It's so hard to say what is true. Christine Ford may be telling the truth, may be lying, or may be remembering incorrectly. Her statement is that she doesn't remember where she was, only that there was a party and there were no parents around, but she remembers that Kavanaugh assaulted her. It seems like they were all at a party as teenagers, drinking to the point of memories being fuzzy. She and Kavanaugh could have been fooling around drunk, and she could be now coming out due to political issues with him, or he genuinely assaulted her. We really can't know the truth from our lying media, and the Dems are capitalizing on this as much as they can, while the Republicans are trying to downplay it. This is very reminiscent of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas nominations.

The Republicans did a dirty thing with blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, now the Democrats are enraged and are trying to do anything to prevent Trump's nominations. They're probably trying to drag this out past the midterms, hoping that the Republicans lose their majority. Congress stopped caring about properly functioning government years ago, and it's all political intrigue to maintain power at this point.

@resident - I couldn't agree with you more; but, more importantly, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that DiFi, Eschoo & Ms. Ford, all of whom I would assume are highly educated and supposedly intelligent women, would really think this kind of 40+-year old, outdated, muckraking manure is actually relevant to the matter at hand. At least with the Thomas/Hill hearings,the accusations were made in the same decade that they purportedly happened. Bottom-line, for me at least, is only people who are either mentally or politically unhinged would or should give a hoot, at this late date. I think this whole so called "issue" says much more about the ladies involved than the judicial candidate and what it says ain't pretty. Kind of like Serena at the US Open. Enough, already!

Haha. The Voice moderator is happily shutting down this conversation before it even gets started. The first two comments were not lib friendly so time to require login! We don’t want any of those right minded people shedding any light on a subject or influencing any opinions! Censorship is alive and well!

Kavanaugh has denied it - although not under oath or questioning. Kavanaugh could be (1) telling the truth, (2) lying, (3) mis-remembering or (4) suffering from a mental illness. He should go with #4. It only takes one FLAKE to stop the nominee in committee. That is retiring Republican Senator Jeff Flake. We may be thankful for a FLAKE before it is over.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

She is brave. And I thank her.

She is brave, there’s no question about that, but that doesn’t mean she’s telling the truth. If this were true one would have thought she would have accused him when Kavanaugh was first nominated for SC judge. To wait until right before his confirmation in hopes of delaying until after the midterm elections causes her motivations to be suspect. Some say that she told her therapist about this in 2012. But she never named her attacker. Perhaps this really happened to her but by someone else and she’s using her experience for political reasons (no crisis should go to waste). It seems these days that the libs will do anything to derail Trump so making this up wouldn’t surprise me. Apparently 65 women that know and have worked with Kavanaugh (going back as far as high school) have signed a letter stating that he has shown nothing but respect to women. Something smells fishy.

There's 65 women he didn't attempt to rape? Jesus Christ on toast, let's make him the Pope.

I kid. Even if there's just the one woman he attempted to rape, we can do better. Surely, even Republicans can find a candidate that never experimented with rape in their teenage years.

@Simone, thus far, we have the word of one woman out of 65 who "says" he attempted to rape her. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting more than a little wearied and leary of all of these sexual abuse allegations triggered by the #metoo movement. Just because some woman I know little to nothing about says it's true simply doesn't make it so. And this gleeful propensity to tarnish someone's reputation on little more than the word of someone recounting their side of what may or may not have happened decades ago strikes me as unfair at best and incredibly foolish, at worst. HOWEVER, there does seem to be a universal principle that tends to take care of these situations; the Bible calls it reaping what one sows; the secular version is what goes around is sure to come around. With that in mind how would you like to be on the receiving end of what this woman is saying, knowing you're not guilty? I don't know whether he is or isn't, but I think the question begs an answer. What next? We do away with innocent until PROVEN guilty? Actually, I think we already have, at least in this arena of public opinion. Let's hope and pray our judiciary is not infected by this terribly pervasive virus.

My observation:

ONE ACT OF VIOLENCE IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY!

Unlike Anita Hill, this was forced contact upon another.

It reminds me of the Persky case. It only requires one act to be investigated fully.

This must be investigated by the FBI before moving forward.

It simply doesn't matter how many "good" or "healthy" relationships anyone has, one act that offends another is one act too many.

Why can't anyone understand that?

@The Business Man, YOU must be a sinless man, casting stones about so forcefully. The FBI investigating a Trump appointee? Well, I couldn't begin to imagine how THAT would turn out.....NOT! Now, that really would be a treasure trove of truth to be relied upon. Yeah, right....

@Simone - seriously? Anybody can falsely accuse somebody of something. Are we just to assume that it’s true despite it being very uncharacteristic of him according to the many women that have known him for years? There’s no proof nor corroborating evidence of any kind and to presume somebody’s guilty because of one accusation that’s 36 years old is nuts.

In response to hsnpoor you said:

“@The Business Man, YOU must be a sinless man, casting stones about so forcefully.”

I am not a priest, but I have never used force on anyone ever. You said:

“The FBI investigating a Trump appointee?”

WHY NOT? OUR JUDGES IN THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE OF THE BEST CHARACTER BECAUSE THEY HAVE LIFETIME APPOINTMENT AND THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE THEIR POLITICAL POSITION ON THE ENTIRE COUNTRY You said

“Well, I couldn't begin to imagine how THAT would turn out.....NOT! Now, that really would be a treasure trove of truth to be relied upon. Yeah, right....”

The FBI is given that responsibility. Simply put.

You still never addressed that simple fact:

ONE ACT OF VIOLENCE IS ONE TOO MANY!

@The Business Man, being a priest most assuredly doesn’t inoculate one from sinning, as so clearly demonstrated by the abuses in the Catholic Church. Clearly you missed the reference to the woman caught in adultery leading to Jesus telling her accusers to let him without sin cast the first stone.

Responsibility doesn’t ensure a competent, non-discriminatory & unbiased investigation leading to an untainted conclusion of the facts or even an assurance that the facts have not been manipulated. They’ve done it before so I’m sure they’ll do so again, when it suits them to do so.

Well, clearly you are the only man for the job, since you are so clearly a man of “THE BEST CHARACTER”, but I wonder who will 2nd that notion & why others should believe it to be true, especially if I decide I don’t want you in the position & devise a story no one can substantiate to torpedo your chances.

As for the one act of violence being one too many, I refer you back to the adulterous woman & the men who wanted to stone her. In that story, there was no question about her guilt. But then, as now, it takes two people to commit adultery, but only one was brought forth to be stoned to death.

Feinstein knew about this accusation in July, why didn’t she come forward with it then?

Feinstein questioned Kavanaugh personally and did not ask, refer to,
Or reference anything to do with this even though she’d apparently
Been made aware of it. Why didn’t she’ask him then?

Biggest BS alarm? Ford cannot unequivocally say it was Kavanaugh, she herself says she may be confusing it with someone else.

That alone should shut this total BS down.

In response to hsnpoor you said:

“@The Business Man, being a priest most assuredly doesn’t inoculate one from sinning, as so clearly demonstrated by the abuses in the Catholic Church. Clearly you missed the reference to the woman caught in adultery leading to Jesus telling her accusers to let him without sin cast the first stone.”

Are you in fact saying that adultery is the same a violence? Jesus in fact was opposed to any kind of violence. What exactly are you trying to say here? I simply point out that violence is to be intolerated in our civilized legal system. You said:

“Responsibility doesn’t ensure a competent, non-discriminatory & unbiased investigation leading to an untainted conclusion of the facts or even an assurance that the facts have not been manipulated. They’ve done it before so I’m sure they’ll do so again, when it suits them to do so.”

But responsibility is what the FBI is required to do none the less. You said:

“Well, clearly you are the only man for the job, since you are so clearly a man of “THE BEST CHARACTER”, but I wonder who will 2nd that notion & why others should believe it to be true, especially if I decide I don’t want you in the position & devise a story no one can substantiate to torpedo your chances.”

I AM NEVER REQUESTING OR PARTICIPATING AS A JUDICIAL OFFICER. Putting that kind of “moral equivalence” simply doesn’t apply here. You know that. You said:

“As for the one act of violence being one too many, I refer you back to the adulterous woman & the men who wanted to stone her. In that story, there was no question about her guilt. But then, as now, it takes two people to commit adultery, but only one was brought forth to be stoned to death.”

Again, the investigation is about sexual assault which is categorically “not consensual” and is violence and NOT ADULTRY. Even if you wanted to declare that she is an adulterer, so would he be. Do you want an adulterer to be in power to dictate policy on a “moral” citizen?

In response to mvresident2003 you said:

“Feinstein knew about this accusation in July, why didn’t she come forward with it then?”

SHE WAS INSTRUCTED TO KEEP HER IDENTITY PRIVATE THAT’S WHY. You said:

“Feinstein questioned Kavanaugh personally and did not ask, refer to, Or reference anything to do with this even though she’d apparently Been made aware of it. Why didn’t she’ask him then?”

PERHAPS it was because she was letting him have enough rope to hang himself with. Sometimes if one is about to shot themselves in the foot, you are not required to prevent it. What evidence do you have to prove your propostion? The simple fact is we need an independent investigation to determine if there is at least the question that this event DID NOT occur. Speaking as a MAN, who believes in full equality of the genders, I expect our legal system to work this out before moving forward. You said:

“Biggest BS alarm? Ford cannot unequivocally say it was Kavanaugh, she herself says she may be confusing it with someone else. “

Please provide this citation? I have never heard any statements that Ford made that supports this. I just want to see where that information came from. If you cannot find a statement made by Ford demonstrating this, than you simply are presenting “facts not in evidence”

To me what is really going on here is that those supporting Kavanaugh are hoping he would reverse roe v wade, same sex marriage, rent control, amongst so many other public policies.

@The Business Man, since you insist on missing the point, let me make it crystal clear: “let him without sin cast the first stone”. You don’t know he did what this woman said and I don’t know that he didn’t. Do either of us really have the right, authority or moral superiority to pass an adverse judgement on such flimsy evidence? I think not. I think that’s letting a political agenda override good common sense. But clearly, common sense just ain’t all that common these days.

In response to hsnpoor you said:

“@The Business Man, since you insist on missing the point, let me make it crystal clear: “let him without sin cast the first stone”.”

I am not requesting anyone throw stones at Kavanaugh. You said:

“You don’t know he did what this woman said and I don’t know that he didn’t.”

I am in TOTAL agreement. THAT is why I want an investigation. I am not claiming he is guilty of anything. Just that we need this to be verified. Reagan said it quite often “Trust but Verify” Is there anything wrong with that? You said:

“Do either of us really have the right, authority or moral superiority to pass an adverse judgement on such flimsy evidence? I think not.”

Again, I want to have an investigation. That is all. If it turns out that real evidence does become validated to prove this event did take place, then we need to have some further discussions. You are assuming that I am making some kind of judgement. I am only seeking more evidence. You are simply wrong. You said:

“I think that’s letting a political agenda override good common sense. But clearly, common sense just ain’t all that common these days.”

You are assuming that I have made a judgement already. Now is that common sense? There is good common sense when you have a situation that is questionable to get to the best investigation possible worked out so that one can have validated trust in those with such extreme power like a Supreme Court justice. Nothing more can be determined of what I have discussed. It would appear that your blind faith and attempts to prevent a good investigation could be observed by others as not wise.

Monday next both the accuser and the job applicant are scheduled to appear before the 21-member Senate Judiciary Committee. Some members already think Brett Kavanaugh is a liar; others such as Orin Hatch never met an unconfused woman. It should be interesting. Lindsey Graham will probably say that he doesn't doubt that that something happened to this woman when she was 15 at the party. But she was too drunk to discern the details - including the identity of the attacker(s). Kavanaugh evidently has a current friend who was around in those days. Of course, the first question is WHO WAS AT THAT PARTY? There could be lots of witnesses to the circumstances. So, for example, if Kavanaugh denies even attending the party but someone other than the alleged victim testifies he did attend, such testimony would undermine Kavanaigh's account. But when might we hear from other witnesses to the attack or at least the circumstances? Not Monday. Both sides and the press are surely looking for witnesses frantically. And maybe there were other times when girls or women were victimized by Kavanaugh's desire to be on top and in charge. But in the end, the question should NOT be whether Kavavaugh has been proven guilty of an alleged attack but whether the matter of his guilt then and his character now are in significant doubt. No nominee has any "right" to the life-long job on the highest court in the USA. Ask the last nominee of Barack Obama. The nomination was a political act and the refusal to confirm this former Republican political hack will also be a political act. And properly so. The meaning and reac of the Constitution and other laws are not self-evident. Judges - but especially justices of the highest court - make political choices in interpreting and otherwise applying laws . That is why, for example, Roe v. Wade may hang in the balance. The Constitution says nothing about abortion or birth control - expressly. But it does refer to some individual rights vis-a-vis the government that may be impacted by, for example, a law that makes abortion or birth control a crime. If Kavanaugh had no opinion about, for example, the validity of Roe v. Wade, he would not be qualified for the job he is seeking. Kavanaugh is not being "fair" by refusing to reveal his opinion. He is just being coy. And he can cite other nominees that have played the same game. It is a game created by the Senate which has allowed nominees to play it. And here is part of the problem: if nominees are allowed to not tell the truth about their current views on important issues, why would a nominee ever tell the truth about an incident in high school that could undermine his prospects. He would not. Then again, if Kavanaugh attacked no one he would also not admit otherwise. Odds are that some Senators will want a lot more information than they will get from these two witnessses set for Monday. But I predict no more witnesses will be called. Senator Chuck Grassly will call for a vote on Kavanaugh. And will any Republican NOT vote to end the hearing? My guess is

@The Business Msn, under different circumstances (free of the pollution of the incredibly convenient timing & political circumstances surrounding this allegation) and the very blatant attempt by one party to delay & thwart the process, I would probably agree that an investigation MIGHT be in order. But, under the current circumstances, this appears to clearly be a political ploy of & at the lowest level. IF an investigation were in order, the FBI would & should be the last investigative unit to conduct the investigation, for what should be obvious reasons. Clearly wiser heads have & are prevailing in that respect. I think Gary’s comment is a pretty savvy analysis of the circus performance that’s coming. A lot of taxpayer money and time taken away from real issues to squander on this foolishness. Vanity, vanity, vanity. It’s all just spitting in the wind on our dime & everyone’s time. There is no way that any definitive resolve can be determined by a possible sketchy incident that happened 36-years ago & it takes a great deal of gullibility to believe otherwise. That’s my story, I’m sticking to it and I’m done ✅.

In response to hsnpoor you said:

“@The Business Msn, under different circumstances (free of the pollution of the incredibly convenient timing & political circumstances surrounding this allegation) and the very blatant attempt by one party to delay & thwart the process, I would probably agree that an investigation MIGHT be in order.”

However, wasn’t the Republicans that forced Obama from appointing a new Supreme Court justice prior to the presidential election? Delaying appointment for more than a year. I am simply pointing out that the situation is similar, and that it is fair game. You also said:

“But, under the current circumstances, this appears to clearly be a political ploy of & at the lowest level. IF an investigation were in order, the FBI would & should be the last investigative unit to conduct the investigation, for what should be obvious reasons.”

On what basis can you claim that the FBI is not capable of doing this work? Are you suggesting that we create a new investigative agency? You said:

“ Clearly wiser heads have & are prevailing in that respect. I think Gary’s comment is a pretty savvy analysis of the circus performance that’s coming. A lot of taxpayer money and time taken away from real issues to squander on this foolishness.”

Again, when you are almost giving one unfettered power in this country, I simply want any methods used to prevent those who will abuse it from getting it. You said:

“Vanity, vanity, vanity. It’s all just spitting in the wind on our dime & everyone’s time. There is no way that any definitive resolve can be determined by a possible sketchy incident that happened 36-years ago & it takes a great deal of gullibility to believe otherwise.”

I simply disagree, if there is a pattern of behavior, it may just be discovered with an investigation. I leave my mind open to that possibility.

@hsnpoor - PLEASE don’t encourage the Business man or we’ll never finish scrolling through his dissertations. Most of us skip over his posts because he can’t help himself - he enjoys listening to himself so very very much and he doesn’t understand how to make a concise point so rambles endlessly. Do us all a favor and ignore him.

@already --- it took a moment for the dime to drop, but I got the message, which is why my last comment said "I'm done" and I am. Thanks for the "heads-up", though; I appreciate it!

The Business Man has been smoking too much dope.

In response to Calltiger you said:

“The Business Man has been smoking too much dope.”

Paranoia is not a symptom of smoking dope, it can actually cure it. Apparently I don’t smoke dope.

In response to Already? You said:

“@hsnpoor - PLEASE don’t encourage the Business man or we’ll never finish scrolling through his dissertations. Most of us skip over his posts because he can’t help himself - he enjoys listening to himself so very very much and he doesn’t understand how to make a concise point so rambles endlessly. Do us all a favor and ignore him.”

Of course if you cannot debate on topic, you demean or ridicule the people that express opposing views. Typical behaviors by those that have not contributed any constructive information.

Someone is lying. It’s either Kavanaugh or his accuser. If it’s his accuser, then she has been plotting to lie about this for six years.That scenario is very difficult to believe.

I believe her.

@Angel - according to the therapist she spoke of this attack in 2012 but did not name her attacker. From what I’ve read her details are quite sketchy - she doesn’t know where the party was or whose house. If this event was as traumatic as she describes I can’t imagine forgetting those details. I have to wonder about other details such as: Did she know Brett Kavanaugh? Or was he a strange boy at this party? Where were her girlfriends? Why didn’t they know about the attack? Is it possible that she didn’t know her attacker but “thinks” it was Brett when in fact it could have been another boy at the party?

It seems unusual that a 17 yr old boy that was this aggressive never had another incident. In most of the Me Too cases there are lots of women telling the same story. Not so with Kavanaugh. His women friends, coworkers and acquaintances are all saying he treats women with the utmost respect. Considering the politics that were played with the timing let’s not be quick to crucify a guy who may well be innocent. While destroying his career.

In response to Already? You said:

“@Angel - according to the therapist she spoke of this attack in 2012 but did not name her attacker. From what I’ve read her details are quite sketchy - she doesn’t know where the party was or whose house. If this event was as traumatic as she describes I can’t imagine forgetting those details. I have to wonder about other details such as: Did she know Brett Kavanaugh? Or was he a strange boy at this party? Where were her girlfriends? Why didn’t they know about the attack? Is it possible that she didn’t know her attacker but “thinks” it was Brett when in fact it could have been another boy at the party? “

Where are you getting this information? This is NOT reported by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. Please provide the source of this information? Without a valid source, how can we consider this information? You said:

“It seems unusual that a 17 yr old boy that was this aggressive never had another incident. In most of the Me Too cases there are lots of women telling the same story. Not so with Kavanaugh. His women friends, coworkers and acquaintances are all saying he treats women with the utmost respect. Considering the politics that were played with the timing let’s not be quick to crucify a guy who may well be innocent. While destroying his career.”

Again, if one event did in fact happen, and it cannot be proven NOT to have happened, it doesn’t matter if it was the only act he ever did. Equal justice must be done, one victim is enough. I repeat, INVESTIGATE TO FIND THE TRUTH.

@Already?

Women who are assaulted don’t forget.

The power differential between the accused and the accuser couldn’t get much larger. This is not something she would volunteer to do...to share her story...to be disbelieved and receive death threats for her efforts.

She is much more credible than a man who has already lied under oath.

@Angel - I agree that women who are assaukted don’t forget. That’s why it’s odd that she doesn’t know where the party was or whose party it was. You’d think those details would be etched in her brain.

As for the difficulty, some people will do anything for “the cause”. Based on the vitriol that the anti-Trump folks have demonstrated since his election nothing would surprised me. These people are on a mission to destroy anything Trump. Let’s wait and see if there’s any corroborating evidence. I’d like to think that even Trump haters wouldn’t want to destroy an innocent man’s career.

In response to Already? You said:

I guess you are not aware that this professors emails were hacked and her online identity has been taken so that multiple false claims are being made online. Again, please provide proof of what you claimed below?

“according to the therapist she spoke of this attack in 2012 but did not name her attacker. From what I’ve read her details are quite sketchy - she doesn’t know where the party was or whose house. If this event was as traumatic as she describes I can’t imagine forgetting those details. I have to wonder about other details such as: Did she know Brett Kavanaugh? Or was he a strange boy at this party? Where were her girlfriends? Why didn’t they know about the attack? Is it possible that she didn’t know her attacker but “thinks” it was Brett when in fact it could have been another boy at the party? “

The fact is that it appears Trump did not VET his candidate he choose. He depended on the information he was provided by his team. They did not do a true full background check. In fact the FBI investigation on his background seems to have been incomplete. If you look at this document (Web Link which states the FBI is required to perform this. Perhaps because Trump wanted to rush the process so the FBI didn’t have the time to do their job.

Simply put, Trump made a mistake and he has to take responsibility for it.

Let's look at this rationally for a change...

An event may or may not have happened 36 years ago...

If something actually happened at a teen drunken party, most probably this woman, who was a teen herself at the time, was probably wasted herself/,
which seems more than likely since she can't seem to remember the time, the year or the place.

The most interesting thing is that no other separate sexual harassment or rape incidents involving Kavanaugh have ever been reported,
unlike Cosby, Franken, Bill Clinton, Weinstein, etc.

Don't you think the democrats would drag out whatever and whomever accuser they could find, no matter how dubious... to support their attempt to derail the confirmation?

Scores of women have testified as to Kavanaugh's upstanding moral character, including those he has dated and worked with in close quarters.

Kavanaugh and his friend have both stated that nothing like this has ever happened.

And OK... even assuming hypothetically that if Kavanaugh was at a drunken high school party in his youth, so what?

And how many of us have been there in our early years?

and who could say for certain what really happened 36 years later in a situation like that which was never reported for decades?

Im not saying she wasn't actually groped over her clothes at this alleged unknown party in an unknown place and time, but by whom?

Its a little late to establish who the young teen perpetrator (or perpetrators) were... and do you really think the FBI can or will do anything with this case at this point? Give me a break.

Feinstein and her cohorts stink to high heaven with their timing of what can only be called an orchestrated smear campaign.

They cant beat him on his record.
They cant beat him on his qualifications.
They attempted but failed to establish that he was lying about anything at all.

The hypocrisy from the democrat gang abounds here.

Yes she deserves to be heard. She should show up Monday either in private, public or closed hearing, her choice, and tell her story.

If she doesnt show, and yes I know they are creating this fuss about the FBI
starting an investigation (what a joke) as the latest delaying tactic, add me to the list of those
who say "proceed with the confirmation vote" !

I'm really unsure what to think about this.

If I read the article right, they were both minors at the time. And if so, I'm not sure how it's relevant now. Especially with all the studies about maturity of the brain in teenagers.

I don't know enough about the case at hand, but it feels kind of witch-hunty.

Dear Moderator,

You have removed my comment yet again even though it contained no "disrespectful comment or offensive language".

Now I am asking you to delete my account, please.

Clearly you are only interested in the opinion of members whose views are to the left of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

I have no interest in furthering the agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America party by supporting this publication.

And, you REALLY should have the functionality to remove accounts from your website.

Republicans Senators do not want Brett Kavanaugh answering questions from the FBI about his alleged attempted rape of (or at least accomplished sexual assault upon) a 15-year-old intoxicated girl. The Republican Senators want only two witnesses next Monday. The accuser must submit her intended opening statement by noon Friday. Wham. Bam. Thank you mam. And some still wonder why most sexual assault victims keep quiet.