Kavanaugh accuser goes public

[TreeFrogTrader]

But she's a woman and "deserves to be heard."

It is more than wanting to be heard. She wants her own hearing. The hearings for others passed and she no-showed, no-submitted written response and no-request to be heard.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Here's the bottom line as it stands right now, this instant. We have a man who has been in public service for decades, has been through 6 extensive background checks and to date has absolutely no history of anything remotely resembling the charges being brought. AND we have a woman who can't remember all the details, has no evidence or witnesses willing to verify her accusations, but is certain she was sexually assaulted by the guy who says he wasn't even there. But she's a woman and "deserves to be heard."

Little old man child, that is not how it is.

 

[Cuddles]

And if it ends up as a he said, she said conclusion what should happen to her? IMO she should, at a minimum, face criminal charges for making false claims which are impossible to substantiate.

No, kavanaugh should not be confirmed as the possibility would remain. This cannot stand for a SCOTUS short of her being proven a liar.

 

[CaptainObvious]

No, kavanaugh should not be confirmed as the possibility would remain. This cannot stand for a SCOTUS short of her being proven a liar.

Wrong, the burden is on those doing the accusing to prove that the accused is lying. If they can't do that what might be, could be, someone thinks it ought to be, is irrelevant. Anything is possible, which is why possibility is not the standard, probability is. If he says he wasn't even there and they cannot prove otherwise, probable doubt falls in the favor of the accused.
Not to worry, you'll still have a good month to harp about the war on women and hope that your shit has sold to some people.

 

[RedDuke]

Here's the bottom line as it stands right now, this instant. We have a man who has been in public service for decades, has been through 6 extensive background checks and to date has absolutely no history of anything remotely resembling the charges being brought. AND we have a woman who can't remember all the details, has no evidence or witnesses willing to verify her accusations, but is certain she was sexually assaulted by the guy who says he wasn't even there. But she's a woman and "deserves to be heard."

yes she does. The rules are slightly different for those who get life time appointment to highest court of the land.

 

[LacesOut]

No it actually makes sense. She was keeping quite until her alleged perpetrator was about to become supreme court judge. She did not want to bring chaos in her life. This is when she decided that it is civic duty to speak up. The life time position of supreme court judge is a matter of utmost importance.

Why do you dismiss this possibility out of hand????

This is a woman who apparently wears pussy hats and signs her name off on anti trump legislation.
Doesn’t sound like your basic quiet type.
Also - social media scrub is not the sign of a person who has nothing to hide.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Let's go back to basics for a minute so that I and others can stay current.

Has it been positively established that the accuser has agreed to appear Monday or only at some future point. You know, this is all about dragging this thing out. The dems are going to offer her up but will want it out further. Also the accuser may back down.

Has she agreed to the monday circus?

So, not to be difficult, but I will ask again. When all is said and done and babbled about in regard to what this woman will and will not do Monday, do we have confirmation that she has even agreed to be there?

As I said, this whole thing is about dragging the process out so that there will be no confirmation before the midterm elections. It is not about the dems getting her a fair hearing. Do we know whether she and the dems are even interested in having her appear if does not accomplish the goal of dragging things out?

Okay, I wont ask again, but the astute ones here might want to think about it a bit. I know the dems are.

Let me guess: The dems need more time. I am going to be so shocked when I hear that.

And then there is this:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...icans-making-same-mistakes-anita-hill-n910546

 

[Buy1Sell2]

So, not to be difficult, but I will ask again. When all is said and done and babbled about in regard to what this woman will and will not do Monday, do we have confirmation that she has even agreed to be there?

As I said, this whole thing is about dragging the process out so that there will be no confirmation before the midterm elections. It is not about the dems getting her a fair hearing. Do we know whether she and the dems are even interested in having her appear if does not accomplish the goal of dragging things out?

Okay, I wont ask again, but the astute ones here might want to think about it a bit. I know the dems are.

Let me guess: The dems need more time. I am going to be so shocked when I hear that.

And then there is this:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...icans-making-same-mistakes-anita-hill-n910546

Thank you for the link----Alert Alert Alert----we are in the midst of another high tech lynching.

 

[RedDuke]

Thank you for the link----Alert Alert Alert----we are in the midst of another high tech lynching.

If she does not testify, confirm immediately.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

----Alert Alert Alert----we are in the midst of another high tech lynching.

Yup. Prepare to dive.