Ford friend Monica L McLean....HOLY WHAT????

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So a US Supreme Court Justice is held to a lower standard than a Superior Court Judge?

I'm going to assume you're being facetious...

That would be a mistake. You know what they say about people who "ass-u-me".

because the only other logical option is you are unable to comprehend and I don't want to insult you.

BS!

That is nowhere near what I said. Not even close. Not even remotely close.

Yeah. It is. You think that Brett Kavanaugh has the right to behave in a way that any judge would censor, and probably find the person in contempt. But, Brett Kavanaugh is entitled to display his "outrage"! Not only do you not hold Kavanaugh to a lower standard than a defendant in criminal court is held, but you hold him to a lower standard than the judge dealing with a disrespectful and combative defendant.

Please go back and re-read what I posted and try to understand why I am calling you facetious.

You think you're being clever. I think you're being passive aggressive, because it's easier to attack a poster with a different opinion, than confront real issues, which in this case is Brett Kavanaugh's fitness to sit on the US Supreme Court. Fitness htat is measured by his temperament, honesty, candor and non-biased ability to apply the rule of law rather than partisanship.

This article has quite a bit of information about McLean and her connections:
link

originally posted by: BlueAjah
This article has quite a bit of information about McLean and her connections:
link

Looks like Monica McLean is one of the missing links !!

It's all coming into the SunLight.

😎

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

Is Ford alleging Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her now? Or is all this over an allegation from 1982?

Believe it or not, a lot of people don't care about what he might have or might not have done in his youth. It's his demeanor and temperament, his (lack of) honesty and candor that he's displying NOW that are causing people to deem him unfit.

The ABA gave him an A++. Cant get any better than that. Go read their analysis.

Besides all that Kav wasn't in a court of law when being questioned (as you and your ilk have repeatedly stated) he was there as a private citizen. And as such his tempermant during the questioning has no bearing on his judicial decision making ability.

I'll take what the ABA has repeatedly stated about Kavs tempermant and ability over internet morons and CNN/MSNBC.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So a US Supreme Court Justice is held to a lower standard than a Superior Court Judge?

I'm going to assume you're being facetious...

That would be a mistake. You know what they say about people who "ass-u-me".

because the only other logical option is you are unable to comprehend and I don't want to insult you.

BS!

That is nowhere near what I said. Not even close. Not even remotely close.

Yeah. It is. You think that Brett Kavanaugh has the right to behave in a way that any judge would censor, and probably find the person in contempt. But, Brett Kavanaugh is entitled to display his "outrage"! Not only do you not hold Kavanaugh to a lower standard than a defendant in criminal court is held, but you hold him to a lower standard than the judge dealing with a disrespectful and combative defendant.

Please go back and re-read what I posted and try to understand why I am calling you facetious.

But a judge wouldn't censor him because Kav wasn't in court right? It's not a criminal case right?

But now y'all want to bury him because of how he reacted because it wouldnt be a good look in court.

But he wasn't in court.

It's not a criminal case.

Hes testifying as a private citizen.

Thus your arguments are invalid and boring.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You think that Brett Kavanaugh has the right to behave in a way that any judge would censor, and probably find the person in contempt.

To start with, any judge that would allow the kind of unsubstantiated allegations to run amok in their courtroom isn't much of a judge. In a criminal trial, there would be no need to defend oneself so vociferously, because the accusations would require some measure of evidence, the accused would be represented by counsel, and public opinion would not enter into the equation.

In Kavanaugh's case, completely unsubstantiated allegations were leveled at him, in the public arena, without him having benefit of counsel, and without him even being permitted to defend himself for 10 days, during which time the MSM rumor mill was in full operation. He gave one interview on Fox, and was quickly lambasted for being too 'robotic.' Then, when he finally did get his chance to confront his accusers, accusers who were gleefully chanting that the most central concept to our system of justice, innocent until proven guilty, did not apply to him because the proceeding was somehow just a 'job interview,' accusers who had publicly called him "evil," "unfit," and a host of other names, accusers who threw caution to the wind with their characterizations to the point that his family was receiving death threats and he had lost employment, after all of that he fought back. Now he doesn't have the temperament for the job?

What you are saying is that you think a person should be able to walk around and hit people in the nose, then have them arrested for being out of control when they hit back. And you try to justify this attitude with a desperately lacking concept of even how the justice system works.

Yeah. Out here, we call that "being facetious."

TheRedneck

Talk about irony ......

McDonalds in the early 1990s.....

McDonald's McLean Deluxe commericial

correlate, relate, identify, devour

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You think that Brett Kavanaugh has the right to behave in a way that any judge would censor, and probably find the person in contempt.

To start with, any judge that would allow the kind of unsubstantiated allegations to run amok in their courtroom isn't much of a judge. In a criminal trial, there would be no need to defend oneself so vociferously, because the accusations would require some measure of evidence, the accused would be represented by counsel, and public opinion would not enter into the equation.

In Kavanaugh's case, completely unsubstantiated allegations were leveled at him, in the public arena, without him having benefit of counsel, and without him even being permitted to defend himself for 10 days, during which time the MSM rumor mill was in full operation. He gave one interview on Fox, and was quickly lambasted for being too 'robotic.' Then, when he finally did get his chance to confront his accusers, accusers who were gleefully chanting that the most central concept to our system of justice, innocent until proven guilty, did not apply to him because the proceeding was somehow just a 'job interview,' accusers who had publicly called him "evil," "unfit," and a host of other names, accusers who threw caution to the wind with their characterizations to the point that his family was receiving death threats and he had lost employment, after all of that he fought back. Now he doesn't have the temperament for the job?

What you are saying is that you think a person should be able to walk around and hit people in the nose, then have them arrested for being out of control when they hit back. And you try to justify this attitude with a desperately lacking concept of even how the justice system works.

Yeah. Out here, we call that "being facetious."

TheRedneck

Well geez when you put it like that.......

Nice smackdown!

You sure this isn't a plot by republicans to discredit Ford? I mean that has as much logic as Ford being a plot by democrats to descredit kavanaugh.

You have friends/lovers/colleagues on both kavanaugh and ford's side saying they lied about certain things during the trial.

Did this trial even matter?? You fools we're going to defend ford or kavanaugh to the death anyway. It's all about protecting your party.

Just a bunch of partisan whores. (Not all of you )

originally posted by: blueman12
You sure this isn't a plot by republicans to discredit Ford? I mean that has as much logic as Ford being a plot by democrats to descredit kavanaugh.

You have friends/lovers/colleagues on both kavanaugh and ford's side saying they lied about certain things during the trial.

Did this trial even matter?? You fools we're going to defend ford or kavanaugh to the death anyway. It's all about protecting your party.

Just a bunch of partisan whores. (Not all of you

)

WE libertarians, were not going to ignore innocent until proven guilty. You do know that is the law of the land from day one. So why act like you don't?

Besides what evidence do you call proving it happened?

I expect to hear the same old it "feels like it is" argument.

a reply to: blueman12

Who on Kavanaugh's side said he lied about anything? Anyone who actually knows him? one "friend" who said Kavanaugh drank in school. Kavanaugh admitted to that in his testimony. So, contrary to fake news, his friend is wrong to say he lied.

Who on Ford's side said she lied about anything? Anyone who actually knows her? ohhh.. yeah

a reply to: Justoneman

I never said he did or didn't do it... I said (and having been saying) that people were already decided on who was telling the truth before the trial began.

I don't go along with the anti-ford vibe, and you immediately assume I'm a pro-ford liberal. Perfect example of how partisanship creates bias.

originally posted by: TheRedneck. Now he doesn't have the temperament for the job?

Got to love it, the whole "he is a rapist, drunkard etc" thing is falling into nothingness as we speak and so now the narrative is he can't control his emotions and so is unfit due to that...lol really?

I guess this whole smear campaign was just a test...

a reply to: BlueAjah

He said kavanaugh was known for drinking too much to the point of staggering. Also, Ford does have people who believe her. Such as ms. keyser who kavanaugh lied about. Saying ms keyser never saw Ford at the party. Ms keyser actually believes Ford and said she doesn't remember being at a party with kavanaugh. Kavanaugh slightly adjusting keyser' words to use as a witness.

I'm just pointing at holes in kavanaugh story. And memory fades and is distorted heavily through time. So I'm not defending anyway. I just think it's sad how so many people are unable to look at both sides.

Such as yourself.

The funny part of all of this.

This entire debacle has galvanized folks to go vote red in the midterm. Whether non-partisan, or GOP. In some cases, it's even turned Dems who were disgusted by this tactic, who now want to vote red in the midterm.

Even funnier, if he doesn't get confirmed, it will mean an even BIGGER red surge to the polls, just out of spite and revenge.

Either way you slice it, the Dems have LOST big time in this. New polls are showing key battleground elections swinging already. It's only going to go worse for them as we approach Nov.

I just think it's sad how so many people are unable to look at both sides.

There's no need to. Even IF it happened, it was the actions of MINORS, over 35 years ago. There's no legal question here, no legal case, so it's straight up just a politically timed character attack. Anyone who can't see this is BLIND...no matter what party you identify with.

a reply to: blueman12

Keyser only believes her because she is her friend. Ford says Keyser was at the party. Keyser says she never met Kavanaugh and does not remember this get together.

Ford's story is full of holes. Here are a few:
Mitchell Memo

The FBI cleared Kavanaugh.
So, you can give up. And you might want to stop watching MSM. They seem to have gotten into your head.

a reply to: Xtrozero

kav was pretty boring during his first 29 hours of testimony.

then dims attacked his family and he reacted accordingly.

LOL, even MSM is catching on now....

www.cnn.com...

And yet, it appears as though the incredibly public and nasty fight over what Kavanaugh did or didn't do has had a somewhat unexpected result: Republican base voters are suddenly telling pollsters that they are considerably more enthusiastic about voting in 33 days' time.

The article does raise three excellent points, which I'll gladly answer....

1) Kavanaugh now looks like he will be confirmed. If he is, does that effectively dissipate GOP base anger about the way the confirmation fight played out?

Doesn't matter, the outrage is still there, and will be there 33 days from now. The Dems are going down. Hard.

2) The GOP enthusiasm bounce has reduced the clear edge Democrats had going into the fall election. It hasn't reduced it entirely. Generic ballot leads of 6 or 7 points are still the sort of thing that could deliver Democrats the House majority in the next Congress.

If 2016 should have taught you anything, it's that we don't talk to pollsters, which is why polls are inherently incorrect. We are done talking, we'll see you in November. These points may provide you with talking points, but they are meaningless to us. How did those polls work out for you in 2016? Yep, thought so. Screw your polls. We've got work to do.

3) The weight of history suggests Republicans are in for a tough election. In only three elections -- 1934, 1998 and 2002 -- since the Civil War has the president's party not lost House seats in a midterm election. Those losses average more than 30 seats when the president is under 50% job approval -- as Trump is in both the NPR and Q polls.

This whole movement is about upending historical trends. History doesn't mean jack right now in politics. In the Senate, there are 35 seats up for reelection, 9 are GOP, 26 are Dems. Do the math. The MSM blue wave fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Most of the silent majority was just fine and happy to get Trump in there. Now, you've awoken it yet again, and it will be to the Dem's peril.

originally posted by: blueman12
You sure this isn't a plot by republicans to discredit Ford? I mean that has as much logic as Ford being a plot by democrats to descredit kavanaugh.

You have friends/lovers/colleagues on both kavanaugh and ford's side saying they lied about certain things during the trial.

Did this trial even matter?? You fools we're going to defend ford or kavanaugh to the death anyway. It's all about protecting your party.

Just a bunch of partisan whores. (Not all of you

)

Has literally nothing to do with Kav at this point and everything to do with personal rights, rule of law and innocent before guilty.

It's about the bedrock western justice has been based on for centuries.