Thank you to all at the vigil, seeking that we make all information available on the character of a SCOTUS nominee before confirmation.

One only has to look at how the administration is trying to distract the news cycle away from the new allegations of impropriety of this flawed nominee.

It is time for the administration to either:
- re-open the background investigation on the nominee, looking into the new evidence available to determine if the nominee is a liar
- withdrawal the nominee and consider a nominee without the apparent moral turpitude of our current president

This is a lifetime appointment. There is no rush on determination of fitness for this office.

I wonder if the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill legal case can be reopened. If Clarence Thomas lied under oath, then he committed perjury, which can bring life in prison.

Christine Blasey Ford is a courageous woman.

This whole case is not about being a Democrat or Republican. It is a case of human morality.

Yes! Dr Blasey has a strong community in our town. If only we could post the sound of the horns from cars passing by...it was a symphony!

And so good to hear after the negativity on this site.

More information seems to be coming out regarding Kavanaugh and his treatment of women.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

"After 36 years?"

Yes. If he is lying about something 36 years old, instead of just admitting it and apologizing, he disqualifies himself for a lifetime appointment.

Do you want a liar on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years?

The Hill - Thomas hearings cannot be reopened, so we are stuck with him unless he dies, resigns or is impeached. My understanding is that the grounds for impeachment must originate from malfeasance during his time on the court. To me that means the only possible way to get rid of him is if he resigns as he is relatively young and healthy. It's harder to impeach a Justice than a President.

[Portion removed.]

If Kavanough is proven to have done what he is accused of, then he is accountable Not before. Put your pitchforks and torches back in your barns! Hopefully the facts will be available as such an allegation against st any person is potentially life-ruining.

"If Kavanough (sic) is proven to have done what he is accused of"

If he lies about it, he disqualifies himself from SCOTUS. This is why a fair and full investigation is required - call all relevant witnesses and under oath. That includes the alleged witness, Mark Judge and others who are coming out about Kavanaugh's actions.


Do you want a liar on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years?

To the probably well-meaning guy in the photo with the sign saying "Believe Women":

This sign exemplifies any intellectual's objection to this rally and line of thought. If women are to be believed and men not, then we might as well dispense with the entire system of Western jurisprudence and practice, right? Accusations, trials, and punishment can all be dealt with simply by knowing the genders of the people involved.

Thank God for our system of law and order. I would *not* want to live in a country where justice is meted out by this kind of shoddy thinking.

People have a right to say "Believe Women" or "I believe Christine," but they greatly discredit their cause in doing so. Popular social justice movements really do seem to be dispensing with the notion of innocence until guilt is proven. Watch me and others on the left drift to the "other side" as a result. Sorry, but this is foundational.

For a fair and nuanced approach to what to "believe" about these accusations, I'd recommend this NYT op-ed piece:
Web Link

"I would *not* want to live in a country where justice is meted out by this kind of shoddy thinking."

then a recommendation with a link to:

"I believe that nobody who sits in judgment of others, whether as a federal judge or Supreme Court justice, should ever be guilty of such an assault at any age, much less of brazenly lying about it as an adult."


@'wisdom': do you believe, foundationally, there should be a full, fair and complete investigation into the nominee's potential lies?

Why did Christine [portion removed] wait decades to come forward? Didn't she share the "fun party events" with her mother, siblings, friends? Too long a span of time to be believable . . .

Barabra: " of such superior moral character " and " Didn't she share the "fun party events" with her mother "

Did you share everything, as a 15 year old, with your mother?

Nice shift in adding the "blame the victim" card. The question remains: Do you want a liar on the Supreme Court for the next 30-40 years?

A full, fair and complete investigation into the nominee's potential lies will give you all the information we need. Why rush a lifetime appointment? What's the rush?

Most girls and women don't report rape and assault for just the reasons we're seeing where some people prefer to blame the victim and run her out of town than to blame the rapist. The entire GOP has refused to re-instate the Violence Against Women Act. Trump has paid off porn stars and he's still in office appointing other predators to the highest court in the land. Some of the loonier Republicans rewrite the laws of biology claiming "legitimate rape" will "shut down the body" while others claim "rape is a gift from god."

There are countless examples of admitted, confessed rapists getting off with no penalty in the news right now.

Look at all the women who were denied protection orders who were later murdered by the very men they wanted protection from. And look at all the innocent lives lost when some entitled jerk decides to kill "his woman" for daring to reject him.

I know for many of you that this may be difficult to wrap your heads around, but what if Dr. Ford isn't being truthful ? You have already decided that Judge Kavanaugh must be lying. Why is that ?

As a woman, I find it damaging to my gender to hear women in Palo Alto (where I live) to claim that they believe Ford, because 'women know she is telling the truth'. Baloney! Have they never heard of Jackie Coakley (UVA gang rape charge, and the Rolling Stone article that supported her...all lies). And don't many of these same women have men in their lives...do they want them to go without due process?

"but what if Dr. Ford isn't being truthful ?" A resonable thing to investigate. Fully. Fairly, Completely.

And have you wrapped your head around the possibility she is being truthful? She has contemporaneous notes from years ago, passed a polygraph, etc..

Do you feel a nominee, if shown to be a liar, should be confirmed to uphold our constitution?

For life?

What's the rush?

"Have they never heard of "

Here comes the whataboutism's. And straw men.

June: who is going without due process? Don't you want a full, fair and complete hearing to protect the nominee's reputation? In the name of due process?

Do you feel a nominee, if shown to be a liar, should be confirmed to uphold our constitution?

For life?

What's the rush?

@Moral Character: thanks for your thoughtful question "do you believe, foundationally, there should be a full, fair and complete investigation into the nominee's potential lies?"

Theoretically, yes.

Whatever correct process there is for such allegations, *in this stage of a nominee's confirmation process*, should be followed. I say the "in this stage" part simply because there is almost always -- and should be -- a time limit during which any aggrieved should be able to speak up. It's not up to individual citizens to determine what that is; that's determined by the laws of this land and the practices of our elected leaders.

All this is tainted by political motives, however, which is why my answer is "theoretical." Blasey Ford (and the new accuser, I think) are demanding FBI investigations. Since when did individual citizens dictate the conditions under which the government will investigate their charges? And why did Feinstein sit on these allegations for months? This makes me think that there are political motives, the obvious one being delaying the confirmation until after the elections, at which point the Senate might tip Democrat.

Certainly if Kavanaugh is found to be lying about this, he should be out, no question. But what complicates and hampers the "fair, full and complete investigation" you ask about is exactly why, in part, we have statutes of limitation. It's really hard, and thus unfair, to investigate something like this several decades after the fact, for obvious reasons.

(I know there are reasons why people who are or feel assaulted don't report it to the authorities immediately after the alleged incidents. But let's just say that the accuser's failure to do so, whatever the reason, is not helping her case right now. For this kind of alleged situation, it would be really hard to have a meaningfully conclusive investigation at this point, it seems to me. But yes, an investigation should be done.)

In any case, strangers claiming they "believe Christine," or "believe women," does not result in any advancement of the public good.

I'm a man and I'm terrified by the people in the vigil, thinking my name could be tarnished in this way without any evidence by anyone I knew or not before.

I was a supporter of Democratic party as of last year. I'm going GOP now. Trump might have a dirty mouth. But the intellectual degradation of Democratic party supporters as shown in this vigil is a real danger to the way we live.

Let’s get a deal

Let’s get Judge Garland a fair hearing. He gets to be Justice.
Let’s ask Justice Thomas and Ginsburg to retire.

Let’s forgive Judge Kavanaugh to say sorry and apologize. He gets on the Supreme Court.

I do support Dr. Ford. I support her right to privacy (the Democrats haven't) and the ability to speak in a free and fair forum (the Republicans have).

She should never have been forced into this position and she now has been, thanks to the political efforts of Anna Esheew and Dianne Feinstein, among others, to advance their own agenda. They know that Judge Kavanaugh is above reproach and this is the path they took to undermine his appointment. Shameful!

Legally speaking, FBI background checks are thorough and only go back to age of legal adulthood, 18. I see no evidence that has been provided to substantiate these claims allegedly perpetrated by a 17yr old boy at a drunken high school house party. Judge Kavanaugh has proven his good character throughout his life.

Yes, I support Dr Ford. I support her right to privacy and I also support the idea of being innocent until proven guilty.

[Post removed due to inaccurate factual reference.]

"do you believe, foundationally, there should be a full, fair and complete investigation into the nominee's potential lies?"

Theoretically, yes."


Now, that's funny!

So much like a statement that says: " data, data, data BUT...."

One knows everything that follows is basically noise.

"All major media outlets have already reported that all 3 people she claimed to be her witnesses say..."

That's awesome. Let them be called under oath. Testify to their recollections. Let's clear the nominee.

A full, fair and complete investigation, with all relevant witnesses.

What's the rush?

I am tremendously saddened by this whole sorry situation b/c I think we are actively and willingly eroding our own institutions. If we are not mindful of the foundational principals of our judicial system and instead become a society that assumes guilt and lays blame on the basis of an accusation, we are in trouble. I also think there's a tremendous amount of conflation going on here. Are we going to allow deep animosity towards Trump to erode our principals of fairness? And when are we going to rally around ending the politicization of crime and causes and human behavior? Whether intentional or not, Feinstein's delay in bringing Ford's concerns/accusations forward suggests that what was - is - most valued is the political TNT in what Ford has to say about Kavanaugh.

It's almost silly to ask if someone wants a liar on the Supreme Court because the only answer to that is "of course not". Not only that, we do not know who (if anyone) is/is not lying or if there's something less sinister, like mis-remembering, at play. We do not know; maybe that will be clear after Thursday.

For the record, I did not vote for Trump, I am not a Trump fan, and I have concerns about his presidency. But I also have concerns about what I see us doing to ourselves and worry that that could well have longer lasting impact than any four year presidency.

A significant number of men should exercise better common sense when it comes to the pursuit of women.

If a woman is attracted to you, there will be fewer repercussions later down the road (unless you dump or reject her unceremoniously).

On the other hand, if she is not attracted to you and you continue to persist...there will be problems.

Consent is the key issue and you have to be able to read all the signs.

What is often described as 'sexist' can be construed as complimentary depending on the person you are dealing with...and whether they are mutually interested in you.

" mindful of the foundational principals of our judicial system "

Such as appointing truthful fair judges to uphold the law.

Why are you against the opportunity for the nominee to clear his name? He, and we, deserve a full, fair and complete investigation, with all relevant witnesses.

What's the rush?

[Post removed.]

@Moral Character: you keep asking the same question in the comments about why wouldn't we want a "full, fair and complete investigation," but that was at all the point of the protest in Palo Alto, as reported here.

The protest was all about rallying to "support" Blasey Ford (but *not* Kavanaugh) and that "Christine," and "women," are to be "believed."

A fair hearing was not the point of this rally. The protesters have made up their minds. Your question is best directed at them!

The degree to which supporters of "women's causes" don't speak out against the kind of shoddy thinking that goes into rallies such as this, is the degree to which reasonable people will distance themselves from these causes.

People who believe in non-violent communication principles should not participate in polarizing rhetoric such as expressed at these rallies.

The related article is about the community saying "we have your back" to Blasey Ford. Just wow. No one should be driven from their houses by death threats: not Blasey Ford NOR Kavanaugh. Is the "community" also saying if Kavanaugh lived here, they'd drive him out of town?

My post was removed "due to inaccurate factual reference". OK, reposting directly from CNN:
JAKE TAPPER: We now have four individuals who have come forward who were named by Professor Ford who were at that party. And all four: Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, and her friend, Leland Keyser, have all said they don't remember anything like this ever happened. And Leland Keyser, who says she believes Ford, says that doesn't even remember being at a party where Kavanaugh was present.

"In any case, strangers claiming they "believe Christine," or "believe women," does not result in any advancement of the public good."

Perhaps. Nor do the comments that follow yours, such as "Christine Blasey Ford is a symbol of moral degradation" and "Early onset dementia?"

Thus furthering the point that we need a "full, fair and complete investigation" into the background and character of the nominee for such an important position.

But you are correct: let's add transparent - a full, fair, complete and transparent investigation"

What's the rush?

Thank you, Concerned Observer and June, for your common sense!! A shame those of us are so few residing in tony Palo Alto!

[Post removed.]

Given all the fever-swamp freaky conspiracy theories being deleted, it's obvious this thread will close down soon.

So let's remember: we all are seeking that information be made available on the character of a SCOTUS nominee before confirmation.

We all seek a full, fair, complete and transparent investigation with all appropriate witnesses under oath.

Dr. Ford has contemporaneous notes from years ago and has passed a polygraph. All those that seek to offer evidence should be under oath, questioned by senate committee members, not some figurehead lawyer brought in by one party or another.

This is a lifetime appointment. There is no rush on determination of fitness for this office.

There is no rush. Let truth prevail about the nominee.

This truly worries me.

It is a case of She Says/He Says and none of us know the truth, whether the incident has been exaggerated, whether the individuals have been misnamed or misremembered, etc. etc. I don't know the truth and have little opinion, but all this rush to judgment and rush to praise is not warranted.

37 years ago the culture was different. Young girls who gave guys the come on were common, guys who perhaps went a little too far were common, there was no advice about no means no or making sure you got a yes. Was that a good thing in the culture of the time, probably not. Were they as aware as young people today of the messages they were sending, probably not. Was life more complicated for young people then than nowadays, possibly, but the rules have changed. Judging someone for their behavior in a different time and culture is not the same as judging someone for what happened yesterday or last week.

As for memories, who can tell if the memory is accurate as to details of who a young guy was to a 15 year old girl in a drunken party.

Please can some sense prevail in all this. Not only is this something that could damage Kavanaugh's appointment, but it could also damage his marriage, his wife and his daughters. Is that the outcome that is desired here?

Moral Character:

You kept on repeating the phrase "There is no rush". That makes me wonder what kind of appointments could be rushed? Teacher? Police? Doctor? CFO?

The real matter of fact is that mid-term is coming. One party wants get it over before the election, while the other not. Plain and simple.

So, please debate on the issue. Please stop repeating "There is no rush". That sounds quite phony, to be honest.

"It is a case of She Says/He Says and none of us know the truth, .... but all this rush to judgment and rush to praise is not warranted."

Indeed. Truth seekers need to know about the moral character of the nominee. If he lied, he needs to admit it and apologize. If his character is fit, he should get a vote.

To ascertain either, we need a a full, fair, complete and transparent investigation with all appropriate witnesses under oath.

What's the rush? Even Resident admits it is too rushed: "but all this rush to judgment and rush to praise is not warranted."

Couldn't agree more.

What's the rush?

"Dr. Ford has contemporaneous notes from years ago and has passed a polygraph. All those that seek to offer evidence should be under oath, questioned by senate committee members, not some figurehead lawyer brought in by one party or another."

Anybody know how Kavanaugh's polygraph turned out? Oh, he won't take one? Well, ... .

But surely he'll want these charges investigated by the FBI to definitively clear his name? No?

What's this guy hiding?

Sincere - "So, please debate on the issue. Please stop repeating "There is no rush" "

Are you saying the prospect of biennial elections should influence the investigation into the moral character of a lifetime appointment?

I disagree.

Debate the issue? The issue is: a nominee to a lifetime position should be of high moral character - we need a full, fair, complete and transparent investigation with all appropriate witnesses under oath.

"One party wants get it over before the election" but at the expense of the truth? If so, they are placing party before principles, wouldn't you agree?

As to the quest for truth, in my opinion, I'm sorry - "There is no rush"

Review of the case,

Months earlier Dr. Blasey-Ford sent the letter to Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein forwarded it to the FBI. It seems to have died there, no action taken. One may realistically surmise that it was quashed there by the White House [portion removed.]

Then it leaked. Now one may realistically surmise that it was leaked by someone with the intent to block Kavanaugh's nomination.

Ironically had the White House asked the FBI to investigate----interviewing the accuser, Judge Kavanaugh, his friend present at the event Mark Judge, others at the party, and other classmates and parents--my guess is that the White House would have decided to rescind the nomination and picked another from their Heritage House stable of right wing zealots to fill that spot. BUT Trump desperately needs someone who will not only overturn Roe V Wade, but also someone who will defend him against the Mueller Probe and the now very convincing evidence of widespread corruption in general and treason with Putin/Russia in particular. And the decision not to vet Dr. Blasey-Ford's accusations means that if Kavanaugh isn't confirmed it will have to wait until after November elections.

Now other women are coming forward. Attorney (pitbull) Avenati is now involved. [Portion removed.]
Web Link

Judge Kavanaugh is not being tried in a court of law where "beyond a reasonable doubt" has relevance. This is all just (inadequate) vetting for his fitness to be a Supreme Court Judge. So stop with all the needless wailing and gnashing of right wing teeth!

I 95% believe Dr. Blasey-Ford. I believe after her testimony and further evidence is uncovered by this Thursday his nomination and reputation will go down in flames OR Republicans will double down on this despicable man and put him on the highest court of the land. With his reputation in tatters and an electorate further enraged, as an election very near.

But Birds of of Feather do indeed flock together. Trump and his multitude of credible accusers (one suing him now), Rob Portman the wife beater who Kavanaugh recommended for the job, Bill Shine the protector of Roger Ailes and his years of sexual predation who is now coaching Kavanaugh.

[Portion removed.]

1982 - Something may or may not have happened with another 2 (or 4) teenagers at a party, she cannot remember who threw the party, where the party was held, who she was with or how she got home. She was drinking and said nothing to anyone.
[Portion removed.]
2017 - becomes an anti-trump activist.
2018 - now 36 years later, with Kavanaugh's SCOTUS confirmation looming, she pens an anonymous letter with grave accusations against Kavanaugh regarding foggy circumstance that occurred while they were both minors, then reveals herself and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations?

"... and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations?"

And Kavanaugh promptly also demanded an FBI investigation to clear it all up pronto, right?

No?

Why not? He's got nothing to fear from what they would find, right? Expose these frauds right quick, right?

No?

Hmmm.

@ Curmudgeon....it has long been known that polygraphs are unreliable and not admissible in a court of law. Anyone can "pass" a polygraph depending on what the questions are and how they are asked.

And you also know that the FBI doesn't investigate allegations of this nature,
but when they do investigate crimes, the requirements are listed below.

All identifying information for the victim(s)

As much identifying information as possible regarding the subject(s)

Date and time of incident

Location of incident

Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es)

A complete chronology of events

Any police report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.

Dr. Ford may not be able to provide any of this, based on what she, Sen. Feinstein and others have said about this alleged incident, but more importantly, because it doesn't exist.

Judge Kavanaugh will be questioned as will Dr.Ford, by the Senate Judiciary Committee. We'll see then how all this turns out. Regardless of how it goes, those who support Dr. Ford won't change their minds about whether or not she is being truthful and those who support Judge Kavanaugh won't either.

"@ Curmudgeon....it has long been known that polygraphs are unreliable and not admissible in a court of law. Anyone can "pass" a polygraph depending on what the questions are and how they are asked."

So Kavanaugh should have no problem passing a lie detector rest, right? For at least two reasons: he's innocent, and he gets asked the right questions the right way, right?

So why not do it? Just do it. It only takes a couple hours, and it would demolish a bedrock liberal allegation.

"@ Curmudgeon....it has long been known that polygraphs are unreliable and not admissible in a court of law. Anyone can "pass" a polygraph depending on what the questions are and how they are asked."

So Kavanaugh should have no problem passing a lie detector rest, right? For at least two reasons: he's innocent, and he gets asked the right questions the right way, right?

So why not do it? Just do it. It only takes a couple hours, and it would demolish a bedrock liberal allegation.


"All identifying information for the victim(s); As much identifying information as possible regarding the subject(s); Date and time of incident; Location of incident; Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es); A complete chronology of events"

Uh-huh. Rape victims should keep a careful diary throughout the event, right?

While you're debating whether there is or is not a rush to confirm him, let's remember that Mitch McConnell refused to "rush" or to even hold confirmation hearings AT ALL on Obama's nominee Merrick Garland for the LONGEST period in US history,

He even bragged that being able to stall the hearings was one of his proudest moments in his continued opposition to anything and everything Obama did.

Let's also remember the GOP spent 4 times as much money investigating Clinton's consensual act with an adult as we did investigating 9/11. Maybe Kavanah should abide by the same rules as *he* proposed for Clinton?

Wouldm't it be special of everyone played by the same rules.

@ Curmudgeon....and if he took the test and "passed"..... I'll just bet you'd be demanding his confirmation ASAP, right ?

Possibly both 100 per cent believe they are telling the truth.
Perhaps both are!

Note she has hid her letter, and his the “ polygraph” — where is the print out of that? The questions? The credentials? The video? Etc.

Now EVEN is B. K. Did these odd and rough and very improper things, drinking maybe , would only make him MORE QUALIFIED to be on the court, because we see how he has turned his life around, led an exemplary life, which is more powerful more difficult, and more worthy of PRAISE and RESPECT than. A simple trajectory of a well lived life.. his REDEMPTION is compelling story!

Justice. For,the Justice. No reason AT ALL not to confirm him ASAP.

"@ Curmudgeon....and if he took the test and "passed"..... I'll just bet you'd be demanding his confirmation ASAP, right ?"

Well then, as I said, why doesn't he just do that? Hmmm?

@ Curmudgeon.,,..answer the question instead of deflecting...he passes and you do what ??? Hmmm....

@ Curmudgeon...."Uh-huh. Rape victims should keep a careful diary throughout the event,right?"

She NEVER said she was raped. Give it up. I know you love the narrative of the left, but be honest for cryin' out loud.

Dems have gone nuts; they give their representatives passes while they hit the GOP below the belt.

This was too long ago, it was supposedly when he was 17. This is merely a she-said, he-said.

[Portion removed.]

"@ Curmudgeon.,,..answer the question instead of deflecting...he passes and you do what ??? Hmmm...."

He ain't passed. He ain't even taken the test. Don't expect a real answer to a hypothetical question.

Tell you what: You get Kavanaugh to do his poly and to have the FBI thoroughly investigate the matter. Show me the results. Then we'll talk.


"She NEVER said she was raped. Give it up. I know you love the narrative of the left, but be honest for cryin' out loud."

I never said she (presuming you refer to Ms. Ford) was raped, either. I was merely doing a reductio ad absurdum commentary on some silly comments somebody made. Come to think of it, scratch that reductio part.

Both the accused and accuser both deserve a fair and safe process to present their sides without prejudgement, and one can only hope Washington will do that. Meanwhile, Dr. Ford is a long time resident of our community, and it's a sign of a strong community to support a neighbor in crisis. Let DC handle the hearings, meanwhile, let us show that we can have different political views with their neighbors and still care for them, and wish for them to be safe.

Its seems pretty convenient it took right up until he was selected to be a judge to have someone accuse him of misconduct, not to mention 36 years...

@i sez, your comparison is grotesque.

“Dr. Ford is a long time resident of our community, and it's a sign of a strong community to support a neighbor in crisis. Let DC handle the hearings, meanwhile, let us show that we can have different political views with their neighbors and still care for them, and wish for them to be safe.“

Perfectly stated, thank you. @ a MV resident

"Its seems pretty convenient it took right up until he was selected to be a judge to have someone accuse him of misconduct, not to mention 36 years..."

I agree--this guy should have been reported to the authorities for attempted rape immediately. That likely would have forestalled any consideration for SCOTUS, as well as preventing his further assaults on women. The lack of consequences stoked his sense of entitlement.

But it is not uncommon for victims to delay reporting sexual abuse for two, three, four, or more decades, as evidenced in the ongoing Catholic Church scandals.

It's not like these elite prep school "rape games" were uncommon. Remember this one from 2014 that got national coverage? Web Link
"Prosecutors accused Labrie, then 18, of raping a 15-year-old freshman girl in May 2014 at the prestigious St. Paul's School in Concord. Prosecutors said he did it as part of a ritual called the "Senior Salute," in which graduating seniors try to bed underclassmen."

@ Curmudgeon...."He ain't passed. He ain't even taken the test. Don't expect a real answer to a hypothetical question."

Dr. Ford's accusation is a hypothetical. "I don't know, when, where or who was there...I was drunk." So maybe you should believe me after 35 years if you think I'm being truthful. Hypothetically, I could be telling the truth, but there is no one to corroborate my claim.

"I never said she (presuming you refer to Ms. Ford) was raped, either. I was merely doing a reductio ad absurdum commentary on some silly comments somebody made. Come to think of it, scratch that reductio part."

I'm sure glad I had four years of Latin in H.S. so I didn't have to Google translate your sarcastic comment. The whole thread, duh, is about Dr. Ford and her claim, so I can't imagine you were referring to the general population of accusers of sexual indiscretion.

So again, hypothetically, if he passes a lie detector test are you gonna demand he be confirmed ??? C'mon....it's all hypothetical.

One thing I give this woman credit for...at least she didn't hire that publicity hound/pseudo lawyer Gloria Allred to represent her.

"I'm sure glad I had four years of Latin in H.S. so I didn't have to Google translate your sarcastic comment."

Reductio ad absurdum is a common debate tactic. But glad you got to the the point, however laboriously.


"So again, hypothetically, if he passes a lie detector test are y must ou gonna demand he be confirmed ??? C'mon....it's all hypothetical."

My point exactly. Make it real and we'll talk.

Say, speaking of real, Ms Ford did pass her real lie detector test, so you are compelled to really believe her and dismiss him. Done.

[Portion removed.]

@ Curmudgeon....You make me laugh. Not a bad thing. What questions were asked of her in her "real" lie detector test? Hypothetically....."So Dr. Ford, are you saying that you may have been assaulted by someone while you were drunk but can't remember any details about where, when or who and that no one you know can corroborate your claim ?" Dr. Ford: "Yes." Okay, you passed.
[Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

I think it's great to support Christine Blasey Ford. I hope that she is able to deal with all the repercussions of what she talked about with her therapist. At the same time, if all or nothing of what she is saying is true, this is a no win situation for Democrats. There is going to be no FBI investigation. (Biden says they are irrelevant). There is going to be no investigation. Ford is not going to testify. If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, there is going to be hell to pay. Democrats will lose seats. Republicans will keep the majority. A more conservative justice will take Kavanaugh's place. Life will go on. And for what? So that the world can know that Ford thinks she was sexually harassed by a 17-year old student in high school? Did we really need to go through this to find that out.

[Post removed.]

A Pursuit of Justice

Please look up "What are character traits for a Chief Justice?"

11. Character: This most important overall quality is a key intangible. The applicant should be of the best character. He or she should have a positive reputation in every professional and residential community. His or her background should be free of references to immorality or indiscretions. He or she should be free of a history of substance abuse or substance dependence, and free of indications domestic violence, publicly unacceptable conduct and the like. Candidates should be financially stable.

"Hundreds" attended....ergo, tens of thousands did not.

The PA Post put the number at 2,000 while PA Weekly and the Merc put it at 1,000. And that's just the vigil in Palo Alto, not the other demonstrations happening in DC and elsewhere.

my mistake @online name..In Palo Alto "2000" people attended...ergo, tens of thousands did not. I stand corrected.

Another article to read: Web Link

Key points:

1. Georgetown Prep. fostered much darker impulses that have persisted for decades: A world of rowdy parties where a teen boy's cool quotient was established by access to alcohol and drugs and his prowess with girls and sports.

2. The GP's dean reminded Kavanaugh prior to a speech in 2015 that "what happens at GP, stays at GP." According to Kavanaugh "that's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

3. Erik Ruyan(k?), a GP student saw at parties in 2003 and '04 that "Boys were trying to take advantage of girls who were drunk."

4. Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friend authored the memoirs, "Wasted: Tales of GenX Drunk."

5. Ruyak(n?) said the all-male environment and the wealthy background of most students bred a sense of entitlement among some. It was commonplace, he said, to hear students boast in explicit terms about sexual conquests, and for some teachers to allow the puerile banter, if not condone it. Male teachers making lewd jokes.

And more.....

With the TV going on in the background...while we haven't heard from the judge yet, Christine B. Ford comes across as sincere & straightforward.

The detractors are really spinning some trivialities (i.e. air-travel options/necessities) to discredit her testimony. This borders on lame.

In the best interests of our country, the POTUS should consider withdrawing Kavanaugh's nomination & move on to other candidates on his 'short list' as this judicial hearing just adds to the ongoing/chronic divisiveness of our nation.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]

"Ruyak(n?) said the all-male environment and the wealthy background of most students bred a sense of entitlement among some. It was commonplace, he said, to hear students boast in explicit terms about sexual conquests, and for some teachers to allow the puerile banter, if not condone it."

Elites in training.