Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[BmorePat87]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/20/ralph-norman-jokes-about-sexual-assault-833194

South Carolina congressman Ralph Norman joked about sexual assault, telling a debate crowd the reason he was late was for the debate was there was news regarding Kavanaugh.

"Did y'all hear the latest, late-breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings? Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out that she was groped by Abraham Lincoln.”

[GMDino]

Why wouldn't the alleged victim want a hearing without an investigation I wonder?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-furor-over-mike-davis-tweets/1366391002/

Quote:'Unfazed and determined': Top Grassley aide vows to confirm Kavanaugh despite allegations


WASHINGTON – Mike Davis, the chief counsel on nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee under Chairman Chuck Grassley, is being criticized for two tweets he posted and then deleted that called into question his objectivity regarding the sexual assault allegation that has been made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. 

"Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh. #ConfirmKavanaugh," read screengrabs of a deleted tweet sent from Davis' account at 10:22 p.m. EDT on Wednesday. 

About two hours later, Davis sent another tweet reading, "I personally questioned Judge Kavanaugh under penalty of felony and 5 years imprisonment, if he lies. I'm waiting to hear back from the accuser's attorneys, who can't find time between TV appearances to get back to me." 

Those tweets sparked an uproar as some Twitter users interpreted them as evidence that Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, will not be given a fair hearing if she accepts Grassley's invitation to testify about her accusation before the committee on Monday. 

Quote:Chris Hayes

@chrislhayes
[/url]




"unfazed" - not really even pretending
Tim Dickinson@7im

clearly open to new information on the nominee



11:56 PM - Sep 19, 2018

• 
  5,526
• 
  1,598 people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy



View image on Twitter

Quote:Amy Siskind

@Amy_Siskind





This is a tweet by Mike Davis, @ChuckGrassley’s chief counsel. They don’t actually have a desire to hear Dr. Ford and get to the truth. Republicans plan to push their guy through - whatever it takes.
10:32 AM - Sep 20, 2018

• 
  351
• 
  348 people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Quote:
Judd Legum

@JuddLegum





If you want to know why Ford doesn't trust Grassley's staff to conduct an impartial investigation, check out these two tweets from Grassley's chief counsel, which he subsequently deleted

There is no intention to uncover the truth, only to confirm Kavanaugh by any means necessary
10:29 AM - Sep 20, 2018

• 
  1,755
• 
  1,273 people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy



After deleting those tweets and briefly locking his account, Davis sent another one on Thursday morning that was meant "to clear up any confusion." 

"I was referring to Democrats' partisan political attacks and their refusal to take part in the committee's thorough and fair investigation," he wrote. "I deleted the tweet to avoid any further misrepresentation by left wing media as so often happens on Twitter." 

Quote:
Mike Davis@mrddmia





To clear up any confusion, I was referring to Democrats’ partisan political attacks and their refusal to take part in the committee’s thorough and fair investigation. I deleted the tweet to avoid any further misinterpretation by left wing media as so often happens on Twitter.
10:12 AM - Sep 20, 2018

• 
  360
• 
  1,978 people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy



Grassley sent Ford and her attorneys a letter on Wednesday explaining that she must submit a biography and a prepared statement by Friday if she intends to address the committee on Monday. 

The Iowa Republican said that by "hearing out both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, the Committee will endeavor to discover the truth of the matter, and will be better able to make an informed judgment about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination." 

Davis and spokespersons for the Judiciary Committee did not immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment. Grassley's office did not comment but emailed a link to Davis' tweet that he said was intended to "clear up any confusion." 

Several Twitter users were unsatisfied with Davis' clarification. 

Quote:
Mike Davis@mrddmia

 · 6h



To clear up any confusion, I was referring to Democrats’ partisan political attacks and their refusal to take part in the committee’s thorough and fair investigation. I deleted the tweet to avoid any further misinterpretation by left wing media as so often happens on Twitter.

Quote:
zedster@z3dster


I don't know, seems like you were pretty proud of yourself there pic.twitter.com/hv8mlSKibt
10:32 AM - Sep 20, 2018

• 
  603
• 
  86 people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Quote:
Mike Davis@mrddmia

 · 6h



To clear up any confusion, I was referring to Democrats’ partisan political attacks and their refusal to take part in the committee’s thorough and fair investigation. I deleted the tweet to avoid any further misinterpretation by left wing media as so often happens on Twitter.

Quote:
sethedel@sethedel


Dude. You wrote “we will confirm judge Kavanaugh”. How we supposed to view that any other way. No worries. Voters like myself will vote out old partisan hacks like your guy & hatch
10:45 AM - Sep 20, 2018

• 
  305
• 
  56 people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Quote:
Mike Davis@mrddmia

 · 6h



To clear up any confusion, I was referring to Democrats’ partisan political attacks and their refusal to take part in the committee’s thorough and fair investigation. I deleted the tweet to avoid any further misinterpretation by left wing media as so often happens on Twitter.

Quote:
Stellaa the 18th angry Democrat@stellaaaa


Darling, there is no misinterpretation, you are rushing to get a tainted political operative on #SCOTUS by any means necessary.
11:22 AM - Sep 20, 2018

• 
  60
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/stellaaaa]See Stellaa the 18th angry Democrat's other Tweets
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

[Vas Deferens]

(09-20-2018, 03:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Hmmmm....you seem to know a lot about this person.  

Dude’s micro breadcrumbs were easy to follow. Total idiot. PERIOD.

If you want to buy a busted ass tear down property in the Orlando area from a POS with a criminal record though; I can point you in the right direction.

[GMDino]

The women for Kavanaugh are mostly men. https://t.co/9i4aj3CUDv

— Adam Jentleson ? (@AJentleson) September 20, 2018

[GMDino]

This conservative just posted an entire thread on twitter claiming Ford might have mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else...and then posted that person's name and photo.

Okay, I’ll begin laying out some information concerning Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018

Yes, I am sharing the original post.  It is public knowledge now.

From his twitter info:

Quote:Ed Whelan
@EdWhelanEPPC
President, Ethics and Public Policy Center; blogger on NRO's Bench Memos; recovering lawyer; Nats and Caps fan; co-editor of SCALIA SPEAKS

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What makes the woman credible and the man not credible?

Are those in this thread against the man because he's a man or because he's a Republican?
Are those in this thread against the woman because she's a woman or because she's a Democrat?

[GMDino]

(09-21-2018, 09:39 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: What makes the woman credible and the man not credible?

Are those in this thread against the man because he's a man or because he's a Republican?
Are those in this thread against the woman because she's a woman or because she's a Democrat?

I am (and have been) for taking accusations at face value, investigating them and then deciding.  The best thing we can do is listen and then look into it rather than say she is lying or he is lying.

One thing about this is she asked for an investigation.  Does that sound like someone who is probably lying to you?  

Had she not put her name to it or asked for the FBI to get involved I'd lean more toward this being a political ploy than I do.  that doesn't mean it's 100% true...it means it should be looked into more than just a cursory glance.

[GMDino]

Such a sad LITTLE man.

I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn  date, time, and place!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 21, 2018

[GMDino]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-religious-voters.html

Quote:Evangelical Leaders Are Frustrated at G.O.P. Caution on Kavanaugh Allegation


Image
Ralph Reed, the social conservative leader, said if Senate Republicans fail to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, “it will be very difficult to motivate and energize faith-based and conservative voters in November.”CreditCreditMike Cohen for The New York Times


Worried their chance to cement a conservative majority on the Supreme Court could slip away, a growing number of evangelical and anti-abortion leaders are expressing frustration that Senate Republicans and the White House are not protecting Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh more forcefully from a sexual assault allegation and warning that conservative voters may stay home in November if his nomination falls apart.

Several of these leaders, including ones with close ties to the White House and Senate Republicans, are urging Republicans to move forward with a confirmation vote imminently unless the woman who accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford, agrees to share her story with the Senate Judiciary Committee within the next few days.

Dr. Blasey’s lawyers told the committee Thursday that she was willing to testify next week, pending negotiations over “terms that are fair,” but not on Monday as Senate Republicans had wanted.

The evangelical leaders’ pleas are, in part, an attempt to apply political pressure: Some of them are warning that religious conservatives may feel little motivation to vote in the midterm elections unless Senate Republicans move the nomination out of committee soon and do more to defend Judge Kavanaugh from what they say is a desperate Democratic ploy to prevent President Trump from filling future court vacancies.

“One of the political costs of failing to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is likely the loss of the United States Senate,” said Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition who is in frequent contact with the White House.

“If Republicans were to fail to defend and confirm such an obviously and eminently qualified and decent nominee,” Mr. Reed added, “then it will be very difficult to motivate and energize faith-based and conservative voters in November.”

The evangelist Franklin Graham, one of Mr. Trump’s most unwavering defenders, told the Christian Broadcasting Network this week, “I hope the Senate is smarter than this, and they’re not going to let this stop the process from moving forward and confirming this man.”

Social conservatives are already envisioning a worst-case scenario related to Judge Kavanaugh, and they say it is not a remote one. Republican promises to shift the Supreme Court further to the right — which just a few days ago seemed like a fait accompli — have been one of the major reasons conservatives say they are willing to tolerate an otherwise dysfunctional Republican-controlled government. If Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination fails, and recent political history is any guide, voters will most likely point the finger not at Mr. Trump but at Republican lawmakers.

To be sure, evangelicals leaders are trying to push Senate leaders to stiffen their resolve to force the Kavanaugh confirmation to a vote at a time when it may be politically perilous to do so. And the likelihood that the base will stay home in November and risk handing the Senate to the Democrats may be relatively low, given how popular Mr. Trump remains with white evangelicals.


The reason the prospect of Judge Kavanaugh’s defeat is so alarming to conservatives is that they fear he could be the last shot at reshaping the nation’s highest court for years. If Republicans were to lose control of the Senate, where they hold a 51-to-49 majority, in November, Mr. Trump would find it difficult to get anyone confirmed before the end of the year. Even if Senate leaders were able to schedule hearings and hold a vote, there could be defections from Republican senators uneasy about using a lame duck session to ram through a lifetime appointment that would tip the court’s ideological balance.

Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas and one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal evangelical supporters, said he did not know who was telling the truth, Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Blasey. “But I can say with absolute certainty,” he added, “that the Democrats don’t care who is telling the truth. Their only interest is in delaying and derailing this confirmation.”

In pressing for a quick resolution, conservatives are making a risky bet that the jubilation from their own base over Judge Kavanaugh’s speedy confirmation would outweigh the likely backlash from independent voters they need — especially women.


“The White House is walking a tightrope,” Mr. Jeffress said. “They cannot summarily dismiss these allegations and alienate G.O.P. and independent female voters in the midterms. Neither can they abandon a nominee they and their base strongly support.”


On Thursday, more groups affiliated with the religious right piled on: Concerned Women of America’s legislative action committee sent a blast to its members urging “No More Delays,” and the American Family Association sent out another, “Confirm Kavanaugh Now!”

The importance of the Supreme Court to the Trump White House and the Republican Party is difficult to overstate. Mr. Trump has heralded Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Judge Kavanaugh, his two Supreme Court nominees, as crowning achievements in an otherwise uneven presidency. Conservative groups have spent tens of millions of dollars building the men up as legal luminaries, gentleman scholars and the fulfillment of Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to nominate judges who have “a record of applying the Constitution just as it was written,” as one ad by the Judicial Crisis Network described Judge Kavanaugh.

A relatively smooth, predictable confirmation fight has also been a key part of Republicans’ strategy to keep the Senate. In the 10 states that Mr. Trump won where Democratic senators are up for re-election, Republicans have attacked Democrats for either opposing the judge or remaining noncommittal. But Dr. Blasey’s claims may have given Democrats who were on the fence a way to vote no without paying a steep political price.

Even social conservatives who describe Dr. Blasey’s account as part of a Democratic plot to upend the nomination acknowledge the bind they are in. While they decry the process as tainted and unfair, some are also arguing that they cannot be indifferent and insensitive to a victim.

“The worst thing that can ever happen to any woman or man who has been a victim is to shut them down and not listen to them,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that opposes abortion rights. “A tragic piece of this is people who will use that pain for an agenda. That is so clearly what is happening now.”

In the days since Dr. Blasey went public in an interview with The Washington Post and alleged that, when they were both teenagers, Judge Kavanaugh pinned her down on a bed, clapped his hand over her mouth and groped her, Republican leaders and White House officials have urged a muted and restrained approach. Show Dr. Blasey respect; offer to hear her out; and avoid questioning her credibility, at least directly, they have agreed in private conversations.

But many conservatives see little use in being deferential when, they argue, the Democrats play by no such rules. They look back at the failed confirmation of the Republican nominee Robert Bork in 1987, whose writings on civil rights were picked over by Democrats, and the 1991 hearings for Clarence Thomas, who faced testimony from Anita Hill that he had sexually harassed her, and they see a sophisticated and ruthless Democratic machine bent on discrediting their nominees.

“Republicans are right, as a moral matter as well as a political matter, to take allegations of misbehavior like this seriously,” said Frank Cannon, president of the American Principles Project and a veteran social conservative strategist. “At the same time, we’ve seen anything and everything thrown at Republican Supreme Court nominees for decades,” he added, noting that Republicans have been slow to understand that Democrats are “playing by different rules.”

“From the point of view of the average Republican conservative,” Mr. Cannon added, “these people aren’t the apparent monsters they’re being made out to be,” referring to maligned judicial nominees like Justice Thomas, Judge Bork and Judge Kavanaugh.

Privately, some conservatives were thrilled that Dr. Blasey and her lawyer have resisted the opportunity to testify in the Senate on Monday and demanded instead that the F.B.I. first investigate her claims. That would be just enough, they said, to give Republicans the justification for moving forward without her. The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, made clear on Wednesday that he would not postpone a hearing past Monday.

And once the Senate puts the Kavanaugh nomination on track for a final vote, barring any unforeseen disclosures, that sets up a fight that Republicans could win in the Senate but might ultimately lose at the ballot box in November. The level of outrage could run so hot among Democrats, who would likely use every procedural and political tool at their disposal to delay confirmation, that it could provide even more fuel to an already energized liberal base.

Some conservatives, however, seem happy to have that fight.

“Given the confirmation theatrics, followed by this allegation that was held until the last moment, this could be seen as another partisan attack and could actually fuel conservative turnout,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Conservatives are likely to use protests and other forms of resistance to Judge Kavanaugh as a way to clarify for unmotivated Republican voters what Democratic control of the Senate means: a Trump-nominated Supreme Court justice would never be confirmed again.

“If Chuck Schumer is majority leader and Dianne Feinstein is chairman of the Judiciary Committee,” said Mr. Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, “it will be open season on any Trump nominee to the federal bench at any level of the judiciary.”

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2018, 09:39 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: What makes the woman credible and the man not credible?

Are those in this thread against the man because he's a man or because he's a Republican?
Are those in this thread against the woman because she's a woman or because she's a Democrat?

People who say they believe one over the other with so little info are partisan, but I think there needs to be an investigation.

I am familiar with false claims of sexual abuse.  The biggest question I have about this one is why she included Kavanaugh's friend.  If she was just making this all up she would not have included another person who would be a witness to say Kavanaugh did not do it.

People who think she is making it up just because she did not file a complaint back when it happened don't understand that that happens all the time for lots of reasons.  And the fact that she is sketchy on other details is also not that important.  I have some amazing stories from events in my high school/college days that I don't recall the exact date or how I got there.

Generally false claims of sexual assault fall into two categories. Either the woman had a boyfriend and does not want him to find out she had sex with another guy, or else there is some reason the woman is mad at the alleged perpetrator.  Since she did not have sex with him I don't see how the first one could apply, and I have no idea how she knew Kavanaugh and the other guy back then so it is impossible to speculate on the second.

[Benton]

(09-21-2018, 09:39 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: What makes the woman credible and the man not credible?

Are those in this thread against the man because he's a man or because he's a Republican?
Are those in this thread against the woman because she's a woman or because she's a Democrat?

I don't think the uproar on this is so much "did she/did he" but the frustrating failure of our political system.

Republicans vow not to do their job. Democrats respond by vowing to do the same... except they don't have a majority, so all they can do is try to make the vetting process take as long as possible. Republicans respond by saying 'hey, whatever he did isn't going to change our minds, just vote the guy in because he's a Republican.' Democrats say 'hey, look, it's all their fault.'

There's no good guy in this story, just lots of bad guys.

[fredtoast]

Some of you guys have been reading more info on this than I have.

Have Kavanaugh and his friend said they never even knew who Ford was back then or did they say they knew her but the assault never happened?

[Benton]

(09-21-2018, 11:47 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Some of you guys have been reading more info on this than I have.

Have Kavanaugh and his friend said they never even knew who Ford was back then or did they say they knew her but the assault never happened?

From what I know, nobody has asked. One issued a statement that he thinks Kavanaugh is a good guy and doesn't remember an assault; another said the same. Kavanaugh himself said he didn't recall sexually assaulting anyone or any parties or the 90s or beer or women.

Which some people are pointing to as validity for Ford's claim that they were at a party together, since it's unlikely she knew the boys while attending their all male school.

[Millhouse]

Here is a decent opinion piece by the ceo of Concerned Women for America. Its a socially conservative Christian non-profit women's activist group in the United States, but even so she makes some good points, as she herself was assaulted 20 years ago.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/19/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-dr-christine-blasey-ford-sexual-assault-column/1346536002/

Quote:Something awful happened to Christine Blasey. At 15 years old, at a small gathering of partying high school students, she claims she was assaulted by two boys, one in particular who actually covered her mouth so no one could hear her scream.

According to Blasey, now Christine Blasey Ford, all three had been drinking; but the boys were especially intoxicated and she was able to escape them as they rough-housed on top of her and knocked each other to the floor. All of that she remembers. There’s also plenty she doesn’t remember.

Two decades ago, while pregnant with my first child, I was running in Northern Virginia when I was attacked by a man much larger and stronger than myself. I survived the attempted rape — but I’ll never forget it, in fact I remember every detail all these years later.  

Dr. Ford's testimony lacks key details
Twenty years after Bill Clinton — then the attorney general and highest ranking law enforcement officer in the state of Arkansas — allegedly raped Juanita Broaddrick, she remembered every detail as she told NBC’s Lisa Myers during a prime time interview. She even remembered Clinton biting her lip during the attack and smirking as he left the room — arrogantly telling her she needed to take care of it.

Something awful happened to all three of us. But Dr. Ford’s inability to remember key details of the attempted rape she’s alleging, in pointing an accusing finger at D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh — who’s been nominated to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court — could lead to something awful as well. If Judge Kavanaugh is innocent — perhaps a victim of mistaken identity — but still denied the crowning achievement of a life in the law, that would indeed be a travesty.

Ford can’t remember the year the incident happened, she can’t remember how she got to the house party, or how she got home. She told no one about it at the time and the issue came to the forefront during a couples therapy session six years ago. Her therapist’s notes never mention Kavanaugh and actually mention four boys involved, although she says there were only two.

Judge Kavanaugh has vigorously denied Ford’s claim, not just saying this particular incident didn't happen but that no such incident happened in his entire life. The Senate Judiciary Committee, and the American people, are scheduled to hear from both of them on Monday.

The timing of these allegations is suspicious
It is right to take her claim seriously, it is also right to take the testaments to Judge Kavanaugh’s character seriously. They have flooded in from countless women who’ve known him since high school and college — including some who dated him back then. Women who’ve worked for him as law clerks, women with whom he’s worked in government service. Women who run the length of the political spectrum, praising his exemplary professional and personal life in letters to the Judiciary Committee, public statements, and guest commentary pieces in multiple media outlets.

Supporters of Kavanaugh are rightly infuriated this charge has been leveled at the 11th hour. Ford initially wanted to remain anonymous, as she told ranking Judiciary Committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) back in July. Feinstein didn’t act on the allegations for almost two months, which means she either didn’t find them credible or she plotted to cause this chaos by holding onto them on the eve of his committee confirmation vote.

She didn’t bring it up to Judge Kavanaugh when she met with him privately her office, it wasn’t raised in his 17,000 page questionnaire, she didn’t raise it during two full days of public hearings — or a private session afterward to discuss his background, she didn’t raise it any of the nearly 1,300 follow-up questions he had to answer after the hearings.

Sexual assault is real and claims should not be dismissed. But an innocent man should not be denied all he’s worked for based on allegations from someone who can’t remember key details. Monday’s hearing are an opportunity for both stories to be fairly heard. However, when the process has run its course will we know one thing more about an incident from 36 years ago? That is seriously doubtful.

Make no mistake, both Ford and Kavanaugh and their families will have suffered from the process and the Democrats will get to continue their circus. I hope I am wrong.

Mrs. Nance is president and CEO of Concerned Women for America. Follow her on Twitter: @PYNance

[Millhouse]

(09-20-2018, 05:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/20/ralph-norman-jokes-about-sexual-assault-833194

South Carolina congressman Ralph Norman joked about sexual assault, telling a debate crowd the reason he was late was for the debate was there was news regarding Kavanaugh.

"Did y'all hear the latest, late-breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings? Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out that she was groped by Abraham Lincoln.”

Guess he wasn't as honest as we all thought he was.

[Dill]

(09-21-2018, 12:00 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Here is a decent opinion piece by the ceo of Concerned Women for America. Its a socially conservative Christian non-profit women's activist group in the United States, but even so she makes some good points, as she herself was assaulted 20 years ago.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/19/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-dr-christine-blasey-ford-sexual-assault-column/1346536002/

I think the reason why Feinstein brought up the claim at "the 11th hour" has been sufficiently explained. 

[GMDino]

Judge's take on how liberals and homosexuals caused all the problems.

https://dailycaller.com/2011/01/27/georgetown-prep-and-modern-liberal-catholicism/

[*Nately120*]

(09-21-2018, 11:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: Such a sad LITTLE man.

I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn  date, time, and place!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 21, 2018

She should have bought it to attention ASAP so we could brush it off as vindictive hysteria that she would have stopped and actually thought about and considered before making such a bold accusation IF it were true.  Pass.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-21-2018, 12:00 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Here is a decent opinion piece by the ceo of Concerned Women for America. Its a socially conservative Christian non-profit women's activist group in the United States, but even so she makes some good points, as she herself was assaulted 20 years ago.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/19/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-dr-christine-blasey-ford-sexual-assault-column/1346536002/

Excellent article. I don't see how anyone can really argue against any of it.

[Millhouse]

(09-21-2018, 12:48 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the reason why Feinstein brought up the claim at "the 11th hour" has been sufficiently explained. 

I havent really paid much attention to the daily ongoings on all this, so how was it explained and by whom?

My early guess this is a sad pathetic ploy by Dems, but I could be wrong. And I hope I am because if this is all staged then it really hurts the  accusations by actual victims.