Oh, but the gang rape allegation and the second sexual assault claim were cool? They were over the top fabrications that were overblown by the liberal media in an effort to derail his confirmation. This was pure partisan politics and a character assassination attempt that rightfully failed.
IF YOU really care about the SC, why not look to his record as a judge. Did he EVER have any issues/problems/complaints/blemishes on his actual record as a judge? I'll hang up and listen (to the spin).
Oh, and the SC is the last place for partisanship? Hopefully you've condemned Ruth Bader Ginsburg on her partisan comments, too (doubtful).
A few things.
1. The background checks on K before were more superficial. It’s largely based on info the candidate volunteers. And K isn’t going to rat on himself.
Plus, there were reports that McGann limited the extended FBI inquiry, because he was afraid of what it would find if it were larger in scope. And don’t forget that Mitch M didn’t want K as the nominee- he knew that he had a lot more to look at, and would be harder to confirm. Which also explains why the supplemental FBI “investigation” was limited. The FBI literally received over a thousand calls about K’s background. And they limited their investigation into 7- and didn’t follow-up with Dr. Ford or K after the initial testimony. Many of those wouldn’t have been anything, but I don’t know how you have bread crumbs everywhere, and refuse to follow them.
In terms of a real investigation, it was an absolute joke.
And, many documents were withheld from his time working within the government. There’s good reason for that.
So, there were clearly some things that could have come out, that didn’t. You’re kidding yourself if you think this guy didn’t have some things to hide. There were a few reports that K or folks from his camp were trying to get in contact with people that could help him IF the Ramirez allegations surfaced. He clearly stated that he didn’t remember her- yet somehow they were being proactive in trying to build his case IF she came forward?
And, the gang rape allegations weren’t that he was involved- just that he was there. Those wouldn’t have gotten much investigation in the probe, if it was conducted as it should have been. I agree with you about those- they were over the top. I didn’t put any credence into the third set of allegations, and not many from the dem side either. So that’s a complete red herring.
Cmon man.
2. RBG’s comments were about Trump. She refuses to normalize his behavior. Just like everyone should. I don’t have a problem with what she said about him- these aren’t normal times thanks to him, and the reason he keeps going out of bounds is because he’s continually enabled.
In their words, you’re acting as if she did this without any provocation.
If it were someone like Rubio, Bush or Cruz that won, I’d almost guarantee that she wouldn’t have said a word.
That’s like criticizing someone for reporting a crime. Certain things shouldn’t happen, and Trump continues to do them. And what she said isn’t something that many pubs have said off the record. It’s not as if it’s a secret that people are upset with his behavior- it’s just that she had the cojones to stand up and say something. If a dem president did the chit that Trump does, I’d encourage other Dems and even SC judges to say something. Silence is enabling, in other words. Her criticism weren’t about politics.
In short, you’re setting up a false equivalency.
3. You’ve completely bought the victim defense of K. SC judges SHOULD be held to a higher standard. And the true measure of a man isn’t when things are going well- it’s what they do when they are under pressure. And K absolutely showed us that he’s a liar (he’s the one that tried to white wash his past, rather than just admit he made some mistakes) and is super partisan. Go back and look at how many outside groups called for the withdrawal of his nomination after the hearing. And these weren’t partisan groups that typically get involved in a process like this one.
How do you ignore all of that?
4. Of you believe that Dr. Ford was telling the truth (as many pubs & Manchin stated), it’s imposisble for K to not have been involved. That’s based on real data, and observations from folks that deal with sexual trauma. You may forget some details, but you will sure as hell remeber who did it you. And instead of admitting that his past wasn’t he best, he tried to change the whole narrative of his past. Which is completely wrong.
Lemme guess. You feel like men are under assault after the hearings? Serious question for you.
5. How do ignore the lies and the veiled threat towards Dems in the hearing? Even if nothing else was true, that is absolutely disqualifying.
6. There were plenty of other judges that may have been even worse from a policy viewpoint for the Dems- and I would welcome them over K, depending on whether their background checks out. In other words, someone was going to get confirmed- but it shouldn’t have been K.
It’s like I’ve said before. I’d much rather have Pence in charge vs Trump- even though his policies would have a much better chance of happening, and I loathe most of them. But again, certain things matter. The pubs have normalized what should never be considered normal.
7. No spin here. Just a viewpoint, supported by reports. And I’m far from the only one that feels the way I do- even many pubs have said he should’ve withdrawn.
Let me ask you a question- strip away his background. If a dem SC nominee replaced a pub K, would you be OK with it? In other words, a very leftist figure, that had the issues that K did. I don’t think you would be defending that candidate.
