Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
A woman has come forward alleging that Kavanaugh tried to rape her. The Democrats who knew of the letter reportedly tried to suppress it. The suppression failed. But you're nevertheless insisting that the discovery of the allegations proves this is "solely a cheap political tactic by the Democrats?" Where are the tactics here?
I thought Feinstein was the only one that wanted to hold it and the other Democrats wanted to do something with it. Regardless, it was leaked that she had it and then leaked that she gave it to the FBI. SOME Democrats wanted this out there and IF this is nothing more than an unsupported allegation about an incident that happened (or didn't happen)more than 30 years ago when both of the people were minors, than yes, it is a cheap political tactic by [some] Democrats.
The Farrow/Mayer report (which you've obviously not read) says that the accuser provided the letter to at least two members of Congress and also discussed it with friends, but it wouldn't be surprising if news of the letter leaked out from Feinstein's office. Nevertheless, the secret held for months. There's no evidence of any efforts by Feinstein to publicize this. To the contrary, she reportedly tried to suppress it. That suppression failed.
The real story about Feinstein is that the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't even inform other Democratic members of the committee about the letter. She tried to keep it to herself. And now she's cast as the villain in a plot to disclose the letter at the 11th hour. I hope she's enjoying the irony.
You're not grasping that no one yet knows what the facts are. Democrats like Feinstein tried and failed to keep the letter a secret. It looks like that was a mistake, but it's not at all the mistake you think.
Your eagerness to argue the merits when you don't know the facts illustrates how motivated your reasoning is here.
I skimmed it on my cell so I missed that two members had it. I read all of a couple of other articles and they only mentioned Feinstein. However, IF this is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation, releasing this toward the end of the process is exactly why it is a cheap political tactic by some people desperate to throw some shade on the nominee just before the confirmation vote. Even if they can't persuade any of the likely Democrats votes for confirmation or either of the reportedly possible to flip Republican votes, they've succeeded in throwing some red meat to the hyper-partisan moonbats on their side to forever taint Kavanaugh as a USSC Justice.
I believe the only fact I didn't know at this point (from the reporting) is that two Democrats had the letter instead of just one. I don't believe that's much of a thing, but you can if you'd like.
You've gone from zero to outrage in no facts, and you seem pretty determined to stay outraged.
futue te ipsum
Without overcogitating it, I think he's grouchy. Maybe it's a phase....or manopause.
I'm not outraged. I've seen nothing in this process that I didn't fully expect so why would I be outraged?
I am outraged about the state of my golf swing. I was a single digit handicap so I didn't expect to shoot in the 90s like I have been the last couple years. That really outrages me.
If you weren't kneeling while typing that it was twice as disrespectful.
Aloha, I have to admit, you're my favorite mathematician!If you weren't kneeling while typing that it was twice as disrespectful.
I can do some addition and stuff . . .
Pretty rare for a conservative. Most only know subtraction and division.
The way this letter was handled is outrageous. Nobody knows if DiFi acted in good faith throughput. It might be she was played by her overzealous staff, or she was negligent, or she was deliberately calculating. DiFi is made an outrageous and false claim about deaths from illegal abortions during the confirmation hearing so she isn’t immune to the Democratic outrageous and excessively political method of looking at Kavanaugh.
What behavior specifically are you concluding constitutes "attempted rape"? I'm not sure that we really know that yet, do we? The most detail I've heard is that he's alleged to have attempted to "force himself on her" . . . what does that mean? Does that mean "attempted rape" automatically? Or just that he was more physically amorous than the girl expected/wanted?
I would agree with you if there is proof of what constituted a crime at the time . . . but I don't agree with (a) making unsubstantiated - and unsubstantiable - allegations if those allegation are for the purpose of smearing a SCOTUS candidate in an effort to derail the nomination, or (b) using an adult standard for the behavior of a kid, for the purpose of smearing a decades-later SCOTUS candidate in an effort to derail the nomination. It carries with it a whiff of discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent, quite frankly.
BTW, I am not in support of Kavanaugh's candidacy for SCOTUS . . . I just think the standard you're trying to impose here is both disproportionately applicable to men and is a slippery slope that could come back to bite otherwise qualified candidates whose nomination you and/or I would want to support.
The Republicans threw out the rule book and turned the slope into a cliff when they refused to hear the Garland nomination.
Be that as it may, I have a question. If Maryland has no statute of limitations on rape, how does that interact with trying an adult for a juvenile rape? Still tried as a juvenile or what?
The sanctimoniousness of some of you is really silly. Each side has been tearing pages out of the book and destroying them for judicial nominations over the past three decades. It's a tit for tat all the way.
(1) I hear you. I'm trying to get back to a standards-based relationship with those with whom I don't always agree. The "y'all do it too" excuse is for NPT's posts . . . that's all he ever posts here. I think we can do better than that.
(2) I have no idea how the Maryland statute of limitations affects whatever type of charges might be filed from the allegations against Kavanaugh. If there is none, these allegations would be a good Exhibit A as to the wisdom of having an applicable statute of limitations.
It's fascinating to see you complaining about sanctimoniousness in the same thread as your clamoring for Senator Feinstein's censure.
We do not know of any such "attempted rape". ZERO. Unless and until the complainant, if there actually is one, comes forward with identity, this is nothing at all and has no meaning in the law. Now zeke who jumps to all the false conclusions the MSM can conjur up and publish decides its attempted rape and that, dear posters, is, thus far, utterly false and not even part of the false claim.
You don't know that the claim - which has been made, but anonymously - is false, is supported by contemporaneous evidence or is a mere allegation.
Thank you for discrediting yourself, yet again.
BTW, I'm thinking that Feinstein has acted honorably in holding onto the letter, and then in the interests of transparency, releasing the letter publicly when the fact of its existence has become more widely known.
False equivalence, hyperbole, whataboutism, ad hominem, anything else you got? The Pubs set a new precedent by not even hearing the Garland Supreme Court nomination. If I were a Democrat, that's a red line like never before. Gloves off.* No more red lines needed.
* And btw, if you think a self-righteous liberal can't land a blow, I feel sorry for your progeny.
You like to smell your own farts.You guys can’t smell your own farts.
There wasn’t a single insult in that post and I stand by every word of it. I’ve been over the steps each side has take on this path several times.
Yeah, I can see you standing...
Bork was no crossed red line in comparison. Name a real red line on a SC nominee. Plus, conservatives got Clarence Thomas who never should have been approved.
I’ve already been over it and I’m on the golf course about to tee off. I’m out.Yeah, I can see you standing...
Bork was no crossed red line in comparison. Name a real red line on a SC nominee. Plus, conservatives got Clarence Thomas who never should have been approved.
That’s why I said if. And I don’t think anyone knows. Every woman has had unwanted advances. It’s impossible to know, but the facts that she alleges that the guys locked the doors and turned up music makes it seem like it was a planned attack. But the fact that she got away, also may mean that they were either super drunk or not that serious. It’s impossible to tell without more information, which we aren’t likely to get.
Planned attack? That was a romantic setting where I come from.
I'm not outraged. I've seen nothing in this process that I didn't fully expect so why would I be outraged?
I am outraged about the state of my golf swing. I was a single digit handicap so I didn't expect to shoot in the 90s like I have been the last couple years. That really outrages me.
I am outraged with my swing at this moment. Yesterday I shot 4 under on the back nine on my own ball. Today in senior two man best ball tournament me and my partner shot 3 over on the back nine. I want to blame on old age but choking is a better explanation
. . . with the White Album playing backwards . . .
. . . oops, did I just make a social faux pas?
Last edited:
Tit all the tats you want, but the Garland obstruction was a nuclear blast that outshone all previous Senatorial obstruction of judicial candidates combined. The Senate GOP wanted to prevent Obama from filling the seat, not only in the hopes that a Republican president would fill it instead, but also that the open seat would help increase conservative turnout in November. But they didn't want to have to go on the record and reject a supremely qualified individual. So they did the most cowardly, despicable alternative they could find: they simply refused to do the jobs the voters had elected them to do. In a hundred years, when someone writes The Decline and Fall of the United States Senate, the Garland nomination will get its own chapter.
Don’t like it, but I don’t pretend I can’t smell them.You like to smell your own farts.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Can government policy end, or significantly decrease, childhood trauma?- Latest: Baller23Boogie
-
-
-
