Supreme Court confirmation looking good.

weaviemx5

We have already heard form the other named person alleged to be in the room and he has denied it ever happened at all. So what are the FBI supposed to investigate?

I would point out that if the FBI do decide to investigate (they refused when asked previously) the first thing they are going to want to do is get Mrs Ford on oath telling her story. Exactly what she is being asked to do next Monday.

Pacifico

Doesn't that mean that women have a right to be believed...then a thorough Police investigation can take place?  The bigger problem is people being immediately discredited and ignored by the Police rather than following it up (see the Rochdale cases in the UK)

Pacifico

Again, she's being asked to stand in front of a group of Senators to essentially testify a legal accusation.  Senators are not the same as Police/FBI officers and have nothing to do with criminal prosecutions, so they're not the same.

I take it you'd be as happy for Trump to testify in front of Mueller as to a room full of Senators?

Toko Black

The Senators will not be asking the questions - an outside counsel will be the only person questioning Mrs Ford

mark6226

Even if Mrs Ford is not politically motivated I dont think anyone would claim that her Lawyer isnt..

Not looking good..

Ford's attorneys, after being listed on fundraiser for Democrat, pull out of event - CNNPolitics

https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/20/fords-lawyer-has-a-totally-different-standard-for-democrat-sex-offenders/

weaviemx5

Blah, blah bladey blah

It's an utter joke when you put it all in context.

Prior to Obama the Supreme Court of 9 Judges was as follows:

7 Republican placed Judges and 2 Democrat placed Judges.
Made up of 1 Chief Justice(R) and 8 Associate Justices(6R and 2D)​
During Obama's Presidency, 2 Associate Justices retired and one passed away.
He appointed 2 Associate Justices, one in 2009 and one in 2010.

5 Republican placed Judges and 4 Democrat placed Judges.
Made up of 1 Chief Justice(R) and 8 Associate Justices(4R and 4D)​
In 2016, Associate Judge Antonin Scalia passed away.
That gave Obama the opertunity to nominate an Associate Justice bringing the balance of Republican/Democrat appointed Justices to 4/5 which would have looked as follows:

4 Republican placed Judges and 5 Democrat placed Judges.
Made up of 1 Chief Justice(R) and 8 Associate Justices(3R and 5D)
​The Republicans however were having none of that and proceeded to play silly beggars and refuse to accept ANY candidate nominated by Obama that wasn't republican biased.
Due to the Republicans controlling the house, they were able to block and delay the process in an unprecidented way until the next Presidential elections, so it remained as follows:

4 Republican placed Judges and 4 Democrat placed Judges.
Made up of 1 Chief Justice(R) and 7 Associate Justices(3R and 4D) with 1 empty place.​
When Trump won the election he took control of the nomination that should have been Obama's which then became:

5 Republican placed Judges and 4 Democrat placed Judges.
Made up of 1 Chief Justice(R) and 8 Associate Justices(4R and 4D)​
One of the Republican nominated Associated Justices retired in 2018 and now this is the position Trump has nominated Kavanaugh.

The Republicans are desperate to appoint not only a Republican leaning Judge, but also a Judge that is as well right of centre as possible - to the point of witholding documents and only publishing others right at the last minute as to make them impossible to scrutinise thoroughly.
They then ignored complaints and objections by panel members even going so far as to simply talk over them in what appeared to be a childish attempt to give Kavanaugh as easy a time as possible - not asking him any serious questions and even chatting about pens.

Yet as soon as someone calls for a delay while serious accusations are investigated - the Republicans, who:

i) unpresidentedly stalled and stole the last nomination for the Supreme Court,
ii) refuse to listen to legitamet complaints of witholding and delaying access to important documentation and
iii) purposefully asking banal and irrelevant questions instead of seriously interviewing the nominee.

..... cry shenanigans, conspiracy and unfair, unscrupulous and deceptive on behalf of the Democrats.

It's a pattern that is repeated over and over by the GOP/Republicans/Trump.
Lie, quote conspiracy as fact and ignore/dismiss/condone any behaviours or actions as long as they produce the results they want ...... then claim everything that shows them in a bad light or is in anyway critical as being fake news and conspiracies even when there is substantial and hard evidence to the contrary.

Faced with hard and substancive evidence, those appologists that run out of fake news/conspiracy arguments then resort to the cliche's of "All politicians lie" and "They are all as bad as each other".
Take something that is technically true, but is complex, nuanced and applies across such a significant scale of minor to extreme ...... and paint it as simply black and white.

What does appear to be true based upon observed, documented repeated behaviours and actions is that Republicans and especially their politicians are far more disposed to believing that the ends justify the means than their Democratic rivals.
It is not a fair and even playing field, since one team is playing by a different set of rules.
There are good and bad politicians on all sides of the political spectrum, but when it comes to being held accountable for their actions and justifying supporting or doing something wrong if they believe it is justified for a greater good, the Republicans are significantly playing and applying far lower standards to themselves and their interests than the Democrats do.

A repeated pattern you often see is follows similar trends:

A Democrat is caught with his pants down and resigns or is pushed out by his peers, the GOP/Republicans sell that as an example of the lack of morality of Democrats as a Party and ideology.
A Republican is caught with his pants down and refuses to resign, even and especially if they were extremely hypocritically advocating taking a hard line on family values etc, many Republicans will stand by them, defend them and even decry any negative publicity as being a Democrat conspiracy and/or biased media.

It's all down to the fundamental differences in beliefs, principles and ideologies that drive the different parties.

weaviemx5

Isn't a contradiction that a nation that calls itself the land of the free and the brave doesn't have the courage and bravery to have an independent judicial system  
The supreme Court is not independent. It's rigged in favor of one party or another. That is not what law is about  
An independent judiciary rules on the law and the law alone in the USA its a rigged deck  
The UK has just about the finest judicial system in the world. Its about as impartial as it can get in a capitalist society.
We have something the USA would never have  We something called judicial review. Tory governments try and limit access to this  And they've been successful. However Jr represents the highest level of judicial autonomy and knowledge  This is why the tories fear it  
The American supreme Court selection process is the very antithesis of autonomy and judicial independence  
If the Americans are so free and brave then why do the fear true judicial independence so much ? Politics and the judiciary should be independent of each other and free of political interference and big busines influence.
I find the who American supreme Court selection to be an affront. It has nothing to do with judicial independence. The supreme Court is a loaded deck. A rigged deck

Pacifico

Looks like "O'Kavanaugh's" character witness has refused to comment further and isn't exactly a great witness considering he appears to have spent the bulk of his time at school drunk;

Brett Kavanaugh's high school friend isn't helping the nominee's case

Also looks like Kavanaugh may have inadvertently celebrated his sexual conquests via his yearbook...genius

Kavanaugh Yearbook Boast: "Devil's Triangle", slang for Threesome Between Two Men and One Woman

Pacifico

Looks pretty self explanatory in the article?

"The short answer is this: We did a fundraiser for Sen. Baldwin six years ago when we ran for the Senate, we supported her then," Katz told CNN. "We are not going to be doing a fundraiser now. We're going to be focused on the issues involving the Kavanaugh confirmation process.

A Baldwin campaign spokesman confirmed the event was canceled.
"The event was scheduled before Dr. Ford made the allegations," the spokesman said. "Dr. Ford's lawyers are no longer involved in the event."

Considering the event was being held at the offices of the lawyers, it's hardly a secret meeting so looks a bit desperate to use it as some sort of accusation of Dem bias?

weaviemx5

You are claiming that the Lawyers are not Democrat supporters?