Poor Kavanaugh wants to run for SC judge

Read the sentence, "Less inclined to think logically." Maybe, better to say, obviously you don't get it, logical thinking. Anyway, good luck to everyone. Hope the world becomes a better place in one way or another. . .
OOOOOOH, let me guess. . . one of you will find a nasty, scarcastic, stupid comment to make to that. . . . nothing more than a representation of your thinkng. Your choice to shine in a positive light, or shimmer in shame of your low minded thinking. Have a good day.

Why you old charm school drop-out . . .kiss, kiss!

That's not what you wrote.

Read the sentence and then explain to me how it explains a complete thought in the English language. You chastised a bunch of us for not knowing old English or being enlightened enough for....whatever.

I had to look up a few things and need to clarify my comment. The Constitution was definitely not written in Olde English or Middle English. I'm not trying to split hairs but I've read Beowulf and Shakespeare and I'm certain I didn't read it in the original Olde English. Some of my school chums minored in Olde English (well, really only one I can remember). So, you would really need to study Olde English to be able to read it with any understanding.

I have no delusions about Republicans being saints who care more about honor than power, but I am not going to go along with the nonsense that keeps flowing around this disgusting spectacle.

I've really no idea of what Republican lies you might be referring to as regards this nomination, but there is no comparison between how the Democrats conducted themselves and how the Republicans did. There has never been a comparison between what Democrats have done during USSC nomination hearings and what Republicans have done. There is no Democrat Bork, Thomas or Kavanaugh and it certainly isn't because of contrasting qualifications of nominees.

I understand why Democrats are pissed off about McConnell blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland, but let's be clear, blocking that nomination isn't even remotely on the same level as attempting to destroy a man's professional and personal reputation and taking his wife and kids down with him, and after their disgraceful performance with Judges Bork and Thomas, Democrats are in no position what-so-ever to cry foul about Garland. That they quadrupled down on Kavanaugh starkly reinforces this point.

By attempting to portray both parties as equal actors in a rotten play you are minimizing, if not rationalizing, what the Democrats did, and what they tried to do was engineer a political outcome that was based on arguments antithetical to the rule of law: that the burden of proof was on Kavanaugh the accused, not Ford the accuser, and that totally uncorroborated accusations are sufficient to convict someone of a crime. That this was a job interview rather than a trial had to be one of the most pathetic arguments trotted out in Democrat Talking Points Memo #1,289. If a Supreme Court nomination is nothing more than a job interview than why the outrage over Garland not getting one?

Someone leaked Ford's letter to the media, either one of the Senator's or a member of their staffs. This was a violation of Committee rules and there were others violations, however, I don't really give a damn about these procedural rules as they are as much of a farce as the collegial language the Senators use while disemboweling an opponent on the floor of the Senate. Violating them in such a sleazy way though renders the Democrats' claims of sham investigations and railroaded results laughable.

Whether or not Kavanaugh actually assaulted Ford and the other women was, I agree, immaterial to the Democrats. Not only do I firmly believe that not a single one of them actually believes he did, I am also convinced that more than one of them participated in engineering at least the Ford accusation. I do not believe that the incident she described occurred. Not with Kavanaugh or any other High School student. Perhaps she was the victim of a sexual assault at some point in her life but I do not believe the one she described in her testimony ever happened.

I am sick to death of listening to elected Republicans officials and conservative commentators go on about how she was "credible." Credible means believable and convincing she was neither. Any Senator who voted for Kavanaugh's confirmation is blowing smoke up our collective ass for the political purpose of optics when they say Ford's testimony was credible or that she was a credible witness.

In truth, this hearing was not a criminal trial. It is conceivable that a juror might find a person's account credible or believable but refuse to base a guilty vote on it because it cannot be corroborated. Jurors are reminded at the beginning and end of trials that the defendant is presumed innocent until his or her guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. An inconsistent, totally uncorroborated accusation is a textbook example of a reason for reasonable doubt. Even in a civil trial where the standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence, uncorroborated, inconsistent testimony does belong as plank one of an evidence pile.

However as so many have pointed out, this hearing was not a criminal or civil trial. A Senator who truly found Ford's testimony believable (as opposed to simply saying they did to serve a political goal) should have been hard-pressed to not vote for confirmation. I may not be able to prove you are a child molester, but if I truly believed you were one, you can be certain I wouldn't let you near my grandchildren. Claiming that Ford was believable and voting to confirm was problematic.

At the same time, at least several Democrats announced they believed Ford's accusation before she provided her testimony and based on the non-existent rule of law that a woman accusing a man of sexual assault must be believed. This is as incredible as voting to confirm when you found his accuser to be believable.

I would not have had a fundamental problem with a Democrat who truly believed Ford voting to deny confirmation, but a) None of them left it at that. They persisted in insisting that everyone must find Ford credible and insulting anyone who dared to say they did not (of course thanks to the political pressure exerted by #MeToo, there were almost none who had the guts to do so); and b) I don't believe any of them truly found her credible. If they had, they would not have had to rely on intimidation to force people to say they found her believable; they would have allowed her testimony to speak for itself, and if I am going to grant them the right to form their personal opinion of her credibility based on no evidence other than her say-so then I am certainly going to reserve my right to do the same, and based on what I heard from the Democrats it is my personal opinion that their actually finding her credible is incredible. Unlike them though, I am not insisting that anyone agree with me because of some new and perverse rule of law that I manufactured for the purposes of my argument. I am also not calling anyone who doesn't share my opinion an apologist for evil, a misanthrope, or complicit in an evil act.

I also don't believe that any of the Senators who voted "AYE" found Ford credible. If they did then some of the charges leveled against their character might be close to the mark. I don't believe Susan Collins found Ford credible and, I'm pretty sure that she never said she did. Senator Collins obviously chose her words carefully for her impressive speech on the Senate floor and while she may have used words like "compelling," "painful" and "heartfelt" none of them are synonyms for credible or believable.

It should be obvious that I am not arguing that that the Senators who did call Ford credible should have voted "NO," but rather that they never should have disingenuously used the word credible to describe her or her testimony. They never should have given her well-crafted fiction the dignity of being called credible. They never should have allowed ideological bullies to intimidate them and help create for the American people an apparent contradiction: If you find a woman's claim that she was raped by a nominee for the Supreme Court believable, why did you vote to confirm that nominee? By bending to the intimidation of people trying to use #MeToo to advance political goals, they appeared, at best, ambiguous. On the one hand, they protested against the notion of guilty unless proven innocent, but on the other, they surrendered, in appearance at least, to the absurd argument that a woman alleging sexual assault must be believed based on gender and the nature of the crime and not evidence.

A game was played and the Democrats insisted that it be played according to the rules created by an extremist leftwing faction of the #MeToo movement who either have allowed their outrage to erase proper perception of the rule of law or are attempting to co-opt it to advance political goals. They have weaponized sexual assault allegations and #MeToo. The rules they attempted to impose are, by no means, universally accepted by women and men who agree with and support the legitimate and timely goals of a societal movement that is past due: To create a social and legal environment in which women believe they can come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct and be taken seriously and treated properly; without suffering recriminations. The critical rule is that women coming forward must be heard and treated with respect; within the structure of the law. It is not that a woman must be believed or be allowed to dictate how the law will operate as respects her complaint. Most women are calling for nothing more than the former and reject the latter, but, frankly, this is not a matter that is up for a vote. If a vast majority of citizens demanded that we throw the concept of presumption of innocence to the street in favor of the presumption of guilt, it would still be wrong and would never pass Constitutional muster if litigated.

So no, this was not at all a case where both sides were equally guilty or equally responsible for a shameful spectacle masquerading as a deliberative process of Advise & Consent. Nor are the supporters of both sides guilty of the same reprehensible reactions.

Supporters of Judge Kavanaugh were not roaming the halls of Congress for days, stalking any Senator they expected would vote "NO" and surrounding them with groups of screaming sign carriers berating and insulting them. Supporters of Judge Kavanaugh didn't occupy seats in the public galleries during the hearings and the votes; taking turns disrupting the proceedings with screeched insults and condemnations. A supporter of Judge Kavanaugh and an employee of Congress did not dox three Democrat Senators and publish their personal addresses and phone #'s on the internet.

I'm all for the right of citizens to speak their minds to our elected officials. Few things about Congress piss me off more than when elected officials act like they are doing us a favor by serving us or that we serve them and not the other way around. A lot of members of both parties behave as if they are part of American nobility. Like Harry Reid welcoming the opening of a new visitors center because it would keep the smelly tourists further away. However, what has been going on in the Capital building over the last few days is not an example of acceptable communication by constituents. Frankly, I'm pretty amazed McConnell didn't try and close the place down to visitors. There is no justification for attempting to physically intimidate Senators, to scream at them in elevators or shove signs in their faces. It is not at all acceptable for citizens to disrupt government proceedings with (once again) screaming and carrying on. I sincerely hope that every one of these people who was arrested and removed will be required to either pay stiff fines or serve time in a DC jail. There are a limited number of seats for the public and they are made available on a first come first serve basis and yet the agitators reliably showed up in numbers sufficient to continuously disrupt proceedings. This has to mean that these folks staked out spots in the line for tickets a day or more before the scheduled proceeding. What the hell they thought they were accomplishing with this absurd behavior is beyond me, but if they thought they were going to change anyone's mind on a vote or come across as citizen heroes they are more deluded than I imagined. I guess when George Soros is paying you a salary to participate in liberal mobs, sleeping in a ticket line is part of the job.

This process began with Chuck Schumer vowing to fight Trump's nominee "with everything I have" before Kavanaugh was even chosen and it went down and down and downhil after that, with each Democrat on the Committee vying for the honor of wearing the favor of #The Resistance and the dishonor of attempting to destroy the lived of Judge Kavanaugh and his wife and two daughters, through lying, bad faith, and not just dirty, but filthy tricks.

I'm glad the confirmation process is over. I'm glad Kavanaugh has been confirmed (although after the speech Susan Collins gave I'm wondering if he's not a liberal in conservative clothing! ), but it's not really over at all. The Democrats immediately vowed to investigate Kavanaugh further if they win the House and to look into impeaching him. It's certainly not over for him and his family. He will continue to be slandered and protested until such time as the next shitshow comes onto the stage and someone else becomes the target of Democrat mendacity and slime flinging. His wife will continue to receive death and rape threats, and I would bet money that his daughters will at some point be confronted by other children who, because of what they have heard at the kitchen table, will remind them that their father is a rapist who should be in jail or dead.

Christine Ford's 15 minutes of fame has not come to an end. Appearances on the shows of Bill Maher, Jimmy Kimmel, and Steven Colbert are certainly possible and can a book be far off? She is likely to also continue to receive death threats but since she didn't end the nomination, they too will eventually move on to new targets. What a wonderful world.

There was something on the news about her constituency strongly opposing Kavanaugh over a local issue that is unrelated to the allegations against him.

Planned Parenthood plans to build a post-Roe abortion network
With Roe v. Wade in obvious jeopardy, Planned Parenthood moves to help women get abortions despite likely bans

AMANDA MARCOTTE
OCTOBER 10, 2018 8:00PM (UTC)

Despite whatever lies Sen. Susan Collins had to tell herself to justify voting yes on Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, most legal experts and reproductive health care advocates expect that Roe v. Wade will either be overturned or functionally gutted within the next two years. More than a dozen cases are winding through the federal court system right now that pose overt challenges to legal abortion, and with a five-justice majority that opposes reproductive rights, it's just a matter of how soon and how badly the right to abortion is nullified, not whether it will happen.

When that happens, the Center for Reproductive Rights predicts that 22 states will end legal access to abortion within their borders -- soon, if not immediately. More than one-third of American women of reproductive age will not have an abortion provider in their state. And while the religious right would have you believe that the one in four women who will get an abortion at some point in their lives will simply stop needing the service — either because they give up sex or will suddenly welcome every unplanned pregnancy — evidence shows that banning abortion doesn't actually reduce demand. On the contrary, areas that have abortion bans typically have higher abortion rates, because places with anti-abortion policies also tend to be hostile to contraception and sex education, leading to more unintended pregnancies.

In a Wednesday morning press call, Rachel Sussman, the national director of state policy for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, explained that making sure abortion is available to women who need it "is not optional," and that Planned Parenthood has "a moral obligation to plan for a day when Roe may be gone."

“We started preparing for this moment since Donald Trump and Mike Pence were elected into office," she noted, referencing the seating of the fifth justice who is expected to end abortion rights.

Before abortion was legal in the United States, there were underground services, most notably the Jane Collective of Chicago, that helped women seeking illegal abortion services find them safely. Reproductive rights advocates are hoping it won't get that bad, because the internet will help educate women on how they can still get legal abortions. But Planned Parenthood is reviving the idea of a network that gets help to women who are being denied their rights.

Most of Planned Parenthood's work is in offering contraception services, STI testing and treatment, and cancer screenings, but the organization is also a major provider of abortion care in the United States. Roughly one in three abortions in the country are provided through Planned Parenthood, which often keeps clinics open in areas hostile to reproductive rights to make sure more women are covered.

But with possibility likely off the table in many states, the organization announced a new plan Wednesday called Care for All, aimed at making sure women who live in rapidly expanding abortion deserts still have options.

The main plank of the plan is to build up abortion services in states where it is expected to remain legal and relatively accessible — such as California, Illinois and New York — with the expectation that women will travel in great numbers to those states to get abortion care. More doctors, more clinics, more hours: These are the kind of things that the group plans to offer in these states, anticipating that there will a massive influx of women from elsewhere. Those on the call also suggested that there will be a push to raise funds to help low-income women who need help with travel expenses.

There is little question this flood of interstate travel will happen -- because it's already happening in states like Missouri and Ohio, where bureaucratic harassment to forcibly shut down clinics, creating a deluge of abortion demand and not enough clinics to meet it.

“Every day in our health centers, we see firsthand the kind of impact severe abortion restrictions have on the women in states that border Illinois," Dr. Amy Whitaker of Planned Parenthood of Illinois said in a statement. "Already, women are forced to face the financial burden of traveling to us from out of state to access care."

There's also a plan to expand the use of abortion through telemedicine to reach women who can't travel. With telemedicine, women can use the phone and internet — and old-fashioned mail — to communicate with a doctor who can prescribe abortion pills to be taken at home. Telemedicine abortion is quite safe, but 19 Republican-controlled state legislatures have tried to hobble this option by passing laws meant to keep women from legally accessing it. Still, the hope is that the internet will allow Planned Parenthood to communicate legal options to women living in such states, so that they can piece together a plan to get access if they need it.

Planned Parenthood representatives also indicated that they would advocate for states that are already abortion-friendly to pass laws protecting legal abortion. California passed such a law in 2002, enshrining the right to choose abortion into their legal system. Similar bills are being considered in other states, most notably New York, and those could help shield clinics in the event of a full Roe overturn.

The seriousness of this moment was driven home during the press conference, when efforts by journalists to get more specifics on this plan — how many more clinics there will be, how would telemedicine work — were not answered by the Planned Parenthood representatives.

Sussman told reporters that the organization wants "to avoid creating an environment where we’re laying out our plans for everyone," and that's no surprise. Just as Planned Parenthood is shifting strategies in the face of the changing judicial environment, anti-choice activists are no doubt shifting strategies in hopes of preventing Planned Parenthood from helping women who have lost abortion access in their own states.

Too many details about these plans could drive anti-abortion forces to harass and threaten anyone involved with building up abortion services in an effort to stop them, as well as to encourage anti-choice legislators to pass laws that prevent women in their states from seeking help elsewhere.

How well this new plan will work to prevent women in red states from taking matters into their own hands — either by buying abortion pills from shady online sources online or, worse yet, hurting themselves with coat hangers and other gruesome methods, as in the bad old days before Roe — remains to be seen. But one thing is absolutely certain: No matter how much Republicans slice away at legal abortion, women who are pregnant but don't want to be will continue to do whatever it takes to terminate those pregnancies. The only question is whether they can do so safely or must expose themselves to unnecessary harm.

There is no such thing as "Olde" English. There is Old English, which is also known as Anglo-Saxon. Shakespeare is not written in Middle English, which appears in the mid-12th century. Shakespeare is definitely written in Modern English. He wrote at the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th century.

The only problem in such a text at the end of the 18th century might pose is the long "s." The first symbol in the image below is the long s as used by printers until the early 19th century.



Printing in Europe began in Germany, they use such a symbol (still do) and it spread to the Low Countries, and William Caxton brought it to England at the end of the 15th century. It was used in the printed copies of the Declaration of Independence and in the printed copies of the Constitution, wherever there was an internal s in a word, especially a double s. The printer's custom was going out of fashion even then, as you can see from the document below. The long s is used in the word Congress, probably because it has a double s at the end, but it is not used in other words with an internal s. Knowing that, if you still can't read the document, you may be a moron.

Quote Setanta:

I beg your pardon. 'Tis a well-known name indeed, an integral part of many nights best forgotten.

Not over here.

It's what American beer companies call a "malt liquor", which is to say beer-like beverage with a higher alcohol content than is allowed for beer. All malt liquors share certain traits, foremost of which is that they all taste like cheap crappy beers with a shot in them.

Our strong beers aren't called beers either.

Well stated.

Well I suppose I should re-clarify, I did use olde instead of old. I was lazy and apparently more susceptible to advertising then I realized. In an attempt to be quaint, some folks name their shops in a 'faux language' style....There is a business in Annapolis named "Ye Olde Chimney Sweep" so I suppose it's only a matter of time before I start spelling 'relief' as ROLAIDS. (advertising campaign for an antacid back in the 60's or 70's).

And for a moment or two, I traveled back in time and relived glorious moments when Sister Mary Dorothy (order of Sisters of Notre Dame De Namur) would guide us to perfection. Thanks for the memories.

Quote Finn:
The White House severely limited the investigation so that many witnesses were not interviewed-including eight witnesses that Prof. Ford gave the FBI to contact. Trump lied when he tweeted the FBI could interview anyone they wanted. They couldn't.


Christine Blasey Ford's lawyers slam the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, calling it a 'stain on the process'
John Haltiwanger
Oct. 4, 2018, 1:54 PM

Christine Blasey Ford's legal team on Thursday criticized the process surrounding the FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Ford's lawyers on Thursday sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray including the names of eight witnesses they presented to investigators who were not ultimately interviewed. Kavanaugh and Ford were also not interviewed.

In the letter to Wray, Ford's lawyers said the "'investigation' conducted over the past five days is a stain on the process, on the FBI and on our American ideal of justice."

The investigation was authorized by the White House last Friday after Ford and Kavanaugh delivered emotional testimony on her allegations that she was assaulted by the Supreme Court nominee at a party when they were teenagers.

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations.

Over the course of the short investigation, Senate Democrats have criticized the White House over its limited nature and apparent refusal to allow certain people to be questioned. Source

The White House made sure the investigation wouldn't be allowed to probe very far. Kavanaugh couldn't stand the scrutiny.

Kavanaugh FBI probe was a cover-up
By Frida Ghitis
Updated 4:44 PM ET, Fri October 5, 2018

(CNN)The FBI probe apparently did not find any corroborating evidence into allegations of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh because it was never meant to do that. It was not a search for the truth. It was a charade meant to appear as a real investigation, with the purpose of giving Republicans a fig leaf to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court without paying a political price. The final outcome of the vote is uncertain, but given the Friday morning results on a procedural vote, the odds seem to favor confirmation.

The investigation and much of what has gone along with it amount to a cover-up. No serious observer would mistake it for an effort to ascertain what really happened on those occasions when Kavanaugh, according to his accusers, was drunk, aggressive and assaulted them. He has repeatedly denied all the allegations.

The objective from the Republicans and from President Donald Trump was to pretend to have taken those accusations seriously. After all, women across the country were already incandescent with rage as the all-male Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed to confirm the judge with little regard for claims that rang familiar to millions of women who have endured serious sexual attack -- the kind that, as Christine Blasey Ford said of the laughter by Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge during the alleged attack in the early 1980s, remains "indelible in the hippocampus" for a lifetime.

Republicans agreed to grant the FBI one week to investigate. That was a tight timeline but, it turns out, more than enough for the job. Within a quick five days the report was all done. Why so fast? The restrictions that made the investigation largely meaningless made additional days unnecessary.

The scheme became visible almost immediately. On Saturday, reports started filtering out that the White House gave the FBI a list of four people to interview. Protests threatened to erupt, so Trump quickly denied it on Twitter. "NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!"

By all indications, the President was lying. And he repeated the claim over and over through the week. The FBI, he said, has "free rein." But sources said the President was not telling the truth. The directions had not changed.

On Thursday, with senators taking their brief turns in the locked room where Republicans kept a single copy of the FBI report, White House spokesman Raj Shah confirmed, in what was possibly an inadvertent admission, that the White House did, in fact, give the FBI a list of four individuals to interview, prepared by Republican senators, and that investigators ultimately spoke to nine people. Republicans still claimed there was no list.

During the five days of the farce, we kept hearing from people desperate to speak to the FBI, including Ford. She was never interviewed. Neither was Kavanaugh. Neither were the scores of potential witnesses who tried to offer a clearer picture of what might have happened.

If they had been allowed to seek the truth, investigators would have answered calls from Kenneth Appold, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, who was a suitemate of Kavanaugh's at Yale at the time when Deborah Ramirez alleges Kavanaugh dropped his pants at a party and put his penis near her face. Appold told The New Yorker that he heard friends describe the incident just after it happened 35 years ago.

Attorneys for both Ramirez and Ford wrote to the FBI director decrying the flawed investigation, and listing dozens of witnesses the FBI declined to interview, all with information they said would have bolstered their accusations.

Agents spoke with Ramirez on Sunday and the same day she gave them a list of 20 witnesses with relevant information. Her attorney wrote, "We can only conclude that the FBI -- or those controlling the investigation -- did not want to learn the truth. ..."

If they had been seeking the truth, they would have found just how often Kavanaugh has lied. His story on Ramirez does not hold up well under scrutiny; his testimony to the Senate last week was filled with misdirection and untruths. Kavanaugh has lied about many matters. His lies have been cataloged and detailed, from falsely claiming he did not receive stolen emails, to his involvement in decisions of warrantless surveillance, to his claims about the meaning of terms describing sex games.

And, by the way, his explosive rage at last week's hearing, which some took as proof that he was deeply wounded by the lies, is hardly evidence of truthfulness. Rage has been used to conceal guilt. Here's Vladimir Putin, supposedly furious at being accused of meddling in the US elections.

It is Kavanaugh's explosive performance, with its veiled threats of revenge, along with the long list of lies, that now, in the absence of a credible FBI investigation into charges of sexual assault, is leading prominent figures to withdraw their support for Kavanaugh as Supreme Court justice. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, a lifelong Republican, said Kavanaugh should not sit on the court, echoing the arguments of many, including other former supporters, who say Kavanaugh showed he does not have the temperament to be an impartial, cool-headed judge, not on the Supreme Court, not on any court.

In the meantime, Americans have been had. The White House and its accomplices on Capitol Hill are playing a dangerous game. Undercutting the credibility of the highest court, insulting the intelligence of the America's people, and stoking the fury of women who are familiar with blistering abuses of power. The cover-up aimed to protect Republicans from paying a political price in the November elections for this travesty. The bill is coming in four weeks.
Source

If the Democrats had wanted a longer investigation, they shouldn't have sprung this at the last possible second.

He had nothing to worry about. Even if the accusations were true, a youthful indiscretion would be no reason to keep him off the Supreme Court.

And even if there had been an actual reason to keep him off the Supreme Court, no one would care after the Democrats said Bill Clinton was above the law.

And there is no reason to think the charges could be proven anyway, even if there had been a more thorough investigation. All the Democrats were doing here was trying to delay the confirmation for no reason.

Quote oralloy:

A. The lady contacted her representative when she found out that Kavanaugh was on a list of 20 finalists. That's not holding off for the last second.

B. There is no "last second", the committee can take as long as they want. Hell, the Republicans unconstitutionally failed to act at all on Merrick Garland's nomination at all for over a year, even though the Constitution requires them to "advise and consent" on these appointments. There was absolutely no reason not to take a little extra time to investigate the allegations.

Quote oralloy:
"Youthful indiscretion"? Rape is probably the most serious crime after murder. If there was a question if Kavanaugh murdered somebody while in school, do you think that should be considered in his nomination for a Supreme Court seat?

Clinton went through both impeachment and conviction proceedings, so unless some new info comes forth, the matter is over. For several months you have tried to claim that nobody can ever be removed from office because Bill Clinton was not removed from office, and it is getting tiresome. Clinton had his Congressional version of a Grand Jury, (the impeachment) and had to face the Senate version of a trial, (conviction). They decided not to convict. Legally, the matter is done and it is time to move on to new matters.

Any other officeholder or appointee who is suspected of wrongdoing thereby gets the same process. We don't throw out the process because you don't agree with the verdict in the Clinton case.

Still, I have problems with Feinstein holding that letter for five or six weeks. It's almost as though she were trying to delay the proceeding.

I don't. The lady specified that she did not want to come forward to reveal her identity to the public, because of what happened to Anita Hill and others. Feinstein honored that. Only when Prof Ford's name got out anyway did she say she would testify. Given the story did get out, I think it's mandatory that it be given a good investigation.

Besides, the Republicans in the Senate left a Supreme Court vacancy open for over a year, refusing to honor the Constitution and "advise and consent" on Merrick Garland. I don't see how taking a few weeks to thoroughly investigate something important is a big deal, compared to that.