It’s pretty gross to trot out 65 women to say that Kavanaugh didn’t rape them, as if that is some kind of rebuttal.
The fault in this is entirely republican. They are in control of the process. These are the consequences when you try to ram a nominee through, and ream the system like they have been doing since O was president.
Now you want to blame the effect on an opposition party politician? Snowflake.
Sure, but the Dems didn’t have anything credible. They tried everything - misrepresentations, outright lies, threats to violate confidentiality, mud slinging about gambling - nothing stuck, and nothing worked. But when your sword breaks, you draw your dagger. And when your dagger breaks, you might as well bring out the toothpicks.
All they have left is this second-hand allegation from an anonymous source who doesn’t want anyone to know about the circumstances, and isn’t even the person that Kavanaugh is supposed to have done something to thirty years back.
And the Dems have nothing to lose. The rad-fems and the democratic socialists and the pro-abortionists and the intersectional gender identity syndico-anarchist post-modern neo-Trotskyists don’t care if this is true or false - objective truth is a tool of the oppressor white male patriarchal hegemony. If it can stop Kavanaugh, that’s all that counts.
Regards,
Shodan
Curse you! When I read this, I was too far from my fainting couch, and now I’ve broken my best set of clutching pearls.
Truly, our government is broken when politicians time the use of information to their advantage.
That’s a significant distortion of what they said (in the context of an accusation that it’s “pretty gross”), but leaving that aside the purpose of such statements is not (just) to prove anything about this particular alleged incident but to counter the notion that it might be part of a broader pattern. See for example post #738 of this thread.
I think someone has been triggered.
No, it isn’t a “significant distortion.” And no, it doesn’t counter the suggestion of a pattern. I guess Manafort should be releasing a letter about all the times he didn’t launder money.
I’m pretty sure Bill Cosby could have easily found 65 women to sign a positive statement about him. It provides no information, aside that he (probably) didn’t sexually assault those particular 65 women.
The truth or falsehood of the allegation aside - this smacks of the last-hour delaying tactics used in preventing the execution of condemned inmates. The timing is deliberately meant to throw things off. Exonerating evidence could often have been produced weeks, months in advance. Instead the timing is obviously flailing to get a delay.
Excellent rationalization for doing nothing! You’ve obviously learned a lot from society and political leaders.
The signed statement is the findings.
So, on the one hand, we have 65 women who are willing to come forward and state for the record that Kavanaugh always treated them with respect. On the other hand, an anonymous source who does not want to be accountable, making an allegation about someone else who is not named and can’t be verified.
“She did not want this to be pursued” is a vague statement? :rolleyes:
Yeah right.
Regards,
Shodan
It is and it does. (Though FTR “counter” is not the same as “conclusively refute”.)
Also that they don’t remember him having been accused of assaulting other girls either.
We know very little aside that an allegation was made. And no, the statement of 65 women pretty much tells us nothing – no more than a statement from 65 women Bill Cosby might have (easily) found to sign such a statement.
Who are you quoting? The Feinstein statement did not include these words.
Yeah, gross.
You guys have such a shallow understanding of sexual assault that you think him behaving respectfully toward other women is somehow exculpatory. For the good of the women in your life, maybe take some time to reconsider your stereotypes about sexual assault.
I *hope *he’s joking - but there’s just no way to be sure anymore, is there?
Timing tells us nothing about the truth of allegations. The timing of the Franken allegations told us nothing. Same with the timing of the allegations against Trump. Any complaining about timing is just reaching for an excuse to do nothing and ignore the allegations. If there’s nothing to the allegations, then an investigation would greatly help Kavanaugh, and greatly reduce any sense that an abuser might be going into the SCOTUS.
Apparently it was completely within the control of the Republicans on the committee to thwart that scenario anytime during the past two months.
C’est la vie, amirite? 
Since the matter was referred to law enforcement: IF* that constitutes a reason why the Senate shouldn’t conduct its own parallel investigation, ISTM that the Senate should wait for law enforcement to complete theirs, and testify to the Senate on what they found.
*As I recall, the Senate Watergate Committee’s hearings (chaired by Sam Ervin) took place after the Special Prosecutor’s (that is, Archie Cox’s) investigation was up and running. Can’t see why this would be any different.
nm
in the rare case this guy is voted down or withdraws his name, Trump will just throw a twitter tantrum and out of spite pick someone even further to the right.
For once, I agree with my esteemed colleague:
To the extent that it’s a “consequence” at all, this is a consequence of Feinstein keeping it a secret, not of the nominating process. Democrats have had this information for weeks.
How 'bout you keep the name-calling to a forum where it’s not prohibited. Just a friendly suggestion.