Oh, you dislike what you perceive stalling as now, huh? Were you complaining when McConnell stalled with Garland? Karma is a bitch, ain’t it?
Maybe because she want someone to look at it first whose job it is to look at such matter with professional integrity?
Hey, 'Pub, think about the woman instead of your politics for a minute.
I think you invite her to testify on Monday and if she doesn’t appear, proceed with confirmation. It is not reasonable that she would try to set conditions that must occur before she testifies under oath. . It’s the FBI’s decision whether to investigate, but there is no logical reason why she cannot testify prior to any investigation.
Is her testimony going to change based on what an FBI investigation finds? If not, she can testify now.
The investigation would corroborate her story for certain or not. You’d think 'Pubs would be in favor of that.
Still a mans world.
Ford told the Washington Post that Kavanaugh held her down at a high school party in the 1980s and attempted to force himself on her, covering her mouth to quiet her protests. Her allegations were documented by her therapist in notes from sessions in 2012 and 2013 in which Ford talked about a “rape attempt” and being attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school.” Kavanaugh denied the allegations, as did another male classmate who Ford said was involved in the incident.
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/18/17869998/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-holton-arms
If the statute doesn’t apply, nothing else does.
Why can that not take place after her testimony? and honesty what coororating evidence will there be after 36 years at a party she doesn’t know the date or at a location she doesn’t remember?
You know as well as I do that the 'Pubs will push forward with the vote. They want it so bad they can smell it now.
and if he is a rapist or attempted rapist he should not only not be confirmed but kicked out of his current judgeship.
But it is not acceptable to do either without sword testimony under oath of what happened and an FBI investigation or not should have no impact on her testimony.
If she wants to prevent an attempted rapist from being a supreme court judge she should testify under oath.
Speaking of that. How can Kavenaugh say for certain he wasn’t even at the party in question when she hasn’t provided specifics about it?
She will once the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION investigates. She said so today.
What physical evidence does she have? Right now it’s a he said she said. And with her not being able to narrow it down to more than possibly the summer of '82. Don’t know how I got there. Don’t know who owned the home, don’t know how I got home. Theripist got notes wrong . . . not much other than an aligation.
2 Likes
Why didn’t she think about that sometime the summer of '82?
Explain how.
Say the three witnesses are all interview and all three found to be credible with no idication of deception.
Then what?
Try and find an unknown house, that had unknown guests (other that the two she by god remembers even though she can’t remember anything else.)
And she scrubbed her social media accounts
I can’t speak for him but I’d assume he meant that he wasn’t at a party where he attempted to rape somebody. That was all the details she provided about the party so all he really can attest to. I’ll admit he could have chosen his words better if that was what he meant.
But I do agree. Without details of the party he can’t really say he wasn’t there only he didn’t do what was alleged but he also can’t say he was at the party either. A really bad situation he is in… “at a party on an unknown date at an unknown location you supposedly did this… what do you say?”. I know I’d have no idea how to answer that.
He has said he never attended a pary with the description she has given.
He didn’t say he didn’t attend that specific party – but didn’t attend ANY the way she described.
If he was a Senior and she a Freshman. Its just a matter of math. Remember how much bigger and older the Seniors were when you were a Freshman? I do
