prove it.
And then you all said A WOMAN SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE!
And we are still saying prove it.
Not our fault the way this was all handled, you were the ones with the accusation you were sitting on.
It happened this way because you all mishandled it.
Just ask swish.
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
Well I expected a retort like that - but you did it better/nicer than I was expecting.
I don't see why the thread doesn't deserve discussion - it seems as if those that want to dismiss Rose out of hand simply say that because she didn't report the incident back then - it's too convenient that she comes forward now. The presumption being that all victims of sex crimes normally come forward soon after it happens. BUT sex crimes often go unreported. What Rose has in her favor is that she was undoubtedly a victim - and this was reported and recorded in 2012 in a session with her therapist. . . . You can't deny this --- What would be the basis ? She was lying to her therapist in 2012 - because that was decades after the attack???
So knowing that she was attacked. Knowing that so much of the recounting of the event, people and place is credible and could very well have involved Kavanaugh -- why wouldn't an investigation be warranted given what's at stake??
It's that simple.
The rush by Trump to dismiss the claims - the unwillingness to go through due process - the way Lindsey Graham has behaved ... all shameful and total politics. Nothing to do with the Nation's best interests.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
I think she is a liar, HOWEVER I could be wrong. I don't think In am but it wouldn't be the first time. I also have no problem with the FBI taking a week and investigating this crap (yes I think it's crap either way) either she is a liar and people are believing her, or he is a liar and people are believing him. Either way it sucks.
Will 'Auntie Maxine' inspire Dems or cost them in November? Rep. Maxine Waters is leading the Democratic charge toward the midterms, and her weapon of choice is indiscriminate hate. In a speech last weekend, she vowed that Democrats would impeach not only President Trump, but Vice President Pence as well.
U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters on Saturday denounced allegations that a member of her staff had posted the personal information of three Republican U.S. senators onto the lawmakers' Wikipedia pages.
The Los Angeles Democrat asserted that the claims were being pedaled by “ultra-right wing” pundits and websites. “Lies, lies, and more despicable lies,” Waters said in a statement on Twitter.
The released information reportedly included the home addresses and phone numbers for U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch, both of Utah.
The information appeared online Thursday, posted by an unknown person on Capitol Hill during a Senate panel's hearing on the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
The leak came sometime after the three senators had questioned Kavanaugh.
Conservative sites such as Gateway Pundit and RedState reported that the IP address that identifies the source of the posts was associated with Waters’ office and released the information of a member of Waters' staff, the Hill reported.
“This unfounded allegation is completely false and an absolute lie," Waters continued. “The member of my staff – whose identity, personal information, and safety have been compromised as a result of these fraudulent and false allegations – was in no way responsible for the leak of this information.”
“This unfounded allegation is completely false and an absolute lie. The member of my staff – whose identity, personal information, and safety have been compromised as a result of these fraudulent and false allegations – was in no way responsible for the leak of this information.”
- U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Waters' statement quickly drew criticism online, including from former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.
“This denial is angry," Fleischer wrote. "This suggests she doesn’t have the temperment to be a Member of Congress. When someone is accused of something they didn’t do, they must not be angry. They must not be defiant. They must not question the motives of the accuser. They must be calm and serene."
Fleischer was appearing to compare Waters' reaction to the Democrats' criticism of Judge Kavanaugh, who was accused by critics of seeming too angry during Thursday's hearing.
Omar Navarro, a Republican candidate running to unseat Waters in the midterm elections, also voiced his thoughts on Twitter. “Big if true,” he tweeted.
In her statement, Waters said her office had alerted "the appropriate authorities and law enforcement entities of these fraudulent claims. "We will ensure that the perpetrators will be revealed," she continued, "and that they will be held legally liable for all of their actions that are destructible and dangerous to any and all members of my staff.”
I also know what the rest of the left has said as well.
No, you don't. You only know what FOX news has told you the Left is saying.
You should have asked first. I could have told you that there is a healthy debate/discussion going on over here. But don't bother now. You know what you know.
I also know what the rest of the left has said as well.
No, you don't. You only know what FOX news has told you the Left is saying.
You should have asked first. I could have told you that there is a healthy debate/discussion going on over here. But don't bother now. You know what you know.
smdh
Stop shakin' your head gramps. I don't watch Fox News. I watch YOU. I listen to Glenn Beck and that's it for my political stuff for the day.
The rest of it is here, and everyone here convicted this man before he was even questioned.
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
You still ave no concept of what's really going on do you?
Nobody is or has "convicted" anyone.
You do understand that this is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, right?
You do realize that this FBI probe is only to collect information and possible evidence that surround these incidents, correct? You do understand this isn't a trial so nobody is actually found innocent or guilty right?
You do understand this is really no different than a background check for a job, right?
No, you think it's some left wing conspiracy because you're only willing to listen to what you're told from one side. Typical.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Yep, if she's lying and we bought it, the worst thing that happens to Kavanaugh is that he gets to keep his current job for the rest of his life. People act like he's going to get drawn and quartered by Ford supporters.
Yep, if she's lying and we bought it, the worst thing that happens to Kavanaugh is that he gets to keep his current job for the rest of his life. People act like he's going to get drawn and quartered by Ford supporters.
No, the worst thing has already happened. You took an honest family man with years of excellent service to our country and dragged his name, reputation and family through the mud with zero proof, all because you hate our duly elected President.
Yep, if she's lying and we bought it, the worst thing that happens to Kavanaugh is that he gets to keep his current job for the rest of his life. People act like he's going to get drawn and quartered by Ford supporters.
No, the worst thing has already happened. You took an honest family man with years of excellent service to our country and dragged his name, reputation and family through the mud with zero proof, all because you hate our duly elected President.
Pure evil. #Unhinged #Hate #TrueColors
The mark of a true Browns fan. When staring at a bad scenario, they automatically think it's the worst possible scenario.
Graham rips Dems on Kavanaugh, says he'll 'get to the bottom of' FBI probe
Sen. Lindsey Graham promised Sunday he'll "to get to the bottom of" the FBI investigation into the sexual assault allegations leveled against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and said that his own investigation into how the Democrats have handled the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation hearings has only just begun.
“I’m going to get to the bottom of it,” Graham, R-S.C., told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
The longtime South Carolina senator said that, among other things, he wanted to find out how the letter from Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was leaked to the press, who recommended that she hire her lawyer and what role the Democrats played in bringing these allegations against the judge to light.
“This was about delaying the nomination” Graham added. “This can be played out over time and destroy the ability of good people to come forward.”
“I’ve known Brett for 20 years,” Graham said. “They tried to ruin his life.”
Yea, Lindsey graham definitely auditioning for that AG spot.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I also know what the rest of the left has said as well.
No, you don't. You only know what FOX news has told you the Left is saying.
You should have asked first. I could have told you that there is a healthy debate/discussion going on over here. But don't bother now. You know what you know.
smdh
Stop shakin' your head gramps. I don't watch Fox News. I watch YOU. I listen to Glenn Beck and that's it for my political stuff for the day.
The rest of it is here, and everyone here convicted this man before he was even questioned.
Yep, if she's lying and we bought it, the worst thing that happens to Kavanaugh is that he gets to keep his current job for the rest of his life. People act like he's going to get drawn and quartered by Ford supporters.
No, the worst thing has already happened. You took an honest family man with years of excellent service to our country and dragged his name, reputation and family through the mud with zero proof, all because you hate our duly elected President.
Cotton says Feinstein will be investigated over leaked letter by Kavanaugh accuser
Sen. Tom Cotton said Sunday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office will be investigated to determine whether or not they leaked the confidential letter from Christine Blasey Ford that detailed allegations of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
