that’s true for any SC nominee ever, so…?
Ibby is not American. We’re much more selective about who we give citizenship to.
If you decide to identify as a Central American refugee, we may reconsider…
“Ok, strategy is to find something, anything, that will give the Senator a plausible reason to vote no.”
“He’s a rapist!”
“Wait, he went through an extensive FBI check in the Bush administration. There is no evidence for rape. It won’t work.”
“Doesn’t matter. Just need to come up with something that yields enough cover for Senator to vote no.”
“Diane has a letter in her desk. From high school.”
“Give it to the FBI and make it known to the press.”
“Now we go balls to the wall. 24/7 attack in our media. Loose the dogs!!”
~later~
“Doesn’t seem to have worked. Any new ideas?”
“How about we accuse him of partisan bias against Democrats?”
“Yes! A lack of public trust! Make it so!!”
1 Like
oh they’ll see that, after he gets his place in the SC. If before this farse he might have been a moderate, now they’ll get to know Punished Kav.
1 Like
I cannot find on a quick search any indication that other nominees have been this polarising, nor seems wikipedia support your assertion based on votes. I can even see Anthony Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, and the next nominee after that was 90-9
Plenty of the dems announced they would oppose Trump’s nominee before he even made his decision. The candidate is not the issue here.
Bork
Thomas
You mean before the chosen nominee was known?
The nominee can be known prior to when a decision is made, and I dont see why one needs to wait until a official decision is made before opposing the decision which is going to be made.
Before they knew it was Kav. They would have opposed anyone. If it was the lady with 7 kids, two of which adopted from center America, it would have been:“oh no, she likes kids! She’ll overturn roe v Wade!”.
It may be for many. How Sen. DiFi decided to bring up the accusations at the last minute was partisan politics at the worst. I would ask the strongest defenders of Ford to defend that move.
But, how Kavanaugh conducted himself is relevant. He apologized for being belligerent, some would say it was understandable given the circumstances and to those who think it was disqualifying, I could understand that too.
That’s looking at it from a non partisan view, I think the vote will be down a party divide though.
They had already decided the nominee was a wonderful person before they even knew the name.
Funny how that works. 
Suppose Brett is the best candidate ever, and all the allegations (including those from his old drinking buddies) are completely false. A thorough investigation might make all this clear, but a one week investigation of limited scope won’t. There are other judges who could have filled this vacancy already, and there will be more vacancies on SCOTUS within Brett’s lifetime, probably even while the Donald is still in office. Brett’s only 53, not 85 like Ruth.
You’re confusing a criminal trial with a job interview. Hillie hasn’t been found guilty in court, yet lots of people found her conduct suspicious enough that they decided not to “confirm” her for the Oval Office. Do you have a problem with that? (And while we’re at it, where’s that special prosecutor we heard so much about back in 2016? 
)
She’s the Ivanka of the Dems. (But my money’s still on Ivanka 2028.)
It’s something we keep hearing about – not the rape but the political bias – in the US. Other advanced democracies manage to do without it. How do they do it? 
John Paul Stevens
Wow, even Nixon appointees are trying to get ahead in the Dems these days. [end sarcasm]
JPS just probably isn’t a rapist.
Opinion: dismissed
1 Like
Oh look, Monica McLean’s name took only one day to be in the news again. Not related to passing a polygraph test which Fords ex claims he saw (McLean denies that claim). This time regarding testimony Ford’s friend was giving.
Leland Keyser, a friend of Dr. Fords felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh.
A couple of other breadcrumbs, Monica McLean worked with Preet Bahara in the SDNY. Her lawyer is David Laufman, who was the Justice Dept. official who helped oversee Clinton, Russia probes.
One of Dr. Fords lawyers is also the lawyer for Andrew McCabe .
Grassley want’s more documents.
Not that I didn’t feel for her, in her squeaky voice retelling how she was alone in a parking lot not knowing what to do or how to search for a lawyer. Perhaps it slipped her mind that her BFF who turned up to the hearing and sat right behind her is an ex career lawyer at the FBI/DOJ and is also getting in to the thick of it calling up witness to change their story. I mean, could be true, right?
Friend of Dr. Ford Felt Pressure to Revisit Statement
Let’s not draw any conclusions yet, more to come I’m sure.
1 Like
They are all just coincidences…r-right?
*sweats in perjury
2 Likes
I don’t think it’s controversial at all to conclude, even now, that CB Ford’s dog’n pony show must have had extensive help from the Democrat party in preparing her for testimony. I’m sure that the logistics of this help explains, at least in part, the delay Ford demanded.
Another sad takeaway from McCabe’s involvement is James Comey’s increasingly shitty job as D-FBI. Comey clearly weaponized the FBI just as Obama clearly weaponized the IRS. Yet another example of remarkably poor leadership in DC. The FBI may not recover from James Comey.
The only part that’s the least bit interesting about that is the part where Monica McLean may have worked with Preet Baharara - and I can’t find much to corroborate that. I found a tweet where someone said she was his spokesperson but online all I can find is she was an FBI spokesperson for a period. He’s a judge and she was working for the FBI (though is a lawyer) so I’ll say I’m interested but dubious. I mean, they may have crossed paths but this isn’t anything unless they actually had even a working relationship of some description.
The rest is whatever. I mean, come on. We already knew who suggested the lawyer.
Oh, though I’m okay with Grassley wanting more documents, particularly the doctors notes - if it helps him. I don’t know about anybody else, but all I’m interested in is the truth, regardless of how it unfolds and what the end result is. My biggest issue has been the Republicans resistance to it. I get it, I get it. It throws a spanner in their plans. Awfully convenient for Democrats. That doesn’t mean it’s made up.
Monica McLean working with Preet Baharha
Basically as far as I heard, the last 10 years or so of her internet history was scrubbed, Much like Dr. Fords. It will come out, but I think give it more time.
You might say “come on” but everything I posted is a provable fact. Unlike claims of being afraid to fly, which would be very hard to prove otherwise, except seems weird since she flies all over the place all the time and her ex said under penalty of perjury she sure didn’t look like she feared flaying, big planes small planes she never showed the slightest fear, that seems more worthy of “come on”. But ok, everyone can reach conclusions on their own.
On a side note, I think there were things where Kavanough wasn’t being truthful like never passing out drunk. If you drink frequently and heavily and admit to frequently throwing up, it kind of follows you will have a hazy memory to say the least, but would suggest he knows the implications of admitting he couldn’t always remember everything with 20/20 recollection.