Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OMG.. Avenatti cannot stand the fact that Stormy is out of the news which means he is as well. He should have stopped with his original loony "client" Swetnick. Now, this new victim, knew both Dr. Ford and Swetnick for years... Did Dr. Ford know Swetnick? I have never heard this revelation before. AND, of course she has first hand knowledge of Kavanuagh spiking the punch! Because his original client stated she did too in her affidavit (oh sorry, "became aware of") and later retracted and said she saw him standing by the punch box (not bowl).
Its pretty easy to spike a punch bowl. A punch box not so much.
Either she is lying under oath or Kavanaugh is. THere is overwhelming evidence that Kavanaugh lied about at least some things in his testimony. Nothing for her yet. Who to believe? Who to believe?
No, or rather, yes ... there are two issues here: one, Kavanaugh's emotionality, and the other, the seemingly partisan remarks. Folks seem to be cross-discussing on this forum.
Some have written with passion about unsubstantiated allegations involving friends or family-members or their concern that allegations can derail someone's future. That I get and appreciate why it might drive their assessment of this issue. Others (that include myself) have seen or heard of so many instances like that described by Ford that they don't find THAT possibility unlikely.
Both are societal problems - but the introduction of possible partisan bias (that differs from legal positioning) into the SCOTUS is a separate issue.
Me, I don't have a strong opinion. Curious, I tracked down a Time article that presented the history of past SCOTUS rejections and nomination withdrawals but I haven't taken the time to listen to to *all* of Kavanaugh's testimony and cross-match the two to form that opinion about whether Kavanaugh crossed some line.
OTOH, I've read Flake's comments so, yes, think it a possible issue.
I will say, though, that some posters' comments that the Democrats now deserve "revenge-decisions," that Kavanaugh can no longer be expected to be judicially objective based on Feinstein etc. to be a bit settling. If they believe THAT, then there should be a down-vote. No matter how unfair a charge may have been, simple morality demands a judge rise above it.
Maybe that's not human nature, but this is the SCOTUS where determinations impact the lives of millions.
That's a reach to think that because anonymous posters on CD hope or think Judge Kavanaugh should seek revenge that he will. There is nothing in his very public life record to support that.
And even though the ABA did down grade him earlier in his career, they did upgrade him for this nomination.....but facts....
Here was the downgrade in 2006!
The bar association’s new rating in 2006 — “qualified” instead of “well qualified” — was still quite positive. It meant, the committee explained, that Mr Kavanaugh had met its “very high standards with respect to integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.”
No, that is how Trump felt about his Fox interview.
The overwhelming Democratic perspective on the interview was that he downplayed his drinking and made that period of his life more about volunteer work and bible thumping. Noting that he painted himself into a corner by doing so.
We can agree to disagree.
There was quite a bit of talking head criticism of how low key he was.
I'm sure Trump didn't like it because he is a brawler.
Truth is probably in the middle as usual...…...he needed to be stronger, but he should have done it his own way which I'm guessing would have been more measured...…...rather than listening to Trump and whomever else was coaching him.
In any case, I don't fault him given how he was treated and what he was accused of. Someone needed to tell the Dem Senators where they could go.
Either she is lying under oath or Kavanaugh is. THere is overwhelming evidence that Kavanaugh lied about at least some things in his testimony. Nothing for her yet. Who to believe? Who to believe?
Sorry, Ponderosa, but Swetnick was lying. When she was interviewed her story did not jive with her affidavit. So we know Swetnick was lying under oath. At this point, any normal person who really wants the truth to come out would find another attorney. Nobody is taking him seriously after he paraded the lunatic out there and claimed she was "credible" and her past lying and defamation suits were "irrelevant".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
