Monday, December 2, 2019
Ritaruby
Great, Republicans! Now nominate to the highest court in the land for a lifetime appointment a would be rapist - adding that to his issues with telling the truth under oath and a possible gambling problem...or payoff by Trump, the Republicans (or maybe even Russia?) - where did the millions of money he was in debt for which "disappeared' right when Trump came into office go?

And where are the WOMEN Senators on this? Collins says she spoke to Kavanaugh the other night and "he says he did not do it." Murkowski so far is silent...Graham, Flake and Sasse say she should be allowed to testify and be heard.

She has retained an Attorney. I think she needs Avanetti! Thoughts. comments, links, correction? This story really rattles me..this candidate has enough baggage for an entire large airport and the Republicans try to hide it from the Dems and literally PUSH and RAM through his confirmation THIS WEEK POSSIBLY! BLOOD BOILING HERE!
Quote 2 0
Ballhawk
I think at this stage it is impossible to make an informed judgment on the question of whether Kavanaugh did or did not do what Ms. Ford alleges.  Her clinical treatment around 2012 and her passing a lie detector test both tend to support her story.  It now appears that she will testify before the committee, so that testimony will give them a chance to evaluate the situation.........her assertions in relation to Kavanaugh's denials.  I do wonder if the woman reported the incident to her parents, friends, or authorities at the time it allegedly occurred when both she and Kavanaugh were teenagers, and, if so, whether any of that will be heard or examined by the Senate.  I do think the other teen in the room, Mr. Judge, should be called to testify.  As we know, additional context to the Kavanaugh matter lie in the following:  (1) Kavanaugh was not on the earliest list of prospective nominees and was later added after his pro-executive branch biases were known in combination with the fact that issues on Trump might rise to the SCOTUS level, i.e. he was seen as a prospective pro-Trump justice (2) The GOP blocked committee access to a very large portion of Kavanaugh's earlier writing which would indicate his leanings on various issues, meaning they have something to hide, and (3) the fact that a clearly qualified Obama nominee Merrick Garland was not even allowed as far as the hearings process, thereby eliminated in partisan fashion which was clearly political. 
Quote 0 0
Ritaruby
Ballhawk, I personally believe this woman and think she is telling the truth. And is it not a coincidence that when she brought up this issue "suddenly" 65 other classmates-women-came to Kavanaugh's defense? I think they were paid off. Diane Feinstein held onto this woman's original letter to her since July - not sure why - would have been a "better look" to bring it up then right before the week he is due to be confirmed-but I am glad she reported it to the FBI and that this woman put her name out there and will testify. I don't envy her and Reporters asked Susan Collins for comment and she said she spoke with Kavanaugh and he says he did not do it and (as you said) "it's impossible at this stage to make a judgement." But as you point out, Kavanaugh already has lots of other "taints" in his record - which the Republicans hid from the Democrats and which they are even now slowly finding out about-possibly gambling problem-illegal payoff and of course his views. If he is confirmed I hope the #MeToo movement goes full on out against him. Given all of the other things he has done and his views this makes me think even more that he was capable of the attempted rape/assault. I agree with you that Mr Judge should also testify...not sure why he is not being called. Unfortunately, I think Kavanaugh may be confirmed anyway. A good sign is that Graham, Sasse and Corker have said she should have a right to testify (not that this may change their vote) but where are the WOMEN in the Senate here - on both sides, they should all be - in my opinion - raising hell. Attempted rapes and assaults rarely have witnesses and it to me is obvious that Mr. Judge lied. Kavanaugh turned his back on that Gold Star dad - I think he is scum - and even another right winger would be an improvement over him.
Quote 1 0
Ballhawk
I am not sure of this but I think the reason Sen. Feinstein delayed releasing the letter was that Ms. Ford had not yet given the OK for her name to be revealed.  If there were 65 women who vouched for the character of Kavanaugh I doubt they would have been paid for it, because news of such a mass payoff project would be eventually learned and exposed by the press, which would weaken the pro-Kavanaugh forces in the public eye.  Such advocacy by those women might be a positive for Kavanaugh but those 65 women were not in the room where the assault occurred (if it did occur), so they were not witnesses.  I know how rowdy things can become when you have a bunch of young people boozing, when inhibitions are lowered, when stuff happens that would not happen ordinarily.  In those age ranges the behavior of partying people, male and female, can be modified by the consumption of alcohol and drugs.  I am not justifying what Kavanaugh did, if he did it, only suggesting that such incidents are not uncommon.  Many of the sexual encounters that occur are consensual, not forced.  If Ms. Ford gives convincing testimony and if the GOP majority confirms him anyway, the Republican Party will pay a price for what many voters, especially women, will consider an insensitive outlook.  They may get their nominee seated on SCOTUS but the roiling of emotions will carry forward into election votes, especially if Ms. Ford is not treated respectfully by the committee.  
Quote 0 0
Ritaruby
Ballhawk, you raise valid points...except...that I do disagree with you-I believe the woman accuser. I read she passed a lie detector test as well. And did you catch the article in our newsletter today where the writer - and at least I believe one other writer (finally!) picked up on the fact that this letter from 65 women who knew Kavanaugh back then - though he went to an all boys' prep school and they did not - SUDDENLY showed up? I think the Repugs are MORE than capable of getting the names of women who knew Kavanaugh with or without their permission and "persuading" them - if not with money than with other favors like preferential treatment such as if any of them ever committed a crime which came before him-I don't know what the favors are but I smell a stinking RAT. And let me offer some other information here. I personally had a similar experience. There are never witnesses - deliberately - and being drunk is no excuse. And let's take a look at Kavanaugh's record of telling the truth so far - haven't the Dems caught him lying under oath several times in the "hidden" then captured documents? This is pure BS and if they elect him I hope that EVERY WOMAN ALIVE AND THEIR HUSBANDS OR PARTNERS AND FRIENDS show up on Kavanaugh's doorstep of his home, where he works, everywhere. And if confirmed more than ever there BETTER BE A BLUE WAVE! I am not ranting at YOU but you say you don't know whether or not he did what she said he did. I can tell you he did and the Repugs will try and cover it up. I challenge more Journalists to have the 65 women who signed that letter come forward and testify under oath about what stellar character he has. Sorry, this story hits me personally and also as a woman and a Democrat - and no matter what she testifies they will confirm him...look who's President? Anyone remember the Access Hollywood tape here? The hush money payoffs, etc. Abusers stick together. When Al Franken was accused he immediately was taken out of the job without even an ethics investigation-on a lesser charge!. The Repugs like GYM Jordan stay in office. Thanks for letting me sound off and again, Ballhawk, I am not intending to rant at you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And you all have just read mine. This was not consensual, by the way. Just throwing that in. Why would the woman put herself through all she will be going through-attack by Trump, his supporters, etc. if it were not true? She is not asking for money. She is just asking that we not elect a would be rapist to the highest office in the land.
Quote 1 0
otmichele
Trump and everyone connected with him truly believe they will never get caught, hence 65 names is not impossibly to believe there might have been deals made.  It is hard to think like a crook when you aren't one.
Quote 0 0
otmichele
I also believe that we currently have such a small portion of the pie information machine, that we need to wait until we have more.  We might have gaps filled in once she testifies.  My eyes will be glued to the television on the 18th.
Quote 0 0
Ballhawk
I agree with otmichele that we need to wait until we have more information before forming a conclusion.  Thanks for the info that the matter will be televised on the 18th.  I suspect the woman will be persuasive in her testimony, which means that if the Republicans push for Kavanaugh confirmation in spite of that and/or if they are disrespectful to the woman, it will cost them at the ballot box.  I tend to think there's a higher probability the incident occurred than did not occur, but I refuse to come to a personal conclusion without more information.  
Quote 0 0
Ritaruby
Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about this case. And I've posted mine. I was about to say 'It's a free country" but I'm not sure that applies anymore. I also did not realize that the testimony will be televised tomorrow. Hope I get to watch - or can stand to watch.
Quote 0 0
Ritaruby
otmichele, as I said here to Ballhawk, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I feel strongly given the scenario and the individual in question that the accuser is credible and the incident occurred. Her testimony - and his - will be interesting.
Quote 1 0
Ritaruby
Agreed about the 65 names, otmichele - and they "suddenly" appeared - not prior during his hearing. And yes, it is difficult to think like a crook when you are not one. Fortunately, I believe all or most of us can not get in Trump's head (thank God!) or any of the other serving GOP or this candidate's-the last refers to my opinion on him in general and belief in the accuser. The sudden 65 names are too suspicious to me. I'm glad this woman came forward and we only know bits and pieces still about Kavanaugh's background - some of it shady - because I don't believe the Dems have ALL of his documents yet. Correct me if I am wrong please.
Quote 1 0
otmichele
I am with you 100%, now the hearing is on Monday instead of tomorrow.  I do agree with a couple of the democratic senators that there should be an FBI investigation before they put this poor woman out to dry there at the senate.  I am old enough to remember Anita Hill and she was hung out to dry in an awful manner.  One of the worst times in our history of the senate.
Quote 0 0
Ritaruby
Thanks otmichele. I agree also that there should be a complete FBI investigation-which I understand must be requested by the White House - and let's face it, that will never happen. Trump is trying to dismantle the FBI and expresses hatred towards them - plus the Republicans are rushing this important nomination through so quickly it is kind of insane to me. We all know why, but still. I also remember the Anita Hill situation and hope this turns out better. As I post this unfortunately the accuser has not responded back to Grassley confirming she will be there on Monday and they plan to call a woman friend of Kavanaugh's to testify on his behalf - I hope she responds and has people testifying on HER behalf. Did you - did anyone hear that she obtained a letter signed by 200 people who knew or know her and can vouch for her character (compared to his 65 - and that list is still questionable to me). As mentioned I do believe her. Many Democratic Senators do also but of course an FBI investigation is the only thorough and fair way to go...but we won't get it. "SAD."
Quote 0 0