Brett Kavanaugh Should be Impeached

[Dontrike]

20 bucks says she's a hardcore democrat.

And what does that have to do with anything?

[Machismo]

What I dont get is why Feinstein waited until the very last minute to bring up this allegation, when she had the letter in her hands for over 6 weeks? It reeks of partisan hackery

The accuser should be heard, but this is all very unusual timing.

The GOP also knew about it. Why didn't they say anything?

- - - Updated - - -

I feel like it was too hard a pill to swallow to vote for Hillary, for the religious right. And a lot of people felt that not voting for either was a "vote for Hillary". Like, you had to pick the one you thought would do the least damage, and one of them stood in complete opposition to what they believed in, while the other at least paid lip service to their concerns. Who would you pick?

If you had Mike Pence up there along with Arnold Schwarzenegger, with all his baggage shtupping his maid and cheating on his wife and the groping allegations, would you vote for Mike Pence because "character matters"? No, character matters, but policy supersedes.

- - - Updated - - -



Guy Benson said it best:

So, you guys sold your souls, just to beat Hillary. The good news is that you have forever ceded the moral high ground, and are blatant hypocrites. This will never be forgotten, you and your ilk are forever stained by being Trump shills. Any time you ever try to bring morals or principles as an argument, this will get thrown back in your faces, and you will be laughed out the fucking door.

[wunksta]

You have to wonder why he even accepted the SCOTUS nomination.

Hubris.

/tenchar

[announced]

The GOP also knew about it. Why didn't they say anything?

- - - Updated - - -
So, you guys sold your souls, just to beat Hillary. The good news is that you have forever ceded the moral high ground, and are blatant hypocrites. This will never be forgotten, you and your ilk are forever stained by being Trump shills. Any time you ever try to bring morals or principles as an argument, this will get thrown back in your faces, and you will be laughed out the fucking door.

kindly show me the evidence stating the GOP knew about the letter as well and kept quiet about it for months.

"Why would a woman not want a rapist deciding court cases? That kind of concern is VERY VERY UNUSUAL!".

Like I said, the accuser should be heard. If he is a rapist he should be tried, but we need evidence instead of just using he said she said arguments of unknown dates/places/times/ without witnesses or substantiating evidence. The whole thing seems kind of shaky to me.


There have been over 65 women who signed a letter stating they've known Brett Kavanaugh for over 30 years and hes been an upstanding guy. Maybe the accuser had some details wrong?

[McCulloch]

Like I said, the accuser should be heard. If he is a rapist he should be tried, but we need evidence instead of just using he said she said arguments of unknown dates/places/times/ without witnesses or substantiating evidence. The whole thing seems kind of shaky to me.


There have been over 65 women who signed a letter stating they've known Brett Kavanaugh for over 30 years and hes been an upstanding guy. Maybe the accuser had some details wrong?

The letter with 65 women means nothing in the context of this accusation. You can be a nice, upstanding guy to a lot of people and still be a fucking scumbag to one person.

The biggest thing for me is the 2013 therapist's notes. That's a long con on such a scale that it doesn't seem worth playing.

- - - Updated - - -

What I dont get is why Feinstein waited until the very last minute to bring up this allegation, when she had the letter in her hands for over 6 weeks? It reeks of partisan hackery

The accuser should be heard, but this is all very unusual timing.

It's already been explained that the lady didn't want to come forward. Reporting that the letter existed and pressure from other Senate Democrats is what caused Feinstein to release it.

[Captain N]

It always surprised me about the people who will go out of their way to defend a possible rapist/pedophile/sexual predator simply because they don't know why it didn't get addressed immediately when it happened. I mean I'd totally want to come out and say someone sexually assaulted me immediately so a bunch of strangers could call me a lying whore and threaten my life....oh wait.

[ezgeze]

remember folks

this is an almost a 40 year old claim made by a woman who have multiple holes in her story and cannot even get her story straight apparently. Who hires a lawyer who said that its not the "victims" responsibility to corroborate her story. A claim that came out after apparently Bretts mother ruled against the "victims" parents as a judge (but she is paying them back right? Nope, too early by about 20 years.) Claimed she wasn't alone in the room and points a finger at guy #2 but he adamantly denies it. This "victim" then says that she was afraid of the story getting out but goes to the media and gives a statement to the evil hag from California which she promptly sits on it for months without bringing it up in a handful of meetings, closed door sessions, etc and then drops it after the last minute and demands a FBI investigation. Demands a halt to a vote. Yeah Anita Hill 2.0 based on a she said he x2 said. Democrats are fucking evil to the core and are willing to destroy a mans life over an incident you cannot collect evidence because they are butthurt over garland. The world would be a lot nicer place is the left would just die off.

[announced]

The letter with 65 women means nothing in the context of this accusation. You can be a nice, upstanding guy to a lot of people and still be a fucking scumbag to one person.

The biggest thing for me is the 2013 therapist's notes. That's a long con on such a scale that it doesn't seem worth playing.

- - - Updated - - -

It's already been explained that the lady didn't want to come forward. Reporting that the letter existed and pressure from other Senate Democrats is what caused Feinstein to release it.

The therapists notes don't even accurately reflect the story. the therapists notes say there were 4 boys in the room, but Ford says there were only two. What answer is correct?

also regarding Feinstein:
She kept the letter to herself and never told a single democrat or bothered to investigate any claims
In Feinsteins statement she says the allegations were very serious - in fact the allegations were so serious that she hid them from months from her democratic colleagues/the fbi/ and the whitehouse.
the FBI investigated Kavanaugh 6 times in the past and didn't find any issues with him - Kavanaugh passed every time.

Whether or not the allegations are true, we still need to hear from the victim. but from the way Feinstein played this it looks like an Anita Hill smear, but with a much more botched attempt.

[McCulloch]

The therapists notes don't even accurately reflect the story. the therapists notes say there were 4 boys in the room, but Ford says there were only two. What answer is correct?

also regarding Feinstein:
She kept the letter to herself and never told a single democrat or bothered to investigate any claims
In Feinsteins statement she says the allegations were very serious - in fact the allegations were so serious that she hid them from months from her democratic colleagues/the fbi/ and the whitehouse.
the FBI investigated Kavanaugh 6 times in the past and didn't find any issues with him - Kavanaugh passed every time.

Whether or not the allegations are true, we still need to hear from the victim. but from the way Feinstein played this it looks like an Anita Hill smear, but with a much more botched attempt.

A mistake by the therapist doesn't invalidate the accusation. Clearly Ford is correct here and the therapist misunderstood.

Feinstein botching the letter situation doesn't suddenly invalidate the claim. Passing the FBI investigation doesn't have any bearing on this specific situation as the whole controversy is that it was previously unreported.

"Anita Hill smear" LOL, I see the type of person you are now.

[Gestopft]

As much as I really, really don't want to see him on the SCOTUS, the idea of him going down because of a decades old #MeToo moment sort of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe if the GoP cared more about his lying to the Senate the last time (and his unorthodox views on executive power) instead of rushing him through as fast as possible...

That said, I don't really see any way in which this nomination won't be divisive- whether or not the allegations are true, and whether or not he gets confirmed. However it goes, someone (or everyone) is going to end up with a grudge over this.

- - - Updated - - -

Good to see we have Trumpers in here wanting the entire left to die because someone in their party might have raped someone.

It reminds me of the saying "if your beliefs are worth killing for, start with yourself." Wishing the death of millions of people because you don't agree with them isn't exactly a hallmark of a good citizen in a democratic country.

[McCulloch]

remember folks

this is an almost a 40 year old claim made by a woman who have multiple holes in her story and cannot even get her story straight apparently. Who hires a lawyer who said that its not the "victims" responsibility to corroborate her story. A claim that came out after apparently Bretts mother ruled against the "victims" parents as a judge (but she is paying them back right? Nope, too early by about 20 years.) Claimed she wasn't alone in the room and points a finger at guy #2 but he adamantly denies it. This "victim" then says that she was afraid of the story getting out but goes to the media and gives a statement to the evil hag from California which she promptly sits on it for months without bringing it up in a handful of meetings, closed door sessions, etc and then drops it after the last minute and demands a FBI investigation. Demands a halt to a vote. Yeah Anita Hill 2.0 based on a she said he x2 said. Democrats are fucking evil to the core and are willing to destroy a mans life over an incident you cannot collect evidence because they are butthurt over garland. The world would be a lot nicer place is the left would just die off.

Most of what you said is wrong or misleading, but that isn't surprising based on your last statement showing you're mentally unstable. Get help dude, you clearly need it.

[announced]

A mistake by the therapist doesn't invalidate the accusation. Clearly Ford is correct here and the therapist misunderstood.

Feinstein botching the letter situation doesn't suddenly invalidate the claim. Passing the FBI investigation doesn't have any bearing on this specific situation as the whole controversy is that it was previously unreported.

"Anita Hill smear" LOL, I see the type of person you are now.

the one that deals in facts and not vague statements? if I told you that I got robbed by a man when I went to the store sometime in the last 40 years, but you have to believe me. Would you insist its true and not ask any questions like, what store? what time was it ? where were you? what happened? what did the robber look like?
You know, questions that might actually prove whether or not the accuser is lying? one would think that might be helpful.



Here are 6 pieces of evidence that Hill was lying:

1. A witness said she was told details about the supposed sexual harassment while the two were living in Washington, except this witness was not living in Washington when Hill worked for Thomas.

The witness supposedly corroborating Hills’ allegations had moved out of Washington before Hill even began working for Thomas. How could she have possibly been told about the harassment before it happened?

2. Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job.

Hill claimed that she feared losing her government job if she did not follow Thomas from job to job. As Brookings Institute senior fellow Stuart Taylor Jr. points out, Hill was an employee of the federal government, known for its incredible job security.

3. Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.

Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.

Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.

4. Hill initially asked to be kept anonymous when her accusations were presented to Thomas. But if her accusations were true, then Thomas would know that the accusations were launched by Hill, so why ask for anonymity?

Sowell elaborates: “The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.

“Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present,” adds Sowell. “If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.”

5. Hill lied five times about being told something from a Democratic staffer, which she later admitted to under oath.

The Federalist highlights that Hill admitted, under oath, that although she previously denied being told something by a Democratic staffer, she actually was. This of course reeks of a political motive for the allegations and, again, a lack of credibility of the accuser.

6. A dozen females who worked with Thomas and Hill gave favorable testimony about Thomas and refuted the claims by Hill of Thomas’ inappropriate behavior.

As noted in the Wall Street Journal, “a dozen” women came out in support of Thomas, giving glowing testimony of his behaviour, lending contradiction to Hills’ accusations.


So apparently perjury is no big deal, in fact it will allow you to get your own film on HBO.

Good to see we have Trumpers in here wanting the entire left to die because someone in their party might have raped someone.

By the way, whats the big rush? I mean the Right had no problem keeping any Obama nomination off the SC for as long as possible, your telling me that can't wait this out now and double check to see that they are not putting a fucking rapist on the highest court in the land?

Nothing wrong with Bill Clinton being an rapist either right? as long as he votes for your side.

[PACOX]

Seriously, just find a better candidate and stop trying to shoehorn in the worst one The sexual assault allegation is just one of many xs against Kav.

[McCulloch]

the one that deals in facts and not vague statements? if I told you that I got robbed by a man when I went to the store sometime in the last 40 years, but you have to believe me. Would you insist its true and not ask any questions like, what store? what time was it ? where were you? what happened? what did the robber look like?
You know, questions that might actually prove whether or not the accuser is lying? one would think that might be helpful.



Here are 6 pieces of evidence that Hill was lying:

This isn't a court of law. We aren't convicting him of anything, just deciding whether or not he should get a Supreme Court seat. Based on the evidence so far, I'm inclined to say no. She's talked about being assaulted by a federal judge for years now. This isn't some hatchet job out of nowhere.

You could've just linked the Daily Wire article which uses the Federalist as evidence. 2, 3, 4, 6 aren't actually strong refutations and I'm not really all that inclined to believe the Federalist on 1 and 5. Give me something better to work with.

[announced]

Who did bill rape? Do some investigations, I mean at least as many as Hilary got for that ben ga zi fellow!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C...ct_allegations Apparently they called it sexual misconduct back in the days, i guess it has a nicer ring to it then rape. Some argue it was consensual, who knows? regardless he ended up settling out of court.

This isn't a court of law. We aren't convicting him of anything, just deciding whether or not he should get a Supreme Court seat. Based on the evidence so far, I'm inclined to say no. She's talked about being assaulted by a federal judge for years now. This isn't some hatchet job out of nowhere.

You could've just linked the Daily Wire article which uses the Federalist as evidence. 2, 3, 4, 6 aren't actually strong refutations and I'm not really all that inclined to believe the Federalist on 1 and 5. Give me something better to work with.

What evidence exactly? a vague encounter with either two or 4 boys that might have happened 36 years ago? oh and she also spoke with her therapist once in 2012. Possibly covering her marital problems and then bringing up Kavanaughs name later. The mind has a funny way of distorting events. Maybe Kavanaugh actually went to the party but left early, or was downstairs at the time of the incident and she is instead confusing him with another one of the 4 members there.

What isn't a strong refutation exactly?

#1 she either made up this information or invented a witness - that's a huge red flag.
#2 usually if you have a negative encounter with someone, you stay away from them. Either by quitting/asking to be reassigned/ bring it up at HR or make an anonymous statement. What you don't do is go back the very next day like nothing happened.
#3 why is she constantly calling her sexual harasser even after not working for him anymore? is she asking for money or something? another red flag.
#4 when Thomas was pressured to withdraw based on anonymous accusations, he should know who made them if they were in fact true - there were only two people present at the time so it would be very obvious to Thomas who the accuser was
#5 she lied repeatedly under oath - apparently that's a crime as well
#6 Thomas had over a dozen women come to his defense giving a glowing testimony of his behaviour - if he was a serial sexual harasser - there would be more accusers than one, and also some evidence.. rather than 0.

[Mormolyce]

I see the propaganda machine is working overtime.

The claims might be the nail in his coffin from a public opinion perspective, however the more important angle is the whole lying under oath multiple times thing. Doesn't look so great on a Supreme Court Justice lol.

The Republicans may well still pass him but the Democrats have more than made their case for impeachment, so if they had any sense they'd scrap him and pick a safer candidate.

[Machismo]

kindly show me the evidence stating the GOP knew about the letter as well and kept quiet about it for months.




Like I said, the accuser should be heard. If he is a rapist he should be tried, but we need evidence instead of just using he said she said arguments of unknown dates/places/times/ without witnesses or substantiating evidence. The whole thing seems kind of shaky to me.


There have been over 65 women who signed a letter stating they've known Brett Kavanaugh for over 30 years and hes been an upstanding guy. Maybe the accuser had some details wrong?

They already had plans in place, and personal letters defending his character with women available. Their reaction to everything said plenty.

[Bodakane]

the one that deals in facts and not vague statements? if I told you that I got robbed by a man when I went to the store sometime in the last 40 years, but you have to believe me. Would you insist its true and not ask any questions like, what store? what time was it ? where were you? what happened? what did the robber look like?
You know, questions that might actually prove whether or not the accuser is lying? one would think that might be helpful.



Here are 6 pieces of evidence that Hill was lying:

1. A witness said she was told details about the supposed sexual harassment while the two were living in Washington, except this witness was not living in Washington when Hill worked for Thomas.

The witness supposedly corroborating Hills’ allegations had moved out of Washington before Hill even began working for Thomas. How could she have possibly been told about the harassment before it happened?

2. Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job.

Hill claimed that she feared losing her government job if she did not follow Thomas from job to job. As Brookings Institute senior fellow Stuart Taylor Jr. points out, Hill was an employee of the federal government, known for its incredible job security.

3. Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.

Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.

Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.

4. Hill initially asked to be kept anonymous when her accusations were presented to Thomas. But if her accusations were true, then Thomas would know that the accusations were launched by Hill, so why ask for anonymity?

Sowell elaborates: “The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.

“Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present,” adds Sowell. “If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.”

5. Hill lied five times about being told something from a Democratic staffer, which she later admitted to under oath.

The Federalist highlights that Hill admitted, under oath, that although she previously denied being told something by a Democratic staffer, she actually was. This of course reeks of a political motive for the allegations and, again, a lack of credibility of the accuser.

6. A dozen females who worked with Thomas and Hill gave favorable testimony about Thomas and refuted the claims by Hill of Thomas’ inappropriate behavior.

As noted in the Wall Street Journal, “a dozen” women came out in support of Thomas, giving glowing testimony of his behaviour, lending contradiction to Hills’ accusations.


So apparently perjury is no big deal, in fact it will allow you to get your own film on HBO.



Nothing wrong with Bill Clinton being an rapist either right? as long as he votes for your side.

You people knowingly vote for pedophiles and voted for a POTUS who brags about sexual assault.

It is as if you prefer sexual predators and most of you are incels.

If it walks like a duck....

[Breccia]

The letter with 65 women means nothing in the context of this accusation. You can be a nice, upstanding guy to a lot of people and still be a fucking scumbag to one person.

Exactly. It's like pointing to the 3 million Americans in Puerto Rico that didn't die to the hurricane, and saying "those 3 million didn't die, Trump is the best bestiest best because 3 million didn't die."

[Grapemask]

Sometimes you think movements like #MeToo fixed some of our sleeziest elements... then you see the sleezes in this thread, desperate to defend their team with all of their same old shit. Stay classy, conservatives.