patrick.net

mell says

None of this matters. There was no report back then and there's zero evidence. This is not Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia, you cannot simply make up shit without any evidence and demand this to have any weight.

All anyone is demanding is an investigation. That's how things should work.

The Republicans are the ones mirroring Nazi Germany by ignoring anything in their rush to confirm.

Quigley says

Rushing to judge is a sign of the mentally incompetent.

Which is why you shouldn't have rushed to judge that I haven't taken the time to consider the matter.

I miss the 90s. You know, the decade when Republicans were in a hissy fit about consensual sex acts between a president and fat slut instead of defending rapey acts of a Supreme Court nominee. Oh wait, Clarence Thomas.

The party of family values sure seems willing to compromise those values when inconvenient.

Tenpoundbass says

Anyone who does that should be thrown in jail for a very long time. That does not excuse the bad behavior of people on your team.

Quigley says

doik says

Kavaunah is a sexual deviant w

And you lost me. Rushing to judge is a sign of the mentally incompetent.

What is constantly registering new names a sign of?

doik says

Tenpoundbass says

Anyone who does that should be thrown in jail for a very long time. That does not excuse the bad behavior of people on your team.

What is it called when one side makes up several fake incidents in an attempt to postpone a Supreme Court nomination?

CovfefeButDeadly says

What is it called when one side makes up several fake incidents in an attempt to postpone a Supreme Court nomination?

The Republican play book.

doik says

CovfefeButDeadly says

What is it called when one side makes up several fake incidents in an attempt to postpone a Supreme Court nomination?

The Republican play book.

No. Rules for Radicals. The Democrat playbook.

Both parties are corrupt, but anyone who says that the Democrats aren't doing exactly what the Republicans did during Obama's Supreme Court nominee is a hypocrite. It's painfully obvious that its the exact same tactic. And since the Republicans literally invented this tactic, it's their play book.

doik says

I miss the 90s. You know, the decade when Republicans were in a hissy fit about consensual sex acts between a president and fat slut instead of defending rapey acts of a Supreme Court nominee. Oh wait, Clarence Thomas.

The party of family values sure seems willing to compromise those values when inconvenient.

Without other commentary, Monica Lewinsky did in fact suck on Bill Clinton’s cock in the White House and Bill Clinton factually ejaculated on Monica Lewinskys dress.

At least three women credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape. He was asked about it by the msm literally once.

OTOH, Brett Cavanaugh has been credibly accused by literally no one.

Couldn’t delay it back then enough to stop it. Now they only need 35 days and elections can disrupt it.

LeonDurham says

So if this is all a left wing conspiracy, why were there no accusers against Gorsuch?

CovfefeButDeadly says

Without other commentary, Monica Lewinsky did in fact suck on Bill Clinton’s cock in the White House and Bill Clinton factually ejaculated on Monica Lewinskys dress.

Yes, and aside from bad taste in women, there is nothing wrong with that. If you were married to Hillary, you'd look for another woman, too. It wasn't sexual assault. It wasn't a crime. And it wasn't relevant to Clinton's job.

In contrast, Kavaunah's actions were criminal. The fact that he got away with his crimes is irrelevant. A criminal should not be allowed to be a judge, nonetheless a Supreme Court justice, regardless of his politics. If Kavaunah were a left-leaning judge nominated by Obama, every single person defending him here would be calling to have him locked up. That's hypocrisy.

CovfefeButDeadly says

At least three women credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape. He was asked about it by the msm literally once.

Whataboutism. I don't watch MSM, but if you're saying that network did not cover the ratings generating Cosby trial, then I find that hard to believe. Regardless, what MSM covered during the Cosby trial has nothing to do with Kavaunah and the hypocrisy of the right in defending this man just to get political power.

Kavaunah is Kevin Spacey. The people here have no problem bashing Kevin Spacey, and rightfully so, but they defend the same bad behavior when done by conservative politicians who have real power. Kevin Spacey is an actor, the most unimportant job in the world. Yet he lost his job in a smash hit TV series and his entire career. Kavaunah is a criminal who would have tremendous legal power, and that is highly relevant to the position. For anyone to defend Kavaunah while attacking Clinton, Cosby, or Spacey is pure hypocrisy. Putting a felon on the Supreme Court is the worst thing you could do. What ever happened to valuing law and order?

FortWayne says

LeonDurham says

So if this is all a left wing conspiracy, why were there no accusers against Gorsuch?

The left is clearly using this opportunity to delay the vote. That, of course, doesn't change the fact that Kavaunah is a criminal. However, the left is pursing this almost entirely because of politics, not because of the crimes. I say almost entirely because the left does eat its own when sexual assault is found. Just look at Kevin Spacey. In contrast, the conservatives on patnet clearly show that they have no problem being blatant hypocrites when it comes to moral and legal standards. This is tribalism at its worst.

doik says

Kavaunah is Kevin Spacey.

I don't have pony in this race, but Spacey didn't deny what he did and Kavaunah did. Spacey had soooooo much more to lose $$ by not denying it (admitting it essentially), which he could have. Kavaunah could just go be a corporate lawyer somewhere and make substantially more than being a SC Justice and say fuck this. This has to be accounted for. So not really apples to apples. And not sure how we jump to here:

doik says

Putting a felon on the Supreme Court is the worst thing you could do. What ever happened to valuing law and order?

When was he convicted of a felony? I'm also not sure when people started believing that EVERYONE was pure and did not do any wrong at ANY time in their lives. Everyone has skeletons in their closet whether they want to admit it or not.

doik says

The left is clearly using this opportunity to delay the vote. That, of course, doesn't change the fact that Kavaunah is a criminal.

"Facts" you say?

I don't think you know the meaning of the word.

Farrow basically admits the Dems went fishing for harassment claims, and that the New Accuser was "consulting with her attorneys" before she decided her memories pointed to Kavanaugh. Dragging Hundred Dollar Bills through the Psychology Department.

STEPHANOPOLOS: “This jumped out at me. You said at first she wasn’t sure if this was Kavanaugh last week, and you write after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorneys she did become confident that it was him.”

FARROW: “And I would say that’s extremely typical with these stories when you are dealing with drama and alcohol. The more caution that I have dealt with in cases like this frequently say, I want to take time and search myself and make sure that I can affirmatively stand by these claims in the face of what she knew would be a crucible of partisan pushback which is what she is receiving now.”

STEPHANOPOLOS: “Why did she come forward?”

FARROW: “She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the hill independently, and it has co cornered her into an awkward position. She said, point-blank, I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life, but she feels this is a serious claim. She considers her own memories credible and she felt it was important to tell her own story before others did for her.”

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ronan-farrow-new-kavanaugh-accuser-came-forward-because-democrats-came-looking/

doik says

anyone who says that the Democrats aren't doing exactly what the Republicans did during Obama's Supreme Court nominee is a hypocrite.

Gee, I must have missed the part when the GOP used unsubstantiated allegations to character assassinate Merrick Garland. Either that or you come from an alternate timeline.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Farrow basically admits the Dems went fishing for harassment claims,

By fishing, you mean investigating, right?

doik says

That, of course, doesn't change the fact that Kavaunah is a criminal.

And statements like this really help us take you seriously.
Not.

Quigley says

Gee, I must have missed the part when the GOP used unsubstantiated allegations to character assassinate Merrick Garland. Either that or you come from an alternate timeline.

When have the Republicans EVER smeared a Democrat Supreme Court nominee like the Democrats have done to Bork, Clarence Thomas and now Kavanaugh?

Even crazy Libs like Ruth Bader Ginsberg sale right through the process. Just like Kagan and Sotomayer did a few years ago.

Just like the Democrats regretting changing the filibuster rules, I think they are going to regret this latest EMO spasm the next time the Republicans are in the minority.

WookieMan says

When was he convicted of a felony? I'm also not sure when people started believing that EVERYONE was pure and did not do any wrong at ANY time in their lives. Everyone has skeletons in their closet whether they want to admit it or not.

Another double standard. Kevin Spacey was not convicted. Cosby was only convicted of one of many of his crimes. Hell, OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder. Do you consider him innocent?

Furthermore, the standard for accepting a Supreme Court nominee is much higher than the standard for not convicting a person. To err on the side of safety means that you don't convict a person until proven guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. To err on the side of safety also means that if there is any reasonable doubt that a person is a criminal, you DO NOT put him on the Supreme Court. Not being put in a prison without a guilty conviction by a trial of your peers is a right. Holding a Supreme Court position is a privilege. It's nonsensical to equate the two.

Quigley says

And statements like this really help us take you seriously.

You only say that because the person I'm opposing is someone you want on the Supreme Court. If he were a left-leaning Democrat, you'd be calling for him to be locked up. That's the hypocrisy I'm pointing out.

I don't give a shit about his politics. He's a criminal and that disqualifies him from being a Supreme Court justice, plain and simple. It makes no more sense to put him in that position than to put Kevin Spacey there.

And to say that the objections I stated are ridiculous when they are exactly what most of the nation is stating including any news organization that isn't outright propaganda just demonstrates how tribal you are. It's all about tribes, not about integrity or consistent principles. The hypocrisy is obvious and unnecessary. Is there really absolutely no conservative judge that hasn't committed felonies? There's literally no one else to choose? You must have a far worse perception of conservatives than I do. I could swing a dead cat and hit at least several conservative judges who aren't criminals. Is this really the standard you want your tribe to be known for?

Quigley says

Gee, I must have missed the part when the GOP used unsubstantiated allegations to character assassinate Merrick Garland. Either that or you come from an alternate timeline.

Option three: you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said to grasp at straws. The Republicans clearly used whatever tactics were available to delay the Obama nomination for the sole purpose of having a chance to appoint their own candidate after an election. To say otherwise is a lie.

If you think this is a fair tactic, then fine. If you think it is not, then fine. But if you think it's ok for one side but not the other, then you are a hypocrite.

The only difference between now and then is that there is actually legitimate reasons to prevent Kavaunah from being appointed. That difference doesn't affect that the Democrats are acting in bad faith, but quite frankly, I'm more concerned about what is right than why they are doing it. Yes, their side is purely politically motivated. So are you. You just don't have the balls to admit it. This nomination and the opposition are all about politics. That does not change the fact that a person who commits felonies should not be a Supreme Court justice. If you had any respect for law, this would not be at all controversial to you. It's a pretty low bar to say that the highest court in our country shouldn't be populated with literal criminals.

doik says

Another double standard. Kevin Spacey was not convicted. Cosby was only convicted of one of many of his crimes. Hell, OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder. Do you consider him innocent?

OJ went through a trial and was exonerated. That's the jury's decision, so not sure why he's being brought up. My opinion on the trial doesn't matter at this point. He got convicted of doing other dumb shit down the road. Cosby got his day in court as well and lost. Too bad, don't do dumb shit.

What has Kav. been convicted of? You said he was a felon. Spacey by his own admission played it off as if it could have happened. Kav. is denying. There's a difference and the stakes are vastly different for these two characters. Spacey will likely not act again and will lose at least 7-8 figures until he dies and didn't flat out deny what happened (he knows it did). Kav. could just go private or corporate and make SUBSTANTIALLY more money, 7-8 figures versus a paltry SC Justice salary (and admit he did wrong). He doesn't NEED to be a SC Justice, which is why I kind of believe him.

And I could give zero shits about if he actually gets appointed or not. These accusations about assault are causing real problems for REAL victims of assault though. That should be more concerning to everyone. It's the reason chicks (or in the rare circumstance dudes) won't come forward after being assaulted. This dog and pony show is fucking with millions of people over dumb ass politics.

doik says

If you think this is a fair tactic, then fine. If you think it is not, then fine. But if you think it's ok for one side but not the other, then you are a hypocrite.

The Republicans didn't smear Garland as a fucking rapist by dragging out 40 year old un-provable charges from High School.

All the Republicans did was do what Joe Biden recommended back in 1992.www.youtube.com/embed/qPAzVNmOYgM

WookieMan says

I don't have pony

Lol! A pony. #Outsiders #Typo

WookieMan says

OJ went through a trial and was exonerated. That's the jury's decision, so not sure why he's being brought up

I brought it up because it illustrates the hypocrisy. Despite the acquittal, every conservative on patnet called O.J. guilty, and rightfully so, yet they give their own tribal leaders a pass on crimes.

WookieMan says

What has Kav. been convicted of?

I've already address this.

doik says

Kevin Spacey is an actor, the most unimportant job in the world. Yet he lost his job in a smash hit TV series and his entire career. Kavaunah is a criminal who would have tremendous legal power, and that is highly relevant to the position. For anyone to defend Kavaunah while attacking Clinton, Cosby, or Spacey is pure hypocrisy. Putting a felon on the Supreme Court is the worst thing you could do. What ever happened to valuing law and order?

doik says

Furthermore, the standard for accepting a Supreme Court nominee is much higher than the standard for not convicting a person. To err on the side of safety means that you don't convict a person until proven guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. To err on the side of safety also means that if there is any reasonable doubt that a person is a criminal, you DO NOT put him on the Supreme Court. Not being put in a prison without a guilty conviction by a trial of your peers is a right. Holding a Supreme Court position is a privilege. It's nonsensical to equate the two.

The bar for a Supreme Court appointment isn't "well, unless he's been convicted, he's good." Hell, that's not even the bar for security clearance.

WookieMan says

And I could give zero shits about if he actually gets appointed or not.

He's going to get appointed. That's not my point. My point is that people need to stop being tribal hypocrites and hold government officials to the same standards regardless of which team they play for. This includes people on patnet. There is nothing you can write on patnet that will have any influence on national issues. The only thing you can do is have the integrity to not be a hypocrite.

I'm for free speech, but I'm also for honest speech. The later is lacking in our society today and this thread demonstrates that painfully.

socal2 says

The Republicans didn't smear Garland as a fucking rapist by dragging out 40 year old un-provable charges from High School.

Kavaunah has committed sexual assault, and if he were Obama's nominee you would be attacking him for it. This is painfully obvious.

Nonetheless, the particularities of the tactic are irrelevant. What matters is that the Republicans did the exact same thing last time that the Democrats are doing this time, namely delay an appointment so that after an election a different appointment can be made. Are you really trying to convince people that you are not entirely politically motivated in this issue?

doik says

Kavaunah has committed sexual assault

Is that a fact, nope.

LeonDurham says

By fishing, you mean investigating, right?

No, I mean fishing.

Investigation: Following up on a complaint/lead
Fishing: Actively hunting for complaints/leads

Show me the man... and I'll show you the crime...

LeonDurham says

All anyone is demanding is an investigation. That's how things should work.

And they won't get it, unless they can provide some evidence with which to begin one.

Mere accusations from 30+ years ago, offered with no evidence, can and should be dismissed without consideration.

Otherwise anybody can make up bullshit and delay nomination processes and waste taxpayer money pursuing political chimeras.

doik says

Kavaunah has committed sexual assault, and if he were Obama's nominee you would be attacking him for it. This is painfully obvious.

See - it is this over the top craziness (and unfairness) like this which is driving me (who didn't vote for Trump) to enthusiastically vote for Trump and every Republican possible.

Democrats have gone flat out crazy. They need to be kept as far away from power as possible.

doik says

He's going to get appointed. That's not my point. My point is that people need to stop being tribal hypocrites and hold government officials to the same standards regardless of which team they play for. This includes people on patnet. There is nothing you can write on patnet that will have any influence on national issues. The only thing you can do is have the integrity to not be a hypocrite.

Let me get this straight:

Somebody comes out 35+ years after an event, claiming something has happened. Their own "Lifetime Friends" say they've never heard this account, and their own Therapist notes a very different account involving 4 boys and a gangrape. There is no evidence at all confirming this story, not even a friend's testimony. Therefore, we need to postpone confirmation and have an FBI Investigation.

No.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

doik says

He's going to get appointed. That's not my point. My point is that people need to stop being tribal hypocrites and hold government officials to the same standards regardless of which team they play for. This includes people on patnet. There is nothing you can write on patnet that will have any influence on national issues. The only thing you can do is have the integrity to not be a hypocrite.

Let me get this straight:

Somebody comes out 35+ years after an event, claiming something has happened. Their own "Lifetime Friends" say they've never heard this account, and their own Therapist notes a very different account involving 4 boys and a gangrape. There is no evidence at all confirming this story, not even a friend's testimony. Therefore, we need to postpone confirmation and have an FBI Investigation.

No.

This is the definition of insanity and a banana republic that lost all its jurisprudence. I hope he gets confirmed swiftly and this charade will fade into the archives of dark memories of this nation.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Investigation: Following up on a complaint/lead

Then you agree it was investigating.

They got a complaint. Typically these type of criminals are repeat offenders so as part of the investigation, Kavanaugh's behavior at other similar events was investigated. That is investigation 101.

LeonDurham says

They got a complaint. Typically these type of criminals are repeat offenders so as part of the investigation, Kavanaugh's behavior at other similar events was investigated. That is investigation 101.

Not at all. The Activists went fishing for at least one ("Civil Rights Lawyer"), and probably the other. Having to spend days in both cases "Going over your memory to decide if it's Kavanaugh" is already worrisome.

There is no basis for an investigation because of the age of the complaint and the surfeit of any verifiable facts.

Until Ford can come up with some verifiable facts, there's nothing to investigate. It looks more like Projection and Distortion of memory involving distant events, and putting any weirdness on Kavanaugh as the "current symbol" of Women's Oppression.

Hysteria ;)

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Not at all. The Activists went fishing for at least one, and probably the other.

There is no basis for an investigation because of the age of the complaint and the surfeit of any verifiable facts.

Until Ford can come up with some verifiable facts, there's nothing to investigate.

lol--so now it's they shouldn't have investigated at all? Make up your mind.

So what is the time at which it should no longer be investigated? Was Weinstein in the clear? Franken?

LeonDurham says

lol--so now it's they shouldn't have investigated at all? Make up your mind.

Some claims are so old, and so unverifiable, they shouldn't be investigated.

"35 years ago, I think you were the drunk guy who flashed his dick at me, after my department was visited by a civil rights attorney and "activist" looking for Kavanaugh stories. Then I thought about it for several days and think it mighta coulda have been Kavanaugh."

Let them bring a civil suit if they think they can prove anything.

LeonDurham says

So what is the time at which it should no longer be investigated? Was Weinstein in the clear? Franken?

Both Weinstein and Franken events happened within the past few years, not in high school or college, among adults, during the commission of their respective jobs.

Kavanaugh is being accused of things that happened 35 years ago, for which there is pretty much only the flawed memory of the accuser, who claims not to remember key details or anything that could possibly be verified.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Both Weinstein and Franken events happened within the past few years, not in high school or college, among adults, during the commission of their respective jobs.

Kavanaugh is being accused of things that happened 35 years ago, for which there is pretty much only the flawed memory of the accuser, who claims not to remember key details or anything that could possibly be verified.

So what's the statute of limitations on investigating. 10 years? 20 years?

LeonDurham says

So what's the statute of limitations on investigating. 10 years? 20 years?

There is no statute on limitations for investigating jack shit.

However, let me know authorities who will open a case into a 35-year old story of a drunk guy groping somebody or flashing his dick at a college/HS party, based wholly on one person's claims.

LOL.

RC2006 says

Is that a fact, nope.

You refuse to believe it only because of your tribal politics. If he played for the other team, you'd be calling for his arrest.

When it comes to something as important as an appointment to the highest court in the land, the vetting process should be thorough and any doubt should disqualify. There are over 300 million Americans. Are you really incapable of finding a conservative judge who supports your politics but isn't morally and legally doubtful? Are your standards really that low that anyone qualifies just as long as they have your politics?

It should not be hard to find a conservative judge who would pass vetting. Conservatives aren't that evil that there isn't a single one who doesn't have a questionable past. It should be easy to vet a judge with conservative politics. The fact that you are defending this nomination with such vigor illustrates a distinct lack of confidence in your tribe. It says you don't think you can do better.