[OBW]

I completely disagree. Making Ford's letter pubic was a disservice . . . .

Yes. The mode of releasing the information was a grandstand of the worst kind. But you mistake mode of release for veracity, or lack thereof.

All of the claims of lies you make are without merit. You didn’t like how it played out so she was lying. She didn’t want to come forward so her reluctance proves lying. She doesn’t like to fly, so the delays are evidence of lying. She didn’t make any charge at the time, so she is lying. What a load of manure.

No DA would have ever taken this.

Not now. There is a statute of limitations. You have absolutely no idea about what might have happened then. If it were brought forward at the time, you might never have heard of Brett Kavanaugh. And you may be right that it would never have been filed. But as so often happens in those kinds of cases, the woman is embarrassed that she allowed herself into the situation. She blames herself. And so on. So never files the charge. Never speaks of it to anyone, so no contemporaneous knowledge by anyone else.

Yes, that is a minefield for false accusations later. But it is interesting how many such false accusations are quickly discovered to clearly be false. Not all, but many. Yet this is one of those that only opinions concerning whether current factors are evidence of lying are actually available. They could only assert that BK did not appear to be lying. Probably enough to say that it is not worthy of further consideration (to me). But not sufficient to question whether the circumstances surrounding the environment in which the charges could reasonably be considered possible might themselves disqualify.

I mean, it is not like there are no other highly qualified people to put on SCOTUS. Just move on. But no. It was going to be BK or else. And despite it all, that is what we got. Probably be a good judge. I will just roflmao if he is part of the SCOTUS majority that rules that his executive order to deny citizenship based solely on place of birth is unconstitutional.

Imagine that! Just what I have been saying for two years!

You take a poll of the American people as evidence of the truth? Surely you don’t accept the opinion of others as the truth. Or do you?

“Clinton is now leading Trump in the polls.” Well I guess that means I should vote for Hillary!

They shouldn’t allow the use of polls for much of anything. It does not prove truth. It does not provide reasons to vote one way or the other. It just shows where the lead cow is moving so that we can get a mouthful of cud and blindly follow along. MOOOOOOOOOOO!

For the American people to accept these types of accusations on face value alone is extremely dangerous.

But to accept everything that Trump says at face value is not? Like declaring the caravan to be murders, rapists, and illegal immigrants. There is no evidence for the first two, and at this point there are no illegal immigrants among them. They have not entered the US at all, therefore are neither immigrants nor illegal. They have been poled by reporters (from both sides, I believe) and all say that they are coming to American to seek asylum. If they do that, they are not illegal unless (und until) their request is denied and they stay in country anyway without being allowed to under other provisions. Asking for asylum is not illegal.

And for all the troops stationed at the border, the law requires that anyone who arrives at a point of entry that requests asylum be allowed to make that request. And until the courts (not a presidential edict) says their request is denied, they are not illegal, therefore, no basis for any action by the military. Maybe we can (and should) keep them somewhat contained near the border so that they can be around when their hearing actually occurs and can then be sent out if denied. But otherwise the show of force along the border is just window dressing for the loyal Trump supporters.

You made some snarky comment about me not having any spine. Your answer is to just make stuff up and build a wall. My response is to enforce existing laws, and work on better ones. Trump blames the Democrats for a lack of improved immigration laws. But the Republicans have controlled the entire process for most of two years and can’t do it. They have abdicated and need to legally work with what we have, not just declare a limited form of martial law and ignore it. The spineless are those who just blame everyone else for the problems while doing nothing constructive themselves. At this point in time, that is the Republican party. They have absolute control and can’t get their thumbs out of their backsides. And I am embarrassed to admit that I am still somewhat labeled by their name.

To do as you suggest, not only borders on insanity, but would end our Constitutional Republic.

No. It would only end the banana republic of Trump. This republic is greater than a fight over who is qualified for SCOTUS. Just not being chargeable for a felony is not sufficient. Even being a fine upstanding citizen for years is not. If I assume that you have been just such upstanding citizen (and I have no reason to think otherwise) I still would not likely think you qualified for the Supreme Court. At the same time, just because you got through law school and even got a seat on an important Federal court bench does not make you the best choice. While it might be enough to say that there is no evidence in your rulings that you have a leaning toward positions that are inconsistent with the Constitution, it might also be relevant to consider the kind of depth with which you researched and wrote when you ruled and how fully you considered all factors. There is a lot to it. Just being someone that anyone wants to be on the court that has had a significant judgeship previously and lived a good life is not necessarily sufficient. So if it is hard to make a decision, then a weak charge against someone who was more than once drunk when under age for drinking, and was later described by someone who appears to have had basis for opining, that he was a “mean drunk” could be relevant. Not chargeable. But relevant. And all your personal bases for determining the charges to be false do nor rise to the level of proof, therefore not sufficient to rail upon anyone for giving them at least some weight.

You are correct that the proper way to dispose of it would have been quietly, behind closed doors. At that point it would have been easier to just declare that it wasn’t worth the trouble and withdraw from consideration. No actual harm to reputation. But Feinstein made the charge public rather than behind closed doors. That was poor in terms of going against the wishes of the one who made the charge known to her. And it is against in-house rules in terms of the Senate. None of them are prosecutable. Even if she should be censured in some form, it does not detract from the veracity of at least part of what came forward, and does not make any of it incorrect or a lie.

You do realize that with the possibility that the Senate could become Majority Democrat next year (slim chance, but still a chance), the Democrats as minority are not really much more dishonorable than the Republicans who simply refused to consider anyone until they at least were forced by a different Democrat president (2 years ago). The tools may have been more troubling in the present case, but the actions in both cases were equally troubling.

Trump was framed by the highest levels of our intelligence.

As claimed by Trump and his supporters, and supported by writings of conspiracy theorists. No real proof. And his actions since have given a lot of reason to believe anything that might be found. His brown-facing (got more than his nose involved) with Putin in Moscow was reprehensible. If my opinion was worth anything, he would have been jailed for treason. While I don’t think highly of Pence anymore, I do believe he would actually undertake the office of the President with the kind of demeanor it should require. But I’d take Kasich in 2020 in a heartbeat.

Reminds me of how both Bush #41 and #43 were silent on Obama, and then came forward to condemned Trump.

You confuse disagreement on politics with disagreement on the actual execution of the job. The speaking out against Trump is not about his political positions. It is about his lies and demeanor. And they are too numerous. How do you tell he is lying? His lips are moving while not reading the teleprompter. And when it is on twitter.

I don’t like Obama’s politics. But I do not think he is anything like the reprehensible character that Trump is. I think that some of Trump’s proposed policies might be good. But it would be much better if someone of character were the one proposing them. I applaud all Republicans who have the backbone to stand up against the bully that currently holds the office of President.

Those who accused him were apparently just alive in the same state in the same decade. None of BK's friends said his partying crossed the line.

Keep shoveling manure. If they think the stink is from the manure, they may miss the dead body it is covering.