Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Hearing

[AmazonGrace]

 

[thoughtful]

Assholes abound.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/rep-ralph-norman-jokes-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-groped/story?id=57986316

Spoiler

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., used his opening remarks at a Thursday debate for South Carolina's 5th Congressional District to make an off-color joke about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"Did y’all hear the latest, late-breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings? Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out [saying[ that she was groped by Abraham Lincoln," he said to some laughs and applause.

Norman, who has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, later defended his remarks on Twitter, saying they were "meant to add a bit of levity to a very serious debate between me and my Democrat opponent and to point to the circus-like atmosphere that Washington, D.C., has become."

 

[AmazonGrace]

Grassley's Kavanaugh spox is a harasser because of course he is 

 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

Please could someone quote this? (EU blocked)

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Well that was jaw dropping.  Like, "Uh, Kozinski?  Um, no, no, name seems familiar but I hardly knew him." 

Should be an interesting week ahead!  Hope somebody drills down deep enough to find a smoking gun of some sort. 

[Cartmann99]

@AmazonGrace.

Quote

What did Brett Kavanaugh know, and when did he know it? The answer to this question could be more important than anything President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court has been asked until this very moment.

Democrats have a remarkable opportunity to reopen the question not only of Kavanaugh’s character, but of the character of the people he considers friends and close advisers, if they have the discipline and focus to seize this moment.

Until now, the confirmation of Kavanaugh seemed inevitable. Even in the wake of an accusation of attempted sexual assault against their nominee by a California professor named Christine Blasey Ford, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday said that Republicans will “plow right through it” and deposit their battered nominee in a seat on the highest court in the land.

As I write this, Ford and the Republicans in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee were negotiating over her appearance, which was tentatively set for Wednesday, with conditions to be determined. It’s anybody’s guess whether it will actually happen.

Ironically, if Kavanaugh’s sprint for the high court fails, it will be only because the Ford accusations have led him and his team to self-destruct in one of the most astonishingly incompetent, self-inflicted wounds in modern political history: The eleventh-hour attempt to puncture the eleventh-hour allegation using a crackpot theory, floated by one of Kavanaugh’s close friends, that Ford was assaulted by another boy who just happens to look like Kavanaugh.

This bizarre incident, and not the accusation behind it, could sink Kavanaugh faster than any other charge.

While Ford’s accusation is important and should be heard out, Kavanaugh’s reaction to it could provide the revelations that could disqualify him.

In fact, by reacting as poorly as they have, Kavanaugh and his advisers may just have saved the Democrats from themselves.

Critics of the initial charges against Kavanaugh — including me — had deep misgivings about a single, anonymous, unsubstantiated charge from high school being the sole cause of a failed nomination. The Democrats stumbled and drifted in their attacks on the nominee until Ford stepped forward, adding her name and important details to her charges against Kavanaugh.

At that point, whatever political incompetence may have surrounded the handling of Ford’s letter became irrelevant; the Judiciary Committee faced a credible and signed accusation of sexual assault against the nominee.

The committee’s Republican majority reeled and suggested it would be necessary to hear from Ford, respectfully, before finally voting. Even President Trump, a man not known for his restraint and prudence, managed mostly to keep quiet.

Then something happened that turned the tables against the Democrats and in Kavanaugh’s favor again. Whether it was because Ford got cold feet, or because Senate Democrats had misgivings about whether she would make a good witness, the deal to have her answer questions before the committee began to fall apart.

Ford backed out, demanding an FBI investigation before she would testify. Wavering Republicans (including the critical Susan Collins) snapped back into line. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley — noting that he had offered to send staff to California to talk to Ford, and to allow her to tell her story in any venue she chose — sent a letter drenched in barely veiled fury to the Democratic minority vowing to press on with a vote.

Kavanaugh flatly denied the accusation, which was about the best he could do, as Ford’s charges have no firm time or place attached to them.

Ford herself said that she spoke of the attack to no one for some 30 years, which made an actual investigation a non-starter. The Republicans, sensing the upper hand, pressed their demands for Ford to testify.

By mid-week, Ford was in hiding, the Democrats were in disarray, and anyone betting on Kavanaugh was taking the easy money on a brisk confirmation.

And then, for reasons that will be a case study in political malpractice for years to come, one of Kavanaugh’s strongest supporters decided to blow up what seemed to be a sure thing.

On Sept. 20, Ed Whelan, the president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, posted over two dozen tweets presenting an alternate theory of the Ford charges that was so bizarre, and so intricate, that it could not possibly be excused as a late-night slip of the Twitter thumb.

Whelan laid out in detail how Ford could have been assaulted by a different student at Kavanaugh’s high school. He provided the floor plans of a house in Maryland — really — that could fit the description of the house where Ford claimed she was attacked. (This house, according to Whelan, had all the unique and strange characteristics that made it a dead ringer for the house in Ford’s account: It had stairs, a bathroom and a bedroom.)

He even named the other student, who is now a schoolteacher in Atlanta, possibly libeling some poor sap whose only mistake was to look like a young white guy with dark hair in the early 1980s.

This was an inexplicably stupid play, and more the kind of thing one might come up with if Kavanaugh were just minutes from being sunk in the committee, or in a floor vote, when there’s nothing left to lose and even the dumbest theory is worth a try as a ploy to buy one more hour of haggling in the cloakroom.

Ford immediately rejected this theory. “I knew them both,” she said. “There is zero chance that I would confuse them.”

But Whelan’s trip to the Twilight Zone was not a one-off. Rather, it looked like the culmination of a sustained effort to depict Ford as incapable of remembering who assaulted her, the capstone effort of a whispering campaign that began some days earlier.

Not only were there reports that Kavanaugh himself had floated the “mistaken identity” defense to Sen. Orrin Hatch, but the Washington Post reported that Kavanaugh and his advisers at the White House were in fact working on just such a defense.

Two days before the Whelan tweets, senior Hatch staffer Matt Whitlock tweeted that people should “keep an eye on” Whelan’s Twitter feed, and both the Wall Street Journal editors and Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker wrote columns pushing the “Kavanaugh doppelganger” theory.

When Whelan’s theory was met with almost universal derision, Whitlock deleted his tweets — and only commented on them when he was caught deleting them. He did not want to drag a private citizen into this, he said, even though his tweets did not name anyone, and he claimed not to know anything specific was coming from Whelan. Whelan deleted his tweets and apologized.

Trump finally went back to being Trump, and offensively, outrageously attacked Ford for not calling the FBI when she was 15 years old.

Only someone who has never set foot in Washington — or perhaps on Earth — could believe that this was not coordinated activity, unless we are to believe that several of Kavanaugh’s supporters decided to defend the same theory at the same time, and thus blindside their own nominee.

And that is why all the other charges against Kavanaugh now pale in comparison to the questions that the nominee should now answer under oath, and penalty of perjury: What did he know about this campaign to undermine Ford with a “mistaken identity” defense, and when did he know it? Did he have any part in it? Did he know it was coming?

Whelan, of course, now says he never spoke to the White House or Kavanaugh, which is a classic Washington dodge: Lots of things get done in Washington by people who know how to make things happen without speaking directly to each other. Whelan’s denials mean very little. But Kavanaugh’s would mean quite a lot — if they are asked under oath and subject to cross-examination.

If Kavanaugh, a nominee for a lifetime appointment in the highest court in the land, was involved in this idiocy, he should be immediately disqualified from serving on the Supreme Court, and perhaps even removed from his current position on the appellate court.

This kind of flim-flammery was clearly meant only to throw sand in the eyes of a public about to hear from Christine Ford. It looks like a constructed and deliberate lie. If Kavanaugh was involved in this campaign, or even approved of it, his choice would speak to his ethics and rectitude now, today, rather than 35 years ago.

Even if Kavanaugh denies any involvement in this disgusting episode, the fact that it was hatched by a staunch supporter and his friends tells us more than we knew a week ago. This intricate, artificial undermining of Ford’s accusations is a staggeringly immoral attempt at last-minute gaslighting of the American public with a story that could only have been aimed at the very stupidest or conspiracy-minded among us.

If Democrats choose to focus on fighting with Grassley over the details of Ford’s appearance instead of switching gears into an investigation of the origins of this gaslighting campaign and whether Kavanaugh was involved in it, they will miss their best chance to raise a charge that even more than a few conservatives are likely to agree would disqualify Kavanaugh.

You can tell a lot about a man by his friends, and in the past few days, we’ve learned all we need to know.

Nichols is a professor at the Naval War College and a former Republican Senate aide. The views expressed here are his alone.

 

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Please could someone quote this? (EU blocked)

@AmazonGrace, by the powers of VPN, I hereby grant your wish...  

A new cloud over Kavanaugh: What did he know about a slimy smear campaign?

Quote

What did Brett Kavanaugh know, and when did he know it? The answer to this question could be more important than anything President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court has been asked until this very moment.

Democrats have a remarkable opportunity to reopen the question not only of Kavanaugh’s character, but of the character of the people he considers friends and close advisers, if they have the discipline and focus to seize this moment.

Until now, the confirmation of Kavanaugh seemed inevitable. Even in the wake of an accusation of attempted sexual assault against their nominee by a California professor named Christine Blasey Ford, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday said that Republicans will “plow right through it” and deposit their battered nominee in a seat on the highest court in the land.

As I write this, Ford and the Republicans in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee were negotiating over her appearance, which was tentatively set for Wednesday, with conditions to be determined. It’s anybody’s guess whether it will actually happen.

Ironically, if Kavanaugh’s sprint for the high court fails, it will be only because the Ford accusations have led him and his team to self-destruct in one of the most astonishingly incompetent, self-inflicted wounds in modern political history: The eleventh-hour attempt to puncture the eleventh-hour allegation using a crackpot theory, floated by one of Kavanaugh’s close friends, that Ford was assaulted by another boy who just happens to look like Kavanaugh.

This bizarre incident, and not the accusation behind it, could sink Kavanaugh faster than any other charge.

While Ford’s accusation is important and should be heard out, Kavanaugh’s reaction to it could provide the revelations that could disqualify him.

In fact, by reacting as poorly as they have, Kavanaugh and his advisers may just have saved the Democrats from themselves.

Critics of the initial charges against Kavanaugh — including me — had deep misgivings about a single, anonymous, unsubstantiated charge from high school being the sole cause of a failed nomination. The Democrats stumbled and drifted in their attacks on the nominee until Ford stepped forward, adding her name and important details to her charges against Kavanaugh.

At that point, whatever political incompetence may have surrounded the handling of Ford’s letter became irrelevant; the Judiciary Committee faced a credible and signed accusation of sexual assault against the nominee.

The committee’s Republican majority reeled and suggested it would be necessary to hear from Ford, respectfully, before finally voting. Even President Trump, a man not known for his restraint and prudence, managed mostly to keep quiet.

Then something happened that turned the tables against the Democrats and in Kavanaugh’s favor again. Whether it was because Ford got cold feet, or because Senate Democrats had misgivings about whether she would make a good witness, the deal to have her answer questions before the committee began to fall apart.

Ford backed out, demanding an FBI investigation before she would testify. Wavering Republicans (including the critical Susan Collins) snapped back into line. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley — noting that he had offered to send staff to California to talk to Ford, and to allow her to tell her story in any venue she chose — sent a letter drenched in barely veiled fury to the Democratic minority vowing to press on with a vote.

Kavanaugh flatly denied the accusation, which was about the best he could do, as Ford’s charges have no firm time or place attached to them.

Ford herself said that she spoke of the attack to no one for some 30 years, which made an actual investigation a non-starter. The Republicans, sensing the upper hand, pressed their demands for Ford to testify.

By mid-week, Ford was in hiding, the Democrats were in disarray, and anyone betting on Kavanaugh was taking the easy money on a brisk confirmation.

And then, for reasons that will be a case study in political malpractice for years to come, one of Kavanaugh’s strongest supporters decided to blow up what seemed to be a sure thing.

On Sept. 20, Ed Whelan, the president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, posted over two dozen tweets presenting an alternate theory of the Ford charges that was so bizarre, and so intricate, that it could not possibly be excused as a late-night slip of the Twitter thumb.

Whelan laid out in detail how Ford could have been assaulted by a different student at Kavanaugh’s high school. He provided the floor plans of a house in Maryland — really — that could fit the description of the house where Ford claimed she was attacked. (This house, according to Whelan, had all the unique and strange characteristics that made it a dead ringer for the house in Ford’s account: It had stairs, a bathroom and a bedroom.)

He even named the other student, who is now a schoolteacher in Atlanta, possibly libeling some poor sap whose only mistake was to look like a young white guy with dark hair in the early 1980s.

This was an inexplicably stupid play, and more the kind of thing one might come up with if Kavanaugh were just minutes from being sunk in the committee, or in a floor vote, when there’s nothing left to lose and even the dumbest theory is worth a try as a ploy to buy one more hour of haggling in the cloakroom.

Ford immediately rejected this theory. “I knew them both,” she said. “There is zero chance that I would confuse them.”

But Whelan’s trip to the Twilight Zone was not a one-off. Rather, it looked like the culmination of a sustained effort to depict Ford as incapable of remembering who assaulted her, the capstone effort of a whispering campaign that began some days earlier.

Not only were there reports that Kavanaugh himself had floated the “mistaken identity” defense to Sen. Orrin Hatch, but the Washington Post reported that Kavanaugh and his advisers at the White House were in fact working on just such a defense.

Two days before the Whelan tweets, senior Hatch staffer Matt Whitlock tweeted that people should “keep an eye on” Whelan’s Twitter feed, and both the Wall Street Journal editors and Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker wrote columns pushing the “Kavanaugh doppelganger” theory.

When Whelan’s theory was met with almost universal derision, Whitlock deleted his tweets — and only commented on them when he was caught deleting them. He did not want to drag a private citizen into this, he said, even though his tweets did not name anyone, and he claimed not to know anything specific was coming from Whelan. Whelan deleted his tweets and apologized.

Trump finally went back to being Trump, and offensively, outrageously attacked Ford for not calling the FBI when she was 15 years old.

Only someone who has never set foot in Washington — or perhaps on Earth — could believe that this was not coordinated activity, unless we are to believe that several of Kavanaugh’s supporters decided to defend the same theory at the same time, and thus blindside their own nominee.

And that is why all the other charges against Kavanaugh now pale in comparison to the questions that the nominee should now answer under oath, and penalty of perjury: What did he know about this campaign to undermine Ford with a “mistaken identity” defense, and when did he know it? Did he have any part in it? Did he know it was coming?

Whelan, of course, now says he never spoke to the White House or Kavanaugh, which is a classic Washington dodge: Lots of things get done in Washington by people who know how to make things happen without speaking directly to each other. Whelan’s denials mean very little. But Kavanaugh’s would mean quite a lot — if they are asked under oath and subject to cross-examination.

If Kavanaugh, a nominee for a lifetime appointment in the highest court in the land, was involved in this idiocy, he should be immediately disqualified from serving on the Supreme Court, and perhaps even removed from his current position on the appellate court.

This kind of flim-flammery was clearly meant only to throw sand in the eyes of a public about to hear from Christine Ford. It looks like a constructed and deliberate lie. If Kavanaugh was involved in this campaign, or even approved of it, his choice would speak to his ethics and rectitude now, today, rather than 35 years ago.

Even if Kavanaugh denies any involvement in this disgusting episode, the fact that it was hatched by a staunch supporter and his friends tells us more than we knew a week ago. This intricate, artificial undermining of Ford’s accusations is a staggeringly immoral attempt at last-minute gaslighting of the American public with a story that could only have been aimed at the very stupidest or conspiracy-minded among us.

If Democrats choose to focus on fighting with Grassley over the details of Ford’s appearance instead of switching gears into an investigation of the origins of this gaslighting campaign and whether Kavanaugh was involved in it, they will miss their best chance to raise a charge that even more than a few conservatives are likely to agree would disqualify Kavanaugh.

You can tell a lot about a man by his friends, and in the past few days, we’ve learned all we need to know.

Dang, @Cartmann99, I really should read the whole thread before I post, because you already granted @AmazonGrace's wish. 

[AmazonGrace]

Thank you both!

[Howl]

Ya know, I'm starting to think Kavanaugh was put forward knowing there were big problems (the finances, debts, Kozinski, whatever else) and they  wanted to just ram him through ASAP.  I mean the nomination has a pr firm -- I'm sure you saw the ad reassuring us all about what a great family man he is and soooooo filled with integrity.  Heh, haven't seen any of those in the last few days! 

My sense is the fear about delaying his vote has to do with their knowing there's more that they are terrified will be made public that will immediately torpedo the nomination.   I don't mean the high school rape allegation, because GOP has telegraphed that they don't give a shit about Blasey Ford's testimony.  This would be something else. 

Oh, and a cynical thumbs up to Ed Whelan for setting his own hair on fire while making a complete ass out of himself, and raising a LOT of questions. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[Howl]

I'm LOVING the swelling grass roots anti Kavanaugh campaign! 

[GreyhoundFan]

[WiseGirl]

Right now i ike my senator. 

https://twitter.com/SenBlumenthal/status/1043585849059889152?s=19

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[Cartmann99]

This video is going to piss you off:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

Not directly about Kavanaugh, but an interesting piece about the Clarence Thomas hearings: "I helped write a speech defending a vote for Clarence Thomas. I regret it still."

Spoiler

Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her during a high school party in suburban Washington years ago, are skirmishing with Senate Republicans over the terms under which Ford will testify about the incident.

If the hearing proceeds, senators will listen to both sides and then make statements indicating whom they believe and whether they will vote to confirm Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

When they do, they will be speaking words crafted by mostly young speechwriters and press secretaries. Some of those young staffers — perhaps especially those called on to explain votes for Kavanaugh, despite Ford’s assertions that he drunkenly and violently pinned her down and groped her — will not believe the words they are writing.

I know I didn’t. Back in 1991, I was deputy press secretary for Sen. Alan J. Dixon (Ill.), a Democrat grappling with how to vote in the wake of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings. Dixon ultimately concluded that both Thomas and Hill were “credible,” so no outside observer could determine with certainty what had happened between them — or so we staffers were told to write. He stuck with his “yes” vote.

The Kavanaugh hearings have vividly brought that time of my life back to me and focused my attention on Washington’s cynicism once again.

When Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, in July 1991, I was 24 and had recently been transferred to Washington after working my way up from intern to staff assistant in Dixon’s Chicago office. There, my responsibilities centered largely on writing letters of recommendation to the service academies — “It is an honor and privilege to recommend Johnny to West Point” — speeches to be included in small-town time capsules and the occasional correspondence to the post office asking that a connected constituent’s business have a prestigious Michigan Avenue address, even if it was a half a block away.

I wasn’t a complete naif; I’d been farmed out to work on the promising congressional campaign of Mel Reynolds, a former Rhodes scholar, who lost a close race in Illinois’ 2nd District in 1990. I was briefly crushed. Then I watched Reynolds get elected two years later; not long afterward, he was convicted of multiple felonies including statutory rape and embezzlement.

Washington was different from Chicago. Everyone seemed so committed to doing good — or at least their bosses’ idea of good. I wrote floor statements on minor subjects that Dixon would delight in marking up with a red pen, pointing out my syntax errors. I became the answer to my own trivia question when I ghost-wrote the Senate invocation offered by the Nation of Islam’s Wallace D. Muhammad of Chicago — the first time a Muslim had opened a Senate session.

Dixon was up for reelection in 1992, and victory seemed assured. He was known as Al the Pal for his inoffensive, middle-of-the-road views and passion for making deals. Then Thomas was nominated. Dixon announced that he was going to vote for Thomas early in the confirmation process, and the decision made few ripples. The senator was an old-school guy who believed that a president deserved to have his judges confirmed unless they proved to be incompetent or, I don’t know, secret criminals.

At first, it just seemed like another mild grit-your-teeth moment for me and my fellow Dixon staffers (who tended to be more liberal than our boss).

But then Anita Hill came forward. The nation paused to hear Hill’s thoroughly credible story of workplace harassment: the pubic-hair jokes, Thomas’s proclamation of his love for porn, his boasting of his oral sex skills.

I was grossed out and disgusted, and assumed that Dixon would denounce Thomas after Hill’s brave testimony. He didn’t. Instead, the silver-haired head of Dixon’s D.C. office told the press secretary, my boss, to craft a statement for the Senate floor in which Dixon would announce why he wasn’t changing his vote. I was enlisted to help.

For a moment, I thought of storming out, but I didn’t have the courage, just a mountain of student loan bills. Instead I wrote some gibberish about the long and storied presumption of innocence that may or may not have been included. A few hours later, I watched Dixon give his statement on the floor. If they weren’t exactly my words, I’d had a hand in producing them:

“If Judge Thomas had been credible, and Professor Hill had not, the Senate’s choice would be equally clear. Since both were credible, however, and since it is impossible to get to the bottom of this matter, I think we have to fall back on our legal system and its presumption of innocence for those accused.”

The logic error of this statement — its grievously false analogy — didn’t hit me until much later and has been on my mind since the Ford-Kavanaugh allegations emerged. The standard for a court verdict, under which some defendants go free on technicalities in order to protect the rights of the many, isn’t the standard that should be applied to a lifelong appointment to the highest court in the land. Thomas was not facing jail time: His punishment would have been a return to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The presence of significant doubt about his story would merely prevent him from serving on the Supreme Court.

Dixon voted for Thomas, who slipped through the Senate with the closest confirmation vote in the 20th century: 52 to 48. Afterward, a few of us adjourned to a Capitol Hill bar to drink our frustration away. The senator’s chief of staff was there and sent over a round of drinks, knowing we were miserable. It didn’t help. I went home and threw up.

The likely thinking behind Dixon’s vote was that it inoculated him from a GOP challenger in a state where, at the time, Democrats and Republicans were closely balanced. (Years later, Dixon said his vote was one of principle, but I have my doubts.)

The supposedly practical calculation turned out to be exactly wrong. I moved back to Chicago to work on his 1992 campaign and watched as Carol Moseley Braun, an underfunded African American woman, ran an insurgent crusade precisely because of Dixon’s vote for Thomas. The Democratic primary contest was a three-way race; the third candidate was a rich white lawyer. There were rumors that Dixon’s campaign so condescended to Braun that they raised money to keep her in the race and split the anti-Dixon vote. (I was not enough of a player to know if this was true.) It backfired spectacularly. Braun defeated Dixon and was elected to the Senate, as were California’s Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and Washington’s Patty Murray — part of a wave that led to 1992 being dubbed the “year of the woman.”

I remember not being saddened by Dixon’s defeat — and realizing I needed to get out of politics.

I also remember a meeting with Dixon and his chief of staff the previous November. I’d been volunteering on the weekends for the special-election Senate campaign of Harris Wofford, a friend of President John Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. who ran an inspirational race based on providing universal health care. After Wofford’s stunning victory, Dixon’s brain trust asked me what we could learn from that campaign. I wanted to say, “Believe in something.” But I didn’t. I mumbled something generic about how we needed to make a floor statement on health care and headed home.

I can’t urge a young Senate aide to quit his dream job over the Kavanaugh allegations. I didn’t — at least not right away. But if you stay and write words you don’t believe in, it will haunt you.

For how long? I’m at 26 years and still counting.

 

[AuntK]

"Due process" applies when the state charges someone with a crime; this is f'ing confirmation hearing for a LIFETIME Supreme Court appointment by an unhinged, misogynistic president whose election, at best, can be described as questionable! If "due process" were involved HERE, we would be seeing the TENS OF THOUSANDS of documents in Kavanaugh's past that have been HIDDEN. The Ford allegation is merely the tip of the iceberg- there is SO MUCH that is unknown about this man; he is probably the least-known SC candidate in modern times, despite his years of government service.

I know I'm getting all stabby here, but I get PISSED OFF when people want to disparage Dr. Ford and suggest that she either has ulterior motives or doesn't remember! BELIEVE ME, I know from EXPERIENCE, you NEVER FORGET an assault, especially a close call like this, even though you would like to, it remains in your memory FOREVER! As far as her motives, who would endure this shitstorm, put themselves and their family through hell if this is not the truth?

If you think Dr. Ford is just making this up, then you have lived the most completely sheltered life imaginable or your head is up your ass!

[AmazonGrace]

Is there anyone in GOP who isn't a complete dick?

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 i didn't realize that Gorsuch went to the same school. 

I'm sure the pedophile teacher was able to instill healthy values and respect for individual sexual consent.

This shit is so messed up. 

I had one pedo teacher too but at least he didn't do sex ed.

[AmazonGrace]