Donate Now...........

[jltrent]

She has made $2,258 since last night........probably $200 and hour.

 

[greatgerts]

She has made $2,258 since last night........probably $200 and hour.

There's not many professions that can make that kind of money. One came to mind though...

 

[True Grit Farms]

She is a doctor that sees a doctor

She has made $2,258 since last night........probably $200 and hour.

There's not many professions that can make that kind of money. One came to mind though...

After all she is a doctor that sees a shrink doctor.

 

[TexasBred]

Political, Political, Political, Political

Another ride on the Merry-go-round.

FACT: as it stands in the balance, it is an uncorroborated accusation. No one knows who is lying. One can only SPECULATE. Some will vote based on those speculations.

Why don't you set up a Poll and we can all vote:

YES: I believe her.
NO: I don't believe her.

Or better yet. Someone could start a thread on how long it takes a pizz ant to eat a bale of hay. That would be more entertaining.

Ron does she even know if she gave it away or sold it??

 

[Bright Raven]

Political, Political, Political, Political

Another ride on the Merry-go-round.

FACT: as it stands in the balance, it is an uncorroborated accusation. No one knows who is lying. One can only SPECULATE. Some will vote based on those speculations.

Why don't you set up a Poll and we can all vote:

YES: I believe her.
NO: I don't believe her.

Or better yet. Someone could start a thread on how long it takes a pizz ant to eat a bale of hay. That would be more entertaining.

Ron does she even know if she gave it away or sold it??

I honestly am not going to make frivolous judgements. At least not like Grit, i.e.:

From what I saw she looked totally coached.....

Even if I thought that occurred, it is doing just what so many are claiming was done to Kavanaugh - making unsubstantiated claims. I watched most of the Judiciary committee hearing. Judging only on her testimony which is absolutely all I know about her, she seemed credible.

At the end of the day, I can only say that her accusations were not corroborated by the limited investigation.

Regarding Brett Kavanaugh, his performance was not flattering but his record is excellent. Unless this process changes his values, I expect his rulings to reflect his oath to the rule of law. With history in mind, the judges in this country have performed with honor. Their rulings are public information so their decisions do not escape the scrutiny of history.

 

[Bestoutwest]

The looney left has completely lost their collective minds.

I know you don't have Facebook (or at least I think you're not that cool, sorry), but they are really bad over there. One person will say "I believe her!" and then there's a bunch of back patting "Me too!" going on. If there's a dissenting voice, the liberal veneer of "acceptance" vanishes faster than gasoline hit with a match. It's an all out dog fight with the one "a-hole" being pounced upon by a pack of wild liberals. It's worse than sharks circling a wounded surfer.

Even if I thought that occurred, it is doing just what so many are claiming was done to Kavanaugh - making unsubstantiated claims. I watched most of the Judiciary committee hearing. Judging only on her testimony which is absolutely all I know about her, she seemed credible.

At the end of the day, I can only say that her accusations were not corroborated by the limited investigation.

Regarding Brett Kavanaugh, his performance was not flattering but his record is excellent. Unless this process changes his values, I expect his rulings to reflect his oath to the rule of law. With history in mind, the judges in this country have performed with honor. Their rulings are public information so their decisions do not escape the scrutiny of history.

Credible accusations must be corroborated by credible evidence. I have a feeling that if this was taken to a court of law, he would not have been convicted. Now that the sexual assault accusation has fanned out, they are calling for impeachment based on the fact that "he lied under oath" about his drinking. I wonder if he's happy he got the job. The people I feel really bad for are his wife and daughters. They'll feel a burden from this as well, which is unfair to them.

 

[Bright Raven]

Credible accusations must be corroborated by credible evidence. I have a feeling that if this was taken to a court of law, he would not have been convicted. Now that the sexual assault accusation has fanned out, they are calling for impeachment based on the fact that "he lied under oath" about his drinking. I wonder if he's happy he got the job. The people I feel really bad for are his wife and daughters. They'll feel a burden from this as well, which is unfair to them.

He could not have been convicted without evidence. Accusations, no matter how "credible" they are presented, must be corroborated under the rule of law.

When I said she "seemed credible" I was not implying that the accusations were corroborated. That is a significant difference.

Best, there is a lot of rhetoric being spewed by both sides to fan the embers of the election.

 

[True Grit Farms]

Political, Political, Political, Political

Another ride on the Merry-go-round.

FACT: as it stands in the balance, it is an uncorroborated accusation. No one knows who is lying. One can only SPECULATE. Some will vote based on those speculations.

Why don't you set up a Poll and we can all vote:

YES: I believe her.
NO: I don't believe her.

Or better yet. Someone could start a thread on how long it takes a pizz ant to eat a bale of hay. That would be more entertaining.

Ron does she even know if she gave it away or sold it??

I honestly am not going to make frivolous judgements. At least not like Grit, i.e.:

From what I saw she looked totally coached.....

Even if I thought that occurred, it is doing just what so many are claiming was done to Kavanaugh - making unsubstantiated claims. I watched most of the Judiciary committee hearing. Judging only on her testimony which is absolutely all I know about her, she seemed credible.

At the end of the day, I can only say that her accusations were not corroborated by the limited investigation.

Regarding Brett Kavanaugh, his performance was not flattering but his record is excellent. Unless this process changes his values, I expect his rulings to reflect his oath to the rule of law. With history in mind, the judges in this country have performed with honor. Their rulings are public information so their decisions do not escape the scrutiny of history.

Just stating what I felt like I saw. Did you see Kavanaugh ask or consult his attorney or look at any notes? And what do you call someone who's lawyer's give them advice while their giving testimony, or said person keeps checking notes throughout the hearing?
Do you think she was asked fair and legitimate questions, and he was asked some really stupid questions? Everyone said the lady that was asking the questions didn't hammer her on her inconsistencies. I thought that was a smart strategy. After her opening statement I had my doubts about Kavanaugh. But once she started answering the questions I knew it was over unless Kavanaugh folded. I thought his opening statement was a little weak. She's just lucky she forgot where and when, I think he knew exactly where and when he was somewhere. I think Kavanaugh needs to press slander charges myself, this is never going away. So why not make her prove what she said under oath?

 

[Bright Raven]

1. Just stating what I felt like I saw. Did you see Kavanaugh ask or consult his attorney or look at any notes? And what do you call someone who's lawyer's give them advice while their giving testimony, or said person keeps checking notes throughout the hearing?

2. Do you think she was asked fair and legitimate questions, and he was asked some really stupid questions? Everyone said the lady that was asking the questions didn't hammer her on her inconsistencies. I thought that was a smart strategy.

3. After her opening statement I had my doubts about Kavanaugh. But once she started answering the questions I knew it was over unless Kavanaugh folded. I thought his opening statement was a little weak.

4. She's just lucky she forgot where and when, I think he knew exactly where and when he was somewhere. I think Kavanaugh needs to press slander charges myself, this is never going away. So why not make her prove what she said under oath?

1. Have you prepared for court or deposition? We even did mock depositions where our attorney played the role of the opposing attorney and took dry run depositions. I have never gone to trial without a day spent before trial in briefing. If the case went for more than one day, we consulted each evening in preparation for the next day. In legislative testimony there is even more allowance for briefing. Some testimony in legislative hearings, the witnesses have been known to consult legal counsel before each response. An example was some of the mafia hearings like Joseph Michael "Joe Cargo" Valachi.

I would hope a judge for the Supreme Court would not need to consult.

2. I thought the Democrats did a good job regardless of how eccentric their questions were. They got him to show his weaker side. That was all they intended to accomplish and about all they could accomplish. So they succeeded.

3. I though he could have handled every question much briefer and without emotion. The GOLDEN rule. Be brief, don't volunteer anything!

4. There are not grounds for slander.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

The looney left has completely lost their collective minds.

I know you don't have Facebook (or at least I think you're not that cool, sorry), but they are really bad over there. One person will say "I believe her!" and then there's a bunch of back patting "Me too!" going on. If there's a dissenting voice, the liberal veneer of "acceptance" vanishes faster than gasoline hit with a match. It's an all out dog fight with the one "a-hole" being pounced upon by a pack of wild liberals. It's worse than sharks circling a wounded surfer.

Even if I thought that occurred, it is doing just what so many are claiming was done to Kavanaugh - making unsubstantiated claims. I watched most of the Judiciary committee hearing. Judging only on her testimony which is absolutely all I know about her, she seemed credible.

At the end of the day, I can only say that her accusations were not corroborated by the limited investigation.

Regarding Brett Kavanaugh, his performance was not flattering but his record is excellent. Unless this process changes his values, I expect his rulings to reflect his oath to the rule of law. With history in mind, the judges in this country have performed with honor. Their rulings are public information so their decisions do not escape the scrutiny of history.

Credible accusations must be corroborated by credible evidence. I have a feeling that if this was taken to a court of law, he would not have been convicted. Now that the sexual assault accusation has fanned out, they are calling for impeachment based on the fact that "he lied under oath" about his drinking. I wonder if he's happy he got the job. The people I feel really bad for are his wife and daughters. They'll feel a burden from this as well, which is unfair to them.

I actually am on Facebook but I find it to be loaded with childish narcissists. You been there long?

 

[hurleyjd]

It is over with and everyone should get over it. Only time will tell whether the right one was elevated to the supreme court. So at the moment this is what we have. I really doubt that I will every have any thing come before the supreme court to affect me. The only thing that needs over thrown was the citizens united vote. To much Dark money in our politics.

 

[ALACOWMAN]

The looney left has completely lost their collective minds.

I know you don't have Facebook (or at least I think you're not that cool, sorry), but they are really bad over there. One person will say "I believe her!" and then there's a bunch of back patting "Me too!" going on. If there's a dissenting voice, the liberal veneer of "acceptance" vanishes faster than gasoline hit with a match. It's an all out dog fight with the one "a-hole" being pounced upon by a pack of wild liberals. It's worse than sharks circling a wounded surfer.

Even if I thought that occurred, it is doing just what so many are claiming was done to Kavanaugh - making unsubstantiated claims. I watched most of the Judiciary committee hearing. Judging only on her testimony which is absolutely all I know about her, she seemed credible.

At the end of the day, I can only say that her accusations were not corroborated by the limited investigation.

Regarding Brett Kavanaugh, his performance was not flattering but his record is excellent. Unless this process changes his values, I expect his rulings to reflect his oath to the rule of law. With history in mind, the judges in this country have performed with honor. Their rulings are public information so their decisions do not escape the scrutiny of history.

Credible accusations must be corroborated by credible evidence. I have a feeling that if this was taken to a court of law, he would not have been convicted. Now that the sexual assault accusation has fanned out, they are calling for impeachment based on the fact that "he lied under oath" about his drinking. I wonder if he's happy he got the job. The people I feel really bad for are his wife and daughters. They'll feel a burden from this as well, which is unfair to them.

I actually am on Facebook but I find it to be loaded with childish narcissists. You been there long?

with plenty of selfies..I like the folks around here that get on there and act like their life is in full swing,and that would Be ok if I didn't see them everyday... :lol2:

 

[boondocks]

GB, we will have to agree to disagree. This is one of those Rorsach (sp) instances. Most people I know believe her. I'm sure most people you know believe him. If I step back and take a 50,000 foot view, it's a conundrum for civil society. The north-bound Zax and the south-bound Zax, if you're Seussian.

I'd sure hate to have you as a juror, getting convicted on hearsay is a scary thought. It makes no sense that he's been flying straight since that night she can't remember. All the while working around a bunch of young ladies that some would do anything to get ahead. Everyone says that's not the person who they know? And if he did do what she can't remember, doesn't a person deserve another chance to make a life for themselves? And why wouldn't the said person make a great judge? I just can't see the logic in how some people think.

TG, her testimony about what happened to her isn't hearsay. (I could say I'd hate to have you on a jury too but that would be getting more personal than I like to get on CT).
What got lost in the weeds along the way was the pattern of conduct and questionable judgment: that he has a history of extremely heavy drinking; was several hundred thousand dollars in debt until just recently then "voila" it disappears; that Kennedy was heavily leaned on and promised his former clerk (BK) would get the gig; that he lied under oath about his work in the Bush admin (and the committee wasn't allowed to review most of the documents relating to his work then); and that he clearly lied about his drinking and a bunch of stupid stuff like boofing etc. (If you lie about something inconsequential, to me it says a lot about your character). Then there was his very unjudicially-becoming meltdown complete with anti-Clinton (?!) rants, leaving serious questions about his ability to remain impartial should some groups or persons have cases before the Court. He was given a thumbs-down by the ABA; hundreds of law professors; and the American Council of Churches. There were much better choices. His elevation leaves a stain on an institution that I care very much about. But it's done. It's just amazing to me how his supporters are such sore winners. :lol:

 

[Bestoutwest]

He could not have been convicted without evidence. Accusations, no matter how "credible" they are presented, must be corroborated under the rule of law.

When I said she "seemed credible" I was not implying that the accusations were corroborated. That is a significant difference.

Best, there is a lot of rhetoric being spewed by both sides to fan the embers of the election.

There are cases where people are convicted on circumstantial evidence, which this was. But that doesn't matter. He was tried in the public court and found guilty, Guilty, GUILTY!!!!!

I actually am on Facebook but I find it to be loaded with childish narcissists. You been there long?

Interesting, it seems he// has frozen over. Yes I am, and I'd even friend you on there. I'm not one of those snooty folks.

 

[Bright Raven]

There are cases where people are convicted on circumstantial evidence, which this was. But that doesn't matter. He was tried in the public court and found guilty, Guilty, GUILTY!!!!!

Guilty in the court of public opinion? I guess that counts for something but it does not raise to the threshold of being found guilty by a judge or jury. Or on his own confession of guilt. He forcefully denied any guilt.

I just wanted to be sure you understood my statement that she "seemed credible" as a witness. I was not meaning that to state that she provided corroborating evidence to prove her accusations or that anyone else provided corroborating evidence to prove her accusations.

 

[JMJ Farms]

What got lost in the weeds along the way was the pattern of conduct and questionable judgment: that he has a history of extremely heavy drinking; was several hundred thousand dollars in debt until just recently then "voila" it disappears

I can get hammered every night and owe 10 million dollars but that doesn't make me a sexual predator or rapist.

This poor woman is clearly an emotional wreck and was used by certain people to try and fulfill their agenda. They clearly picked the wrong puppet. It didn't take me long at all to decide she was not credible in the slightest. And none of her "witnesses" remembered anything either. They have caused undue shame to this man and his family. Especially his family.

And if I had been Kavanaugh I wouldn't have answered any questions from Richard Blumenthal without first saying "wait a minute hoss, you have the balls to sit here and question me after you lied about serving in Vietnam?" This was a witch hunt.

Full disclosure: I couldn't care less if Kavanaugh was appointed. The next one in line for the job would have been fine. Or the next one. It's about values and the importance that this office holds for the future of this country.

 

[Bright Raven]

1. TG, her testimony about what happened to her isn't hearsay.

2. ....was several hundred thousand dollars in debt until just recently then "voila" it disappears;

3. ...... Then there was his very unjudicially-becoming meltdown complete with anti-Clinton (?!) rants, leaving serious questions about his ability to remain impartial should some groups or persons have cases before the Court.

4. He was given a thumbs-down by the ABA; hundreds of law professors; and the American Council of Churches.

1. She provided DIRECT first hand testimony. I agree with you. That is not hearsay. Hearsay is second hand testimony.

2. Are you implying that he received money to pay off debt?

3. His "meltdown" is my only significant concern. Particularly when he demonstrates animosity toward a political group associated with the Clintons. If the Clintons are involved in a case that would go before the court, how can they expect justice if the court is biased?

4. I thought the Bar supported him?

 

[True Grit Farms]

GB, we will have to agree to disagree. This is one of those Rorsach (sp) instances. Most people I know believe her. I'm sure most people you know believe him. If I step back and take a 50,000 foot view, it's a conundrum for civil society. The north-bound Zax and the south-bound Zax, if you're Seussian.

I'd sure hate to have you as a juror, getting convicted on hearsay is a scary thought. It makes no sense that he's been flying straight since that night she can't remember. All the while working around a bunch of young ladies that some would do anything to get ahead. Everyone says that's not the person who they know? And if he did do what she can't remember, doesn't a person deserve another chance to make a life for themselves? And why wouldn't the said person make a great judge? I just can't see the logic in how some people think.

TG, her testimony about what happened to her isn't hearsay. (I could say I'd hate to have you on a jury too but that would be getting more personal than I like to get on CT).
What got lost in the weeds along the way was the pattern of conduct and questionable judgment: that he has a history of extremely heavy drinking; was several hundred thousand dollars in debt until just recently then "voila" it disappears; that Kennedy was heavily leaned on and promised his former clerk (BK) would get the gig; that he lied under oath about his work in the Bush admin (and the committee wasn't allowed to review most of the documents relating to his work then); and that he clearly lied about his drinking and a bunch of stupid stuff like boofing etc. (If you lie about something inconsequential, to me it says a lot about your character). Then there was his very unjudicially-becoming meltdown complete with anti-Clinton (?!) rants, leaving serious questions about his ability to remain impartial should some groups or persons have cases before the Court. He was given a thumbs-down by the ABA; hundreds of law professors; and the American Council of Churches. There were much better choices. His elevation leaves a stain on an institution that I care very much about. But it's done. It's just amazing to me how his supporters are such sore winners. :lol:

Before anyone was even nominated it was decided that whoever was nominated wouldn't get any support from the minority. This was a bunch of bs that every US citizen should have been against. Then the ding dong Senator waiting till the last minute to release the ladies statement was nothing but more bs. The minority forced the majorities hand and if the majority would of buckled we'd of lost the country. IMO The SCOTUS is the reason we have the leader that we have. To many normal, middle of the road folks weren't willing to let the evil empire choose the next Justice.

 

[sstterry]

1. TG, her testimony about what happened to her isn't hearsay.

2. ....was several hundred thousand dollars in debt until just recently then "voila" it disappears;

3. ...... Then there was his very unjudicially-becoming meltdown complete with anti-Clinton (?!) rants, leaving serious questions about his ability to remain impartial should some groups or persons have cases before the Court.

4. He was given a thumbs-down by the ABA; hundreds of law professors; and the American Council of Churches.

1. She provided DIRECT first hand testimony. I agree with you. That is not hearsay. Hearsay is second hand testimony.

2. Are you implying that he received money to pay off debt?

3. His "meltdown" is my only significant concern. Particularly when he demonstrates animosity toward a political group associated with the Clintons. If the Clintons are involved in a case that would go before the court, how can they expect justice if the court is biased?

4. I thought the Bar supported him?

1. Hesay is an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (there are lots of exceptions though such as an admission against interest and a myriad of others). Her testimony was not in any way hearsay. Plus those rules don't apply in Congressional hearings, only in Court proceedings.

2. He did have 200k in credit card debt that vanished. The White House said the debt was from buying baseball tickets. He said otherwise and he said that he just paid it off. No proof on this either way other than it existed and then it was gone.

3. His demeanor is a major concern, especially his comment that "what goes around comes around". Devils Triangle is not and has never been a drinking game, neither is his explanation of Boofing. Both are sexually related.

4. The ABA withdrew their endorsement and so did the Law Professors.

This was hardball politics plain and simple. McConnell would not give Merrick Garland (an extremely moderate judge) a hearing for over 300 days but they wanted this done before the mid-terms because they are concerned. Up until Gorsuch, confirmation required 60 votes for cloture (to end debate). That tradition insured at least some bipartisan agreement. Elections have consequences in more ways than most realize.

My concern had nothing to do with his views on the issues, it was about his demeanor and how he was the first to "publically" campaign for the seat. It is time to get over it. He is on the Supreme Court and I hope he rises above his past behavior and makes a good Justice. Most don't realize that two total opposites Ginsburg and Scalia were the best of friends.

 

[Bright Raven]

1. TG, her testimony about what happened to her isn't hearsay.

2. ....was several hundred thousand dollars in debt until just recently then "voila" it disappears;

3. ...... Then there was his very unjudicially-becoming meltdown complete with anti-Clinton (?!) rants, leaving serious questions about his ability to remain impartial should some groups or persons have cases before the Court.

4. He was given a thumbs-down by the ABA; hundreds of law professors; and the American Council of Churches.

1. She provided DIRECT first hand testimony. I agree with you. That is not hearsay. Hearsay is second hand testimony.

2. Are you implying that he received money to pay off debt?

3. His "meltdown" is my only significant concern. Particularly when he demonstrates animosity toward a political group associated with the Clintons. If the Clintons are involved in a case that would go before the court, how can they expect justice if the court is biased?

4. I thought the Bar supported him?

1. Hesay is an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (there are lots of exceptions though such as an admission against interest and a myriad of others). Her testimony was not in any way hearsay. Plus those rules don't apply in Congressional hearings, only in Court proceedings.

2. He did have 200k in credit card debt that vanished. The White House said the debt was from buying baseball tickets. He said otherwise and he said that he just paid it off. No proof on this either way other than it existed and then it was gone.

3. His demeanor is a major concern, especially his comment that "what goes around comes around". Devils Triangle is not and has never been a drinking game, neither is his explanation of Boofing. Both are sexually related.

4. The ABA withdrew their endorsement and so did the Law Professors.

This was hardball politics plain and simple. McConnell would not give Merrick Garland (an extremely moderate judge) a hearing for over 300 days but they wanted this done before the mid-terms because they are concerned. Up until Gorsuch, confirmation required 60 votes for cloture (to end debate). That tradition insured at least some bipartisan agreement. Elections have consequences in more ways than most realize.

My concern had nothing to do with his views on the issues, it was about his demeanor and how he was the first to "publically" campaign for the seat. It is time to get over it. He is on the Supreme Court and I hope he rises above his past behavior and makes a good Justice. Most don't realize that two total opposites Ginsburg and Scalia were the best of friends.

Thank you Steve.

The more I learn, the more concern I have. Nevertheless, I trust he will fulfill his oath.