Gaps in the 2nd accusers memory? She was drunk has been another regressive party attack line.
So what! That doesn't mean she deserved to be assaulted. She could have been drunk that doesn't mean she deserved to be sexually assaulted.
Besides there was drugging and roofies involved with this despicable fraternity that Kavanaugh was a part of so it makes sense that she might not remember every detail. Or are people going to defend this with "boys will be boys with their date rape drugs, what boy hasn't", right.
Will these farmers be required to take drug tests to receive their welfare checks?? Will they have to provide proof they have been looking for other work while they aren't able to sell their product?? No, of course not. Seriously, I never want to hear about how we can't afford social welfare programs EVER again. It's painfully clear who this country views as deserving of free government handouts and who isn't. People should stop pretending it isn't obvious what that is.
These people (by and large) voted for Trump. They have NO interest in taking responsibility for his policies which are hurting them. Instead, they are getting handed massive checks. This isn't a free market, this is bribery. The biggest hypocrites in the country are any farmers who are Trump voters taking this money. Their opinions shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.
Stereotyping groups of people is against Rule 3. Ideas and public figures are worthy of criticism; entire populations are not. We cannot paint large groups of people with the same brush, nor can we dismiss someone's opinion based purely on demographics.
Gaps in the 2nd accusers memory? She was drunk has been another regressive party attack line.
So what! That doesn't mean she deserved to be assaulted. She could have been drunk that doesn't mean she deserved to be sexually assaulted.
Besides there was drugging and roofies involved with this despicable fraternity that Kavanaugh was a part of so it makes sense that she might not remember every detail. Or are people going to defend this with "boys will be boys with their date rape drugs, what boy hasn't", right.
The "gaps" I mentioned are something she, herself, said. If you have a problem with that then address it with her.
Please point out where anyone stated that she deserved to be assaulted. Also, please point out where anyone is defending Kavanaugh's alleged behavior while he was at university.
The fact that he was a cabrón back in high school and university is not questioned--I have no doubt that he was. However, accusations and allegations 30 years after the fact are insufficient to warrant an FBI investigation (the FBI does not investigate what would have been a local crime, in any event) and they are insufficient to determine him as being guilty of anything, especially since he is not on trial.
If only people had been so adamant to call out Bill Clinton on his actions...but that's water under the bridge.
no one is asking for a FBI criminal investigation. Background investigation is what's needed. It is very much the FBIs job to do background investigations. And they could do it now, if Republicans cared to get to the truth but they don't they just seem to want to rush this cabron through.
The implication being pushed is that if she was assaulted she deserved it for being drunk. Why is it an issue if she was drunk or not otherwise. Why is this a talking point otherwise?
Will these farmers be required to take drug tests to receive their welfare checks?? Will they have to provide proof they have been looking for other work while they aren't able to sell their product?? No, of course not. Seriously, I never want to hear about how we can't afford social welfare programs EVER again. It's painfully clear who this country views as deserving of free government handouts and who isn't. People should stop pretending it isn't obvious what that is.
These people (by and large) voted for Trump. They have NO interest in taking responsibility for his policies which are hurting them. Instead, they are getting handed massive checks. This isn't a free market, this is bribery. The biggest hypocrites in the country are any farmers who are Trump voters taking this money. Their opinions shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.
The thing is you mentioned it - the farmers are perceived to have voted for Trump so they get a bailout. Everyone else who didn't vote for Trump gets punished. Especially people that can't get adequate representation like Puerto Rico. Working people, people on welfare, like you said they must be punished. If you are a banker, a rich farmer, or evangelical then you are taken care of. To everyone else the message is "screw you I got mine".
Last time I checked whoever this female outside council is was not elected by anyone. It is the Senate's job to advise and consent, not outsource the job because they are too chickenshit to do the questioning themselves. If the can't do their jobs, they should resign.
ALEXIS GOLDSTEIN: I mean, I think this is a moment to say that this is not 1991, and that survivors must be heard and they must be believed. And I just want to be there on the steps of the Supreme Court today personally to show my support for Dr. Blasey Ford and say that we have her back, to say that we have the back of all survivors. I think that this is an opportunity to do one better than what happened with the Anita Hill hearings in 1991, although, as was unfortunately mentioned earlier in your previous segment, there has not been an FBI investigation.
That is one of the things that our letter calls for, is for there to be an FBI investigation. The Holton-Arms alumnae community wanted to echo Dr. Blasey Ford’s call for an investigation. And I think, you know, that is something that the Senate should do. So I just personally wanted to be there on the steps of the Supreme Court this morning to continue to stand with Dr. Blasey Ford and echo her call for an investigation.
Background investigation is what's needed. It is very much the FBIs job to do background investigations. And they could do it now, if Republicans cared to get to the truth but they don't they just seem to want to rush this cabron through.
Kavanaugh had an FBI background check the *last* time he was confirmed to a Federal bench back in 2006. I doubt anything has changed in his background during that time, especially for events which happened prior to 2006.
The implication being pushed is that if she was assaulted she deserved it for being drunk. Why is it an issue if she was drunk or not otherwise. Why is this a talking point otherwise?
I don't know--I don't follow anyone else's talking points. I come up with my own insights and I ask my own questions.
*Everyone* has gaps in their memory from 30 years ago. In fact, psychiatrists have demonstrated that memory can become corrupted after even only one month. Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez are probably telling the truth about Kavanaugh. If his actions from back then were so important, though, then where were they in 2006 when he was being nominated to a Federal bench? Why now? I'll tell you why, and there are 2 reasons: 1) MeToo and 2) Trump nominated him.
Last time I checked whoever this female outside council is was not elected by anyone. It is the Senate's job to advise and consent, not outsource the job because they are too chickenshit to do the questioning themselves. If the can't do their jobs, they should resign.
The last time I checked, "advice and consent" did not mean "hearings which are open to the public". If the Senate wanted to, they could have held the confirmation hearings behind closed doors, not invited any public input, then held a vote and closed the chapter on it. They *should* have open hearings, of course, but there is no Constitutional requirement that they do so.
Bill Cosby was sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison and taken into custody immediately. Even given his parole opportunity in 3, at his age, it's probably as good as a death sentence.
I am surprised he got such a short sentence. I suspect your assessment is the same the judge had when determining sentence--his age and health are a factor, making it possible he will die behind bars.
@Mathsorcerer: Your source says "FBI investigation." @smeagolheart said "FBI criminal investigation." That was @smeagolheart's entire point: the call is for the FBI to look for information which the Senate can factor into the confirmation process. Kavanaugh is not standing trial; he is in the process of confirmation hearings for a position as a Supreme Court justice.
If his actions from back then were so important, though, then where were they in 2006 when he was being nominated to a Federal bench? Why now? I'll tell you why, and there are 2 reasons: 1) MeToo and 2) Trump nominated him.
I think it's more realistic to say that Dr. Blasey Ford was not even aware that Kavanaugh was being nominated in 2006. Unless you're spying on somebody from high school every month for decades after graduation, you're not going to know what they're up to. So why would she hear about him now?
Because he's on national television. He's front-page news. He wasn't front-page news in 2006.
One of my old teachers in high school was Mr. Gonzalez. If he got nominated for a high court position, there's about a 0% chance I'd ever hear about it. If he got nominated for the Supreme Court, though, there's about a 100% chance I'd hear about it. So, if I had anything bad to say about him (which I don't; Mr. Gonzalez was awesome), no one would hear about it until he was nominated for the Supreme Court; not anything lower than that.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the only federal judges I can name are those who have been nominated for the Supreme Court. If anybody I've met is now a federal judge, I would have no idea.
I suspect that the people who want "an FBI investigation" actually mean that they want a *criminal* investigation. The FBI already looked into his background back in 2006; they didn't find anything that would prevent him from being able to be confirmed to a Federal bench at that time so they won't find anything now, reprehensible behavior in high school and university notwithstanding.
I agree--she was most likely unaware that he was nominated and confirmed back in 2006. Seeing his name in the news probably jogged her memory. As I have told our daughter (who wishes to enter politics when she is older), "when you enter politics your opponents *will* track down every person who knew you in high school, your middle school and elementary school teachers, your friends from back then, their parents, etc.". *Anything* which could possibly be used against you *will* be used against you. The old wisdom need to be repeated to a new generation of younger people: if you don't want it published on the front page of the newspaper (updated to read "if you don't want it on the front page of social media sites") then don't do it.
(I see I have made an error. I keep referring to her as "Ms. Ford" when it should be Dr. Ford. My apologies to Dr. Ford.)
And a background investigation in 2006 would have gone off of whatever Kavanaugh provided. He'd fill out a form saying I went to this high school at this time and here's three people that can vouch for that. Those three people, likely friendly to Kavanaugh, might not be aware of or like Mr Judge might not be willing to admit drunken sex assaults.
Now that we have credible stories there are additional investigative areas. The FBI could determine whether additional witnesses could corroborate or dis-corrobate the story of Mrs Ford and the others accusers. Wouldn't conservatives rest easier if the FBI determined Ford was lying? That she only made it up for reasons? But noooo they don't want there to be an investigation. Why? Probably because they know that these allegations are probably true.
I am surprised he got such a short sentence. I suspect your assessment is the same the judge had when determining sentence--his age and health are a factor, making it possible he will die behind bars.
I think the sentence is pretty light as well for a violent sexual predator. In my opinion it's light because of the two tiered justice system where the rich and powerful can afford the best lawyers and usually avoid justice.
Edit: is the sentence for one violent assault or for all of them? If it's one it might not be that bad but if it's for like 20 victims then yeah it's a light sentence
And a background investigation in 2006 would have gone off of whatever Kavanaugh provided. He'd fill out a form saying I went to this high school at this time and here's three people that can vouch for that. Those three people, likely friendly to Kavanaugh, might not be aware of or like Mr Judge might not be willing to admit drunken sex assaults.
Now that we have credible stories there are additional investigative areas. The FBI could determine whether additional witnesses could corroborate or dis-corrobate the story of Mrs Ford and the others accusers. Wouldn't conservatives rest easier if the FBI determined Ford was lying? That she only made it up for reasons? But noooo they don't want there to be an investigation. Why? Probably because they know that these allegations are probably true.
To what end? The worst that will happen to Kavanaugh at this point is that he is not confirmed to the SCOTUS--he will retain his current bench appointment.
I am convinced that Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez are telling the truth. I am also convinced that their stories are being used as political weapons against Trump via Kavanaugh, but that is why I don't put any blame on them--they are the knife, not the mugger.
edit/add: CNN says the prosecutor wanted 5 to 10 but they and defense attorneys agreed to merge three counts into one, resulting in the "3 to 10" sentence. I presume he was found guilty on more than one count but the story isn't actually listing the charges at this time. I am certain we can find them relatively quickly.
I don't take joy in Cosby's imprisonment itself, but it is heartening to know that the criminal justice system is capable of working even against the rich and powerful, even if the sentence likely would have been far harsher to a poorer man. Studies have found that the probability of getting caught is much more important than the severity of the punishment, so hopefully other predators will think twice before they assume they can get away with attacking people.
"In referring these allegations to the FBI, Ranking Member Feinstein has repeatedly made clear that the request is not for a criminal investigation."
That's pretty plain language there.
And using the term "investigation" for the FBI background check is pretty common. Even Chuck Grassley is doing so. Grassley told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that the “FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh is closed” and that the “FBI is not doing any further investigation.” So, if the Chair of the Judiciary Committee refers to the background check as an "investigation", why should one assume that others calling for an "investigation" mean a criminal one?
The one thing that really irritates me about the whole Brett Kavanaugh situation is that the Republicans are trying to make him the victim here. All they can talk about is how horrible this "thing being done to him" is. He's not the victim. At best, he's the accused. At worst, he's the perpetrator.
Meanwhile with NAFTA, Canada continues to play chicken with the US on its deadlines, with both sides all but certain stating that they will miss the October 1 deadline set by Trump and congress.
The US, in damage control, have stated that they are going to continue to negotiate with Canada while they present the US-Mexico deal. This will alleviate some concerns with US states about leaving Canada out of the deal allowing them to get it passed and killing one of Canada's trump cards in the negotiations.
Trump gave a speech at the UN attacking globalism. What's the even mean? Isn't that like saying you are only for Kentucky and Alabama can go screw itself? We all live on the same planet. And the UN is there for the global good. What an inappropriate place, no wonder world leaders we're laughing at him.
Does he think this line plays well with the alt-right types? 'Globalism' is apparently a euphemism for anti-Semitic stereotypes.
And here's a 2015 map of Trump's global holdings outside the US.
So he's lying and he's a hypocrite and he's a global laughing stock. And an unindicted co-conspirator to felonies. And he's actively engaged in obstruction of justice which he euphemistically calls 'fighting back'.
How does anyone support this guy? Elect a clown, get a circus.
You say that 2 or 3 percent would be significant. If your pay rate were either raised or lowered by 3% would that be significant? Median income in the United States in 2016 was $31,099; 3% of that is $932.97 or $35.88 ever two weeks. Neither gaining nor losing that amount is going to make any significant change in one's financial position. If someone weighs 125 kg then they lose 3% they now weigh 121.25 kg--probably not even enough to drop a clothing size.
I think you're really reaching here to avoid being wrong. Simply said, anything that is the "largest ever of its kind" is inherently significant when discussing scope. The largest protest ever? Doesnt matter if it iss insignificant next to the number of atoms in the sun or any other generic comparison for the sake of pulling a large number - it still has a great deal of inherent value when discussing protesters.
On the topic at hand - I dont really see any significant reason why there shouldnt be an investigation. Just because the FBI looked in 2006 doesnt mean they may not find more or different information in subsequent investigations.
In history, when new evidence presents itself, one must evaluate both that evidence and put it in context of the status quo. Investigations to the SCOTUS deserve at least a much rigor as academia.
You say that 2 or 3 percent would be significant. If your pay rate were either raised or lowered by 3% would that be significant? Median income in the United States in 2016 was $31,099; 3% of that is $932.97 or $35.88 ever two weeks. Neither gaining nor losing that amount is going to make any significant change in one's financial position. If someone weighs 125 kg then they lose 3% they now weigh 121.25 kg--probably not even enough to drop a clothing size.
I think you're really reaching here to avoid being wrong. Simply said, anything that is the "largest ever of its kind" is inherently significant when discussing scope. The largest protest ever? Doesnt matter if it iss insignificant next to the number of atoms in the sun or any other generic comparison for the sake of pulling a large number - it still has a great deal of inherent value when discussing protesters.
On the topic at hand - I dont really see any significant reason why there shouldnt be an investigation. Just because the FBI looked in 2006 doesnt mean they may not find more or different information in subsequent investigations.
In history, when new evidence presents itself, one must evaluate both that evidence and put it in context of the status quo. Investigations to the SCOTUS deserve at least a much rigor as academia.
and we're not going to get that. This whole thing is a sham.
Grassley has scheduled the vote for Friday after the first of the four (?) accusers testifies. Then Republicans plan on keeping the Senate alive through the weekend to run the procedural clock out so they can vote as soon as possible next week for this "sacred" lifetime appointment.
Thursday Ford will be interrogated by a special female lawyer brought in by Republicans to do their dirty work on Thursday followed by Kavanaugh's rebuttal where he will declare "wasn't me, I have the most respect for women".
To what end? The worst that will happen to Kavanaugh at this point is that he is not confirmed to the SCOTUS--he will retain his current bench appointment.
Ignoring politics for the moment, I think the intention of background investigations is to avoid appointing unsuitable people to senior positions. To my mind if Kavanaugh believes that women are inherently inferior to men that should disqualify him from a position on SCOTUS. It may well be of course that he doesn't believe that - his behavior in high school and college suggests to me that he did believe that then, but his views may have changed. One virtue of an independent investigation would potentially be to allow that issue to be assessed more clearly - though an investigation is not going to happen (and even if it did the results would be politicized anyway) ...
So, the Republicans are only going to question Dr.Christine Blasey Ford. They are ignoring the other (at this point 2, but Michael Avenatti says he has more than one person he is representing in this matter) woman who have also come forward. Why? Because they thought they could deal with one woman coming forward. I do not think they can deal with more than one, so they are ignoring them completely and say they will still be voting after Dr. Ford testifies.
Let's be perfectly clear about this questioning on Thursday. The Republicans are the only ones at fault for the FACT that every single GOP member of the Judiciary is a man. They are scared shitless to be have to be on TV questioning Professor Ford. So they are instead bringing in a woman to question her, so they can hide behind her. Frankly, if I am Professor Ford, I would refuse to answer any questions that didn't come directly from the elected Republican members of the judiciary committee. But I don't think there is a person alive who can't see through what they are doing. They know they won't be able to hide their contempt for the accusations (and women in general) if they are actually forced to ask the questions themselves, so they are running into their rabbit holes. Every single one of them is a coward. Are the Democrats hiding behind an outside council?? No, of course not. Because THEY have two prominent former female prosecutors on THEIR side of the Judiciary Committee. Again, the fact that the Republican side looks like a segregated country club locker room after cigars and brandy is THEIR problem. They know exactly how they'll be perceived, because they know what they are and what they represent. And when push comes to shove, they don't even have the courage of their convictions. They hide like the rats they are.
They will question and demean her all week in public, but when push comes to shove, they won't do so to her face when she appears before them. The Republican Party. The strong, tough men running the country who are so scared of a woman standing up for herself that they have to shield themselves. Reveals EVERYTHING you need to know about them. Everything.
Oh, this guy is an unapologetic Roy Moore supporter. And Terry Schiavo. All about the prayers. Says so on his website.
It's helpful every once in awhile to be reminded of the utterly ghoulish situation that took place in the Bush Administration in regards to Terry Schiavo in which the entire apparatus of the Republican Party (including the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, House Majority Whip Tom Delay, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his brother the President at the center of the entire thing) mobilized to attempt to stop one man from exercising his rights as the legal guardian of his wife in regards to making end of life decisions for her. Despite a court determining that he was in fact following her wishes of not wanting to continue to exist in a persistent vegetative state, the Republican Party on the national and State level basically FORCED a feeding tube back into her through legislative and legal challenges.
The most famous moment was when DOCTOR Bill Frist made a diagnosis from the Senate floor saying that, in his medical opinion, she was not in a persistent vegetative state. Of course when the autopsy came back, it showed that she, in fact, WAS in one. I mean, if the "limited government" branding of this party should have ever had a jump the shark moment, this was it. It was an unprecedented interference into what the right would refer to as "personal liberty". I've still never seen anything like it to this day. Honestly, it seems even worse in retrospect.
More gaslighing. They do it on purpose. They know most people aren't versed enough in politics to know anything about the stolen Obama seat and Merrick Garland. So they simply pretend it didn't happen. Every single Republican Senator acts like the year 2016 never took place.
Comments
So what! That doesn't mean she deserved to be assaulted. She could have been drunk that doesn't mean she deserved to be sexually assaulted.
Besides there was drugging and roofies involved with this despicable fraternity that Kavanaugh was a part of so it makes sense that she might not remember every detail. Or are people going to defend this with "boys will be boys with their date rape drugs, what boy hasn't", right.
And today we have a President who is a laughing stock of the entire World:
Will these farmers be required to take drug tests to receive their welfare checks?? Will they have to provide proof they have been looking for other work while they aren't able to sell their product?? No, of course not. Seriously, I never want to hear about how we can't afford social welfare programs EVER again. It's painfully clear who this country views as deserving of free government handouts and who isn't. People should stop pretending it isn't obvious what that is.
These people (by and large) voted for Trump. They have NO interest in taking responsibility for his policies which are hurting them. Instead, they are getting handed massive checks. This isn't a free market, this is bribery. The biggest hypocrites in the country are any farmers who are Trump voters taking this money. Their opinions shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.
Please point out where anyone stated that she deserved to be assaulted. Also, please point out where anyone is defending Kavanaugh's alleged behavior while he was at university.
The fact that he was a cabrón back in high school and university is not questioned--I have no doubt that he was. However, accusations and allegations 30 years after the fact are insufficient to warrant an FBI investigation (the FBI does not investigate what would have been a local crime, in any event) and they are insufficient to determine him as being guilty of anything, especially since he is not on trial.
If only people had been so adamant to call out Bill Clinton on his actions...but that's water under the bridge.
And memory gaps and omg she might have been drunk are being used to assault the accusers character - the conman President and other right wing alternative facts pushers are doing this.
Trump attacks second Kavanaugh accuser: 'She admits that she was drunk'
The implication being pushed is that if she was assaulted she deserved it for being drunk. Why is it an issue if she was drunk or not otherwise. Why is this a talking point otherwise? The thing is you mentioned it - the farmers are perceived to have voted for Trump so they get a bailout. Everyone else who didn't vote for Trump gets punished. Especially people that can't get adequate representation like Puerto Rico. Working people, people on welfare, like you said they must be punished. If you are a banker, a rich farmer, or evangelical then you are taken care of. To everyone else the message is "screw you I got mine".
Last time I checked whoever this female outside council is was not elected by anyone. It is the Senate's job to advise and consent, not outsource the job because they are too chickenshit to do the questioning themselves. If the can't do their jobs, they should resign.
*Everyone* has gaps in their memory from 30 years ago. In fact, psychiatrists have demonstrated that memory can become corrupted after even only one month. Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez are probably telling the truth about Kavanaugh. If his actions from back then were so important, though, then where were they in 2006 when he was being nominated to a Federal bench? Why now? I'll tell you why, and there are 2 reasons: 1) MeToo and 2) Trump nominated him. The last time I checked, "advice and consent" did not mean "hearings which are open to the public". If the Senate wanted to, they could have held the confirmation hearings behind closed doors, not invited any public input, then held a vote and closed the chapter on it. They *should* have open hearings, of course, but there is no Constitutional requirement that they do so.
Because he's on national television. He's front-page news. He wasn't front-page news in 2006.
One of my old teachers in high school was Mr. Gonzalez. If he got nominated for a high court position, there's about a 0% chance I'd ever hear about it. If he got nominated for the Supreme Court, though, there's about a 100% chance I'd hear about it. So, if I had anything bad to say about him (which I don't; Mr. Gonzalez was awesome), no one would hear about it until he was nominated for the Supreme Court; not anything lower than that.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the only federal judges I can name are those who have been nominated for the Supreme Court. If anybody I've met is now a federal judge, I would have no idea.
I agree--she was most likely unaware that he was nominated and confirmed back in 2006. Seeing his name in the news probably jogged her memory. As I have told our daughter (who wishes to enter politics when she is older), "when you enter politics your opponents *will* track down every person who knew you in high school, your middle school and elementary school teachers, your friends from back then, their parents, etc.". *Anything* which could possibly be used against you *will* be used against you. The old wisdom need to be repeated to a new generation of younger people: if you don't want it published on the front page of the newspaper (updated to read "if you don't want it on the front page of social media sites") then don't do it.
(I see I have made an error. I keep referring to her as "Ms. Ford" when it should be Dr. Ford. My apologies to Dr. Ford.)
Now that we have credible stories there are additional investigative areas. The FBI could determine whether additional witnesses could corroborate or dis-corrobate the story of Mrs Ford and the others accusers. Wouldn't conservatives rest easier if the FBI determined Ford was lying? That she only made it up for reasons? But noooo they don't want there to be an investigation. Why? Probably because they know that these allegations are probably true.
Edit: is the sentence for one violent assault or for all of them? If it's one it might not be that bad but if it's for like 20 victims then yeah it's a light sentence
I am convinced that Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez are telling the truth. I am also convinced that their stories are being used as political weapons against Trump via Kavanaugh, but that is why I don't put any blame on them--they are the knife, not the mugger.
edit/add: CNN says the prosecutor wanted 5 to 10 but they and defense attorneys agreed to merge three counts into one, resulting in the "3 to 10" sentence. I presume he was found guilty on more than one count but the story isn't actually listing the charges at this time. I am certain we can find them relatively quickly.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c/d/cd4c7ce9-ccc4-44cc-923e-de004c99dccc/579C490B3C739B3426FF9841E3588AE0.2018.09.18-jud-dems-to-white-house-and-fbi-re-kavanaugh-investigation.pdf
"In referring these allegations to the FBI, Ranking Member Feinstein has repeatedly made clear that the request is not for a criminal investigation."
That's pretty plain language there.
And using the term "investigation" for the FBI background check is pretty common. Even Chuck Grassley is doing so. Grassley told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that the “FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh is closed” and that the “FBI is not doing any further investigation.” So, if the Chair of the Judiciary Committee refers to the background check as an "investigation", why should one assume that others calling for an "investigation" mean a criminal one?
The US, in damage control, have stated that they are going to continue to negotiate with Canada while they present the US-Mexico deal. This will alleviate some concerns with US states about leaving Canada out of the deal allowing them to get it passed and killing one of Canada's trump cards in the negotiations.
Does he think this line plays well with the alt-right types? 'Globalism' is apparently a euphemism for anti-Semitic stereotypes.
And here's a 2015 map of Trump's global holdings outside the US.
Theres an interactive map here
https://time.com/4629308/donald-trump-business-deals-world-map/
So he's lying and he's a hypocrite and he's a global laughing stock. And an unindicted co-conspirator to felonies. And he's actively engaged in obstruction of justice which he euphemistically calls 'fighting back'.
How does anyone support this guy? Elect a clown, get a circus.
On the topic at hand - I dont really see any significant reason why there shouldnt be an investigation. Just because the FBI looked in 2006 doesnt mean they may not find more or different information in subsequent investigations.
In history, when new evidence presents itself, one must evaluate both that evidence and put it in context of the status quo. Investigations to the SCOTUS deserve at least a much rigor as academia.
Grassley has scheduled the vote for Friday after the first of the four (?) accusers testifies. Then Republicans plan on keeping the Senate alive through the weekend to run the procedural clock out so they can vote as soon as possible next week for this "sacred" lifetime appointment.
Thursday Ford will be interrogated by a special female lawyer brought in by Republicans to do their dirty work on Thursday followed by Kavanaugh's rebuttal where he will declare "wasn't me, I have the most respect for women".
RIGGED.
And now, all the mixed nuts are coming out of the woodwork.
http://samuel-warde.com/2018/09/evangelical-extremist-jezebel-feminists/
They will question and demean her all week in public, but when push comes to shove, they won't do so to her face when she appears before them. The Republican Party. The strong, tough men running the country who are so scared of a woman standing up for herself that they have to shield themselves. Reveals EVERYTHING you need to know about them. Everything.
The most famous moment was when DOCTOR Bill Frist made a diagnosis from the Senate floor saying that, in his medical opinion, she was not in a persistent vegetative state. Of course when the autopsy came back, it showed that she, in fact, WAS in one. I mean, if the "limited government" branding of this party should have ever had a jump the shark moment, this was it. It was an unprecedented interference into what the right would refer to as "personal liberty". I've still never seen anything like it to this day. Honestly, it seems even worse in retrospect.
Merrick Garland?
God these people are the worst...
"Look at this calendar, I was never there!"
"I was a virgin well into adulthood!"
W.T.F.
Honestly, these arguments should disqualify him from any job in the field of law.