Social Question

JLeslie's avatar

Why are the witnesses and other people involved not at this hearing about Kavanaugh?

Asked by JLeslie (59803points) September 27th, 2018 from iPhone

One guy wrote a book, but isn’t testifying, and there are others too.

Can you tell me more about who and why?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

65 Answers

rojo's avatar

Because the Republicans are not interested in the truth, only their version of it.

JLeslie's avatar

Why do the republicans get to decide such a thing?

janbb's avatar

Because they’re the majority party and they don’t care about ethics.

mazingerz88's avatar

Because Kavanaugh might be actually guilty.

rojo's avatar

^^Might? My personal opinion is that he is. The only question is, is he lying or does he truly not remember? I am going to say the latter because I try to find the best in everyone.

chyna's avatar

He’s already been caught lying about not drinking. Then he had to walk that back, so in my book, one lie leads to another.

mazingerz88's avatar

@rojo I think he’s guilty. I’m trying very hard to make fair statements. We know that the Republican Senators, trump and their voters don’t give any s*^t if Kavanaugh sexually assaulted anybody.

canidmajor's avatar

@rojo, he probably doesn’t remember, you’re right about that, but not because there is any good in his soul, but because to him, these types of things are not memorable. I grew up with the Brett Kavanaughs, in that social stratum, and they Just. Don’t. Care. By no means are all the guys in that socio-economic layer bad guys, but some of them really don’t think it matters, as long as they get what they want. On a whim or otherwise.
These are the Brock Turners, who grow up to support the next generation of Brock Turners.

He doesn’t remember because he doesn’t have to. And he is simply outraged, like a toddler, that anyone would question his right to have whatever he wants.

He is an all-too- predictable (and dangerous) type.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I’m pretty ashamed as an American how this whole thing is being handled, the politics, the circus and the clear polarization along party lines by people.

seawulf575's avatar

Because each of them has already given sworn testimony. They gave written statements that they were told were punishable as a felony if they were false. These statements were given to the Judiciary Committee. Having them show up again would be redundant.

mazingerz88's avatar

@seawulf575 So a sworn testimony must be the truth because the people who swore were told it’s a felony if they lied? What kind of investigation was done to verify their claims? How thorough was it? These people could have lied believing they could get away with the lie so despite the threat of a punishment, they did.

trump who is the most hypocritical of all quickly attacks the FBI when he’s the one being investigated but suddenly develops faith in it when it suits his purpose. And this man is supposed to be an American President? How low can this country go when it comes to having a sense of decency?

Even Graham during his theatrical ranting seemed to have said or implied something along the lines of if the Dems only came to them about an FBI investigation or another FBI investigation at a certain time something maybe could have been done.

He questioned the timing not the idea.

rojo's avatar

@seawulf575 I do not think that matters. Written statements to the Judiciary committee are not worth the paper you wipe your ass with. I hold congress in such contempt that I would lie through my teeth to them if it suited my purpose. Could I do so and would it be believed if I had to do it in person and not on a worthless piece of paper? Don’t know. Not if I could lie but whether those lies would be believed.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 do you really hear yourself? Sworn testimony on paper isn’t good enough? What kind of investigating is there into their claims? If you called them to testify at the Senate Judiciary committee, which is exactly what was proposed and what to which I responded, they would be under oath…under penalty of a felony for lying. Same thing they did on paper. They would be asked questions and they would give answers. What investigation would their be into their answers? None. You take their answers at face value. You have asked them to come in and talk about a specific issue and what they know about it. They have given that information already and the answer is they don’t know anything about it. You don’t call someone in to testify and then accuse them of lying. Unless you are a liberal, then you might do just that.
I get it…you are all in on the idea that we should investigate this whole thing to death so that we can delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation. But using a sexual assault as a political ploy is evil. And that is what liberals are doing.

seawulf575's avatar

So @rojo you admit that lying to the judiciary committee would be something you would do to push your agenda. Isn’t it possible that is what Dr. Ford is doing?

chyna's avatar

^Isnt it possible that’s what Kavanaugh is doing?

seawulf575's avatar

^sure. But all the evidence and lack of points to him not lying about it. Everything Dr. Ford has claimed is unsubstantiated. Even her good friend couldn’t confirm her story, even after being identified as a witness. With no physical evidence, no police reports or medical reports from the time, with no corroborating witnesses you are left with only one conclusion: it didn’t happen as Dr. Ford said it did. Something like that event might have happened, but not with Kavanaugh. Even her therapist notes didn’t confirm that it was Kavanaugh. Nothing Dr. Ford has claimed has had a shred of evidence to back it up.

chyna's avatar

Leaves me wondering why Kavanaugh’s witness Mr. Judge is in hiding. You remember him? He’s the one that was in the room with them. The one that wrote the book about his wasted youth “ Wasted: Tales of a Gen-x Drunk.” The book where he describes blackout drinking, where he describes his friend “Bart O’Kavanaugh” puking and passed out. You are who you hang out with. A Christian athlete doesn’t hang out with drunkards and not participate.

JLeslie's avatar

@chyna Maybe Judge did it. Maybe he put his hand over Ford’s mouth? Maybe he doesn’t want to have to be part of getting his former friends into legal trouble, or ruining their career and life.

seawulf575's avatar

@chyna I can think of a great reason why Judge is hiding out. Look at what the media is doing to Kavanaugh. They are smearing him from every side without a shred of proof. They are harassing him and his family. His family is getting death threats (BTW, why isn’t a single liberal outraged about that behavior?) Why wouldn’t you try to hide out from that?
But it is interesting. You are jumping all over Judge because he was a friend of Kavanaugh’s. Fair enough. But you seem to ignore Keyser, who was a good friend and supposedly a witness to all this, who couldn’t confirm that she ever met Kavanaugh, much less having been at a party with him. So which is it? Are friends reliable or not? Or is it only innuendo that matters?

JLeslie's avatar

Is his book selling more with all of this attention?

rojo's avatar

@seawulf575 I would not need an agenda to lie to them. Contempt is reason enough. And, yes, it is possible that is what she was doing but she went before the inquisition and did not hide behind a piece of paper signed by a lawyer and we were able to observe her first hand during testimony. She gains nothing by lying to Congress. Kavanaugh however has a lot to gain by doing so.

As for Judge, As you so called conservatives are fond of saying, if he did nothing wrong he has nothing to worry about. Evidently, he does have something to worry about. He is a coward, afraid that what he might say under oath in oral testimony could both convey guilt not only on his friend but on himself as well.

Ask me who I met at a party I went to some time in 1972. I could have met and even been introduced to absolutely anyone at the party but I cannot even remember which friends were there let alone the strangers but then again, nothing traumatic occurred to me that would burn that day into my memory.

And, finally, let us talk about your outrage at the threats toward Dr. Ford. Where is your outrage? Where is the conservative outrage? All I have heard from them is how horrible things are for the Kavanaugh family.

But, as I have said on another question, if you find the testimony of Dr. Ford to be at all credible then you must err on the side of caution and vote against Kavanaugh for fear of putting a(nother) sexual predator on the court. There are plenty of other qualified candidates for the position. There are only two paths to a yes vote for Kavanaugh; either you must choose to believe that Dr. Ford is lying or that even though she is telling the truth you don’t give a damn.

chyna's avatar

The worst thing in my entire life happened when I was 25. The guy I was dating committed suicide and I found him. His neighbor in the apartment below him helped me get into the apartment. It had a profound effect on my life. I don’t remember the neighbors name, I couldn’t pick him out of a line up and I don’t remember the date it happened. It was an apartment complex and I don’t know what apartment it happened in. I remember seeing him dead with a gun in his hand and collapsing. Minds give you different ways to deal with stress.

JLeslie's avatar

@chyna Omg that’s awful. I can’t imagine going through that.

seawulf575's avatar

@rojo First, she gains a smear on Kavanaugh which helps the liberal agenda. Based on how this whole thing played out, I would say that is pretty much exactly what happened.
As for Judge, as I mentioned, there are all sorts of reasons to not want to be hounded by the media, not the least of which is death threats from the loony left. They have already shown themselves to be quite capable of dreadful violence in the name of the cause.
Outrage against death threats for Dr. Ford? Absolutely. Things like that should not be tolerated by either side. Those sorts of things could be turned over to the FBI to investigate without delaying anything. Anyone being found guilty should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But funny thing…I have no problem identifying that. You, on the other hand deflected the death threats against Kavanaugh with a “what about Ford” comment. Guess you still see the death threats against Kavanaugh as just being acceptable to fight evil, right?
And your last statement is idiotic. It is not really a believe one or the other. Is it possible that Dr. Ford was attacked in the past? Sure. Could it have been traumatic for her? Of course. Does that mean it was Kavanaugh? Nope. Her memory is so vague on all the details as to be meaningless. And as many of the other jellies on these pages have pointed out, when you get attacked it can be so traumatic that it will cause you to forget important stuff. So she can present credibly but be wrong. And in the end, I don’t believe her. I think she is wrong about Kavanaugh being anything in her past other than potentially someone she saw in passing once in a while. I say that because (a) there is no solid evidence, (b) there is not only no corroborating witnesses, but the ones she called on including her friends, denied her story, (3) even her therapists’ notes didn’t corroborate her story, and (4) the timing of the whole thing is more telling than anything.

rojo's avatar

She gains a smear? Seriously.

Sad, just sad.

canidmajor's avatar

At this point, whether or not one believes Ford (which I do, BTW), I think Kavanaugh’s behavior during the hearing is very telling. He had a tantrum like a toddler, throwing out blame, raising his voice, being visibly and verbally outraged.
Is that how he would react during deliberations with other Justices? Is that how he would listen to arguments presented? If someone disagrees with him on a decision, will he resort to that behavior?

There are other possible choices of whom I would likely deeply disapprove, but would maybe bring a bit more maturity to the process.

JLeslie's avatar

What does gain a smear mean? Like a mark on him?

rojo's avatar

I’m sorry, I misspoke (miswrote?). When I said sad, what I really meant was pathetic.

mazingerz88's avatar

Totally different when you sign something….from the FBI asking you more questions in person @seawulf575

Kavanaugh, trump and Republican Senators should ask the FBI. This is just so obviously a total BS move if they don’t.

Anybody who looks at this objectively would see more investigation is needed to get to the truth.

And liberal agenda? Like the conservatives have no agenda of their own. Sad pathetic excuse to deflect from the truth that Judge is hiding because all the accusations against Kavanaugh by those three women are true.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie and @rojo yes, gain a smear. that is, after all, what this is all about. Feinstein has proven that. She supposedly knew about this two, almost 3 months ago. She sat on it. She didn’t say anything to the Republicans on the committee. She went through the confirmation hearings. While she was interviewing Kavanaugh both publicly and privately she said nothing about it. In fact, while she was doing that, she was recommending lawyers for Ford. When nothing came out of the confirmation hearings to give any reason at all to not confirm Kavanaugh, then, suddenly, it all comes out. With demands for delays. With all sorts of nasty stuff condemning Kavanaugh without any proof whatsoever. I suspect Ford is complicit with this. My reasoning? If she were really traumatized by Kavanaugh and wanted anonymity, she wouldn’t have gone to Feinstein. Once she did, if she wanted anonymity, she would not have gone along with waiting until it was a complete circus before appearing publicly. She would have been pissed at Feinstein for politicizing her pain. She wouldn’t have tried the delay of “I can’t fly there, I’m terrified of flying” when she flies everywhere else with no problem. She wouldn’t have asked for a delay until the FBI conducted an investigation. She claims it happened and she has to get her story out. That either has enough evidence or it doesn’t. Delaying for an FBI investigation is a stall tactic. When the accusation first came out, Kavanaugh demanded a hearing on it the next day. He demanded it. The Dems and Ford delayed things so the propagandist liberal media could convict him before the whole thing started. It also gave them time to find two other complicit people to add onto the smear. Their stories are worse than Ford’s, yet the Dems and the media act like they are one of the Apostles. This whole thing is designed to delay and possibly block the confirmation of a SCOTUS justice. Plain and simple, it is a smear job. And that is what you are all supporting. That is how you see our government working in the future and you all support it.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 why don’t you write the FBI and ask for it. The FBI has done all they can on a background investigation of Kavanaugh…6 times over. That is, after all, what you are asking for. Admit it, there was nothing new to work with from Ford, Ramirez, or Swetnick in the way of new information on Kavanaugh. However it might be interesting if they did a background check on each of these women to see how their bank accounts have swelled in the past 3 months and to see who has been paying them off.

seawulf575's avatar

@canidmajor he has been calm and level headed throughout the longest confirmation process in history. He has watched his reputation get smeared and has seen death threats from the left against his family. He has watch the lefties on the Judiciary Committee make purposeful choices to make all that abuse happen and there is not a shred of evidence in sight on any of the accusations. I would be pissed too. I think he showed great restraint and did exactly what needed to be done…call out the liberals like Feinstein and not let them get away with what should be a criminal act.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
canidmajor's avatar

Gosh, @seawulf575, if that’s your idea of “calm and level headed” I feel for the poor folks that sailed with you. When the stakes are high, and others are depending on you to keep your cool (as during, say, Supreme Court deliberations of the most important cases in the country) the kind of tantrummy behavior displayed is unacceptable, no matter the provocation.

There’s a heat and kitchen analogy that would apply here.

seawulf575's avatar

@canidmajor stop trying to twist it. Go back and watch the entire confirmation hearing. What was his demeanor through all that? The Dems asked for more paperwork than was asked for the last 5 justices combined. They grilled him on every level and he never once lost his composure. I would suggest that is his normal demeanor. That is what you could expect from his service on the bench and is, in fact, what many attorneys have testified IS his demeanor on the bench. What you saw yesterday was outrage at the contrived smear job and the threats to his family that the Dems fed. I would challenge that if you were NOT outraged at behavior like that, you are dead or you just don’t care about yourself or your family.
As for me, my demeanor is very laid back. I don’t get ruffled by much. In fact I have had that misinterpreted at work. I was once told by a new manager that he had heard I was too “country club”. Not having heard that term, I had to ask what it meant. It was apparently perceived that I didn’t take things seriously and thought the whole job was a game. I asked him since he had been my manager for 6 months, if he felt that was a fair evaluation. He said it was not. I just didn’t lose composure. When everyone else was getting frantic and wound up, I was just dealing with the issues. THAT is how I react to things in the real world. So let me ask…if someone was lying about you, smearing your reputation, trying to tank your career, putting your family at risk and avoided all your efforts to address the lies, would you stay “calm and level headed”?

Response moderated
chyna's avatar

I love how he even blamed the Clinton’s. He is unravelling.

rojo's avatar

I read that Obamas feelings were hurt because Kavanaugh didn’t blame him too.

mazingerz88's avatar

@seawulf575 Talk the hand. Lol

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 LOL that is so funny! thanks for sharing!!! Dolt.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

What right wing blog did you get the word “Dolt” from? ? ?

chyna's avatar

Thank you Mr. Flake!

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie that is rich! I’m surprised you could even copy a word accurately from my statements! Dolt.

chyna's avatar

@tropical willie Worse, he got it from a cartoon, the Simpsons I believe.

mazingerz88's avatar

@seawulf575 Suck it with your sad arguments. Luckily a woman yelled at Flake and it seemed that made him saw the light. All that BS you were spewing about nothing more to investigate were all for nothing.

Even sad and pitiful trump was forced to acquiesce, clearly insincere, tail tucked between his legs. He limited it to one week. If Kavanaugh was Obama’s pick, the Republicans would want a year of investigation.

canidmajor's avatar

@seawulf575, I don’t care the provocation, losing his cool during a hearing like that is not acceptable. If he can’t handle that pressure, what makes you think he can handle the pressure of working within a group pondering such hig pressure decisions?

I don’t care how you react to things, it was just a comment about what you perceive to be appropriate.

I don’t know why you are so wedded to this candidate, there are undoubtedly others that are just as right leaning.

ETA: please don’t view this post as an invitation to respond. The implied questions are rhetorical.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 you don’t have the wit God gave a housefly. It is clear from your responses that all you have are the talking points the liberal outlets have fed you. You still haven’t responded once to what I have said about further investigation….there is nothing left to look at since the accusations were vague to the point of useless and all corroboration character references support Kavanaugh. The FBI will find nothing and it will have wasted time and tax dollars. And you lefties STILL won’t be satisfied. You are a sad bunch. The decision for an investigation is nothing more political posturing…an effort to appease the loony left.

seawulf575's avatar

@canidmajor I don’t view your post as an invitation to respond, but I will anyway. You chimed in with what I felt were unrealistic expectations for Kavanaugh and an attack on me. You have made yourself fair game in my book. You know nothing about me and you are merely spewing liberal talking points about Kavanaugh. I asked how you would respond in the same situation. You have conveniently avoided discussing that because you know the answer is that you would have responded about the same way as Kavanaugh did.
You don’t know why I am so wedded to this candidate? Here’s a clue…I’m not. But what I am wedded to is trying to stop the left from dragging this country into a third world nation. If Kavanaugh is tanked because of this low, underhanded, vile, contrived attack on him that has absolutely zero evidence to go with it, then that is what we will have instituted as a new norm in this nation. It won’t matter who is in what position or going for what position. If it is politically desired to move them, up will pop all sorts of unfounded allegations and a crowd of sheep baaing in the background to made the smear effective. That behavior is not calm and rational either, is it? That is lunacy and is certainly no way to run a country. Unless it is a third world country where a dictator rules all and graft and corruption are the norm. Is that what you want? And no, that is not a rhetorical question.

canidmajor's avatar

So much hyperbole! <eye roll>
You want examples of vile? Do go back to your man’s campaign and look at his words about, well, everybody else.

But I guess those are OK, huh.

Never mind.

seawulf575's avatar

Nice dodge.

janbb's avatar

One question and then I’m out. Was not McConnell’s refusal to let Merrick Garland’s nomination not come to a hearing for a year low and vile? Until you can recognize that there’s dirty politics, and I’m not saying Ford’s accusations are, on both sides I will not engage with you further.

seawulf575's avatar

I will say that McConnell’s refusal to accept Garland’s nomination was politically motivated. Of course. Was it a personal smear attack against Garland? If you are going to try equating a politically motivated refusal to consider someone with the calculated attempt to smear someone, maybe you need to get out more.

chyna's avatar

then that is what we will have instituted as a new norm in this nation. It won’t matter who is in what position or going for what position. If it is politically desired to move them, up will pop all sorts of unfounded allegations and a crowd of sheep baaing in the background to made the smear effective

@seawulf575 You just described trump

seawulf575's avatar

Yep. The left has tried smearing him as well. If you are trying to say he has smeared someone, please fill me in. It certainly hasn’t been done in the calculated way the Dems just did to Kavanaugh.

rojo's avatar

I believe Dr. Fords testimony against Kavanaugh. Explain again how telling the truth about someone is a smear.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Telling the truth about someone is not a smear but outside of evidence what you believe does not indicate which of them is lying and one of them most certainly is. Now that there will be an investigation time will tell. I found both sides had compelling arguments so I’m not rushing to judgement. We’ll see what the FBI digs up.

seawulf575's avatar

@rojo You can believe Dr. Ford’s testimony if you like. My take on it is that it happened 35+ years ago. She has basically no details at all that can be followed up on. She listed several people that she claimed were there and knew about it. None of them did. But it is possible that she did get attacked at sometime in the dim past. But with all the holes in her memory, it seems odd that she would be so certain it was Kavanaugh when she said she didn’t really know him. It is possible she believes it was him when, in fact, it was someone else. Doesn’t mean she is lying about being attacked, but she might be wrong about Kavanaugh.
As for the smear, I give you all the Dems on the Judiciary Committee, especially Diane Feinstein. She knew about this allegation in July. She did nothing with it…not even tell the rest of the committee about it…except the Dems. She knew about it while questioning Kavanaugh both publicly and privately and said nothing to him about it then, yet had plenty of time to recommend lawyers for Ford. Then, after all the confirmation hearings were done and there was absolutely no reason to reject Kavanaugh, THEN she totes it out. Kavanaugh immediately denied it and asked for the accusers to appear in front of the committee the next day. They stalled for 10 days and fed info to the media like crazy. Yeah…THAT is a smear job.

canidmajor's avatar

@seawulf575, before you veered away into wild conspiracy, you were vehemently defending Kavanaugh’s behavior in front of the committee, the cameras, the American people. This constitutes the very definition of the “public”.

This morning I was talking about this thread to my friend, a Texas born-and-raised Republican Yale Law graduate. Who suggested I link to this:

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/judicialethics/ABA_MCJC_approved.authcheckdam.pdf

Page 12, Rule 1.2:
”RULE 1.2
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”

seawulf575's avatar

Huh. Did you actually read that whole thing and use the links to the definitions? I’m betting not. So let’s do that now. First off, you didn’t cut and paste from the article. Here is the actual cut and paste:

A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

See the asterisks? Those imply specifically defined terms. So let’s see what those definitions are.

“Independence” means a judge’s freedom from influence or controls other than those
established by law. See Canons 1 and 4, and Rules 1.2, 3.1, 3.12, 3.13, and 4.2

“Integrity” means probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character.
See Canon 1 and Rule 1.2.

“Impartial,” “impartiality,” and “impartially” mean absence of bias or prejudice in
favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an
open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge. See Canons 1, 2, and 4,
and Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 3.1, 3.12, 3.13, 4.1, and 4.2.

There is also another term not marked with an asterisk:

“Impropriety” includes conduct that violates the law, court rules, or provisions of this
Code, and conduct that undermines a judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality. See
Canon 1 and Rule 1.2.

As you can see…NONE of that applies to Kavanaugh dressing down the Dems for their smear tactics and their abuse of the confirmation process. Not a single term there says he can’t get angry or display anger, unless it shows a bias on a case he is sitting. This isn’t that. But hey, let’s see if you are a hypocrite or not.

Since you seem to want to hold to ethics, how about :

http://www.chanrobles.com/codeofjudicialconduct.html#.W6-nAOWZ1hE

Go down to Canon 3.07: RULE 3.07 – A judge should abstain from making public comments on any pending or impending case and should require similar restraint on the part of court personnel.

Now go to:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Given these rules of ethics and law, you would then agree that Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves from the Obergefell v Hodges case, right? So the SCOTUS ruling about same sex marriage should be voided, right?

So what is it…are you outraged because you feel that Kavanaugh showed righteous indignation but not with Ginsburg and Kagan for refusing to recuse themselves?

janbb's avatar

So I guess you feel that the boys who were molested by priests 35 years ago aren’t tell the truth either? Dr Ford had no reason to subject herself to this indignity other than her sense of justice.

mazingerz88's avatar

@seawulf575 You’re the one who is making this country into a Third World nation of imbeciles, souless and deplorable maggots. trump would be glad to have you as FBI Director, pulling talking points out of your own ass.

canidmajor's avatar

I give up. @seawulf575, you continue to obfuscate the issue by veering off wildly into this or that area or to rant away about the fall of your carefully constructed privileged-white-boy ideal because of “crazy leftists”.
My point was simple. He behaved badly in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was grossly disrespectful. I would not hire anyone who behaved like that at a job interview.

I’m done. Unfollowing.
Rant away.
Knock yourself out.

janbb's avatar

@canidmajor Join me for tea and scones in the parlor?

canidmajor's avatar

On my way! Bring the bears. They also love beer. It’ll be topical! ;-)

seawulf575's avatar

@janbb of course not. But there is a big difference between the children abused by priests and Dr. Ford. It’s called evidence and corroborating testimony. In most if not all of the cases against priests, there were witnesses such as siblings that also went through abuse. In some cases there were pictures and other pieces of evidence. In Ford’s case, there is none of that. Not even her dear friend Leland. And here’s a thought you are all denying to the ends of the Earth. There is a reason for Dr. Ford to subject herself to the limelight…she’s a liberal. Haven’t many of you on this page basically come out and said that any action is okay provided you are “fighting evil”? And haven’t those same people identified “evil” as anything that might support Trump or conservatives? Haven’t many of you basically said that having Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS would be horrible for the country? Hasn’t the liberal media pushed idiotic stories about how if Kavanaugh is confirmed then women will be killed and other such nonsense? You honestly believe that as a liberal activist, Dr. Ford wouldn’t be willing to concoct a story to stop that confirmation?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther