One would easily surmise he has to have asserted something similar about Puerto Rico in the past as well?

Of course, Hawaii also has/had unique ties to Obama and his upbringing, Birther Movement, etc.

Kav understood the importance of rushing through unvetted anti-choice nominees back when he was a key member of Bush's judicial team:

 

 

Kavanaugh definitely perjured himself in a previous hearing when he denied having anything to do with Bill Pryor's nomination. Kavanaugh should be impeached from the federal judiciary. This also highlights that there was no legitimate reason for many of these documents to be withheld. 

 

 

 

If this guy was caught in as many lies and attempts to deceive  coming out of college applying for an entry level job, he would be denied. I guess it's different if you want to be on the Supreme Court. 

In 2006, he denied ever having received illegally sourced information. He doubled-down on it again yesterday. He perjured himself both times. He should be impeached from the DC Circuit Court.

 

all this is separate from the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of loans he took out for years for "baseball tickets" that were suddenly and mysteriously paid off last year.

 

Edited September 6, 20187 yr by StrangeSox

Ths spartacus stuff is getting me all flustered. I'm obsessed.

I doubt it will matter at all in the end after the 51-49 vote, and I wasn't adult enough to hear graphic details of Clarence Thomas's sexual harassment picked apart by a bunch of white guys, but this is easily the biggest dismantling of a Supreme Court nominee I've ever seen. No wonder they slammed on the accelerator and tried to get this done before those documents were published. 

And this is just what they allowed us to see. Imagine what's in the 102k other pages given that Kavanaugh can't stop perjuring himself.

11 hours ago, bmags said:

His mouthing of sounding out Kasowitz was just tremendous acting. 

 

There's been some backroom scuffling on the Dem side over a letter that Feinstein has relating to Kavanaugh. She came out with a statement just now:

 

Criminal referral to the FBI. Wonder what the hell is in that letter. Gonna be cool to have a straight up criminal on the SCOTUS.

 

Grassley just happened to have 65 letters from former HS classmates saying how Kavanaugh was such a great guy ready to go.

 

Edited September 14, 20187 yr by StrangeSox

This will not change any Republicans vote.  They will all vote for him no matter what comes out.

21 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

This will not change any Republicans vote.  They will all vote for him no matter what comes out.

Oh absolutely. Still, they've known for a while and took it seriously enough to find all of these women. Although "well he didn't try to rape me!" isn't exactly the stellar defense they seem to think it is.

 

 

Even if like half of them were like "yeah, he was creepy and tried to do something"  they would still vote for him.  It's the same reason Christian conservatives all voted for Trump, a person they know has his own history of similar things.  The goal is to over turn Roe vs. Wade and they would elect Ted Bundy if he promised to get rid of it.

Christine Blacey Ford is one brave woman.

So, now we know Mark Judge was the other person in the room?

Man, you have to imagine if Collins and Murkowski vote yes on Kavanaugh, their state backlash will be deafening. A shame neither is up.

4 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Christine Blacey Ford is one brave woman.

Sure. Waiting 36 years to report it when it was never reported to police and waiting until he is up for nomination to the Supreme Court. Why do you suppose she waited so long?

The whole thing is just politics on both sides. It's more of the same.

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

Sure. Waiting 36 years to report it when it was never reported to police and waiting until he is up for nomination to the Supreme Court. Why do you suppose she waited so long?

The whole thing is just politics on both sides. It's more of the same.

If you don't understand why a woman wouldn't report this until the last moment and then try to maintain anonymity that says more about you than it does about her.

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If you don't understand why a woman wouldn't report this until the last moment and then try to maintain anonymity that says more about you than it does about her.

Are you trying to say that she just happened to wait until he was up for a supreme court nomination to bring this up is just coincidence? Your point would be true if it happened at another time in the past 36 years or in the future.

I'm not saying it isn't true or that he shouldn't be prosecuted just that it is motivated by the situation to bring it up now.

59 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Are you trying to say that she just happened to wait until he was up for a supreme court nomination to bring this up is just coincidence? Your point would be true if it happened at another time in the past 36 years or in the future.

I'm not saying it isn't true or that he shouldn't be prosecuted just that it is motivated by the situation to bring it up now.

There is documentation of her talking to her therapist and husband about this years  ago and she supposedly passed a lie detector (not that I put a huge amount of weight in those).  This isn’t the first time she brought this issue up.  Why she is going public now is obvious, she doesn’t think someone who tried to sexually assault her should be on the Supreme Court.  Not hard to understand.

3 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

There is documentation of her talking to her therapist and husband about this years  ago and she supposedly passed a lie detector (not that I put a huge amount of weight in those).  This isn’t the first time she brought this issue up.  Why she is going public now is obvious, she doesn’t think someone who tried to sexually assault her should be on the Supreme Court.  Not hard to understand.

That's my point. She may have brought it up to people in private before but she waited until this situation to make it public. This is more about him not being a supreme court justice than about prosecuting him for a crime he committed. He should have been prosecuted years ago, waiting until now just politicizes the crime.

I guess maybe she sees justice as him not being on the Supreme Court but that doesn't seem enough.

6 minutes ago, ptatc said:

That's my point. She may have brought it up to people in private before but she waited until this situation to make it public. This is more about him not being a supreme court justice than about prosecuting him for a crime he committed. He should have been prosecuted years ago, waiting until now just politicizes the crime.

I guess maybe she sees justice as him not being on the Supreme Court but that doesn't seem enough.

Meh.  The questioning of why women who were assaulted don’t come forward earlier is a dumb one that is used to downplay the seriousness of their allegations all the time.  Why didn’t Sandusky’s victims come forward earlier?  Nassar’s?  Why do many people molestsd by priests not come forward?  

 

The bottom line is assault of a woman should not be a politicized issue.  Anyone who has done that has no business being a judge, let alone on the Supreme Court.  

10 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

Meh.  The questioning of why women who were assaulted don’t come forward earlier is a dumb one that is used to downplay the seriousness of their allegations all the time.  Why didn’t Sandusky’s victims come forward earlier?  Nassar’s?  Why do many people molestsd by priests not come forward?  

 

The bottom line is assault of a woman should not be a politicized issue.  Anyone who has done that has no business being a judge, let alone on the Supreme Court.  

I don't disagree with any of this. This should not be a politicized issue. Bringing it up now though makes it a political issue.

23 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I don't disagree with any of this. This should not be a politicized issue. Bringing it up now though makes it a political issue.

The fear that her attempted rapist would be on the supreme court finally outweighed the fear of being attacked by people like you.

2 hours ago, ptatc said:

I don't disagree with any of this. This should not be a politicized issue. Bringing it up now though makes it a political issue.

Since this administration took office, what issue hasn't been politicized?

About the only thing MOST of the country was unified around was striking back at Syria/Assad after the chemical weapons attack, but, if you read the Woodward book, that decision itself was a highly politicized one as well.

Would it be better if the reported victim came forward after the next Citizens United decision of the court?  As the Roy Moore election showed, even giving voters the evidence on both sides and allowing them to decide is better than them never knowing it existed at all.

As much as the GOP tried to attack Obama, they never could do it through Obama's personal life, other than the marijuana and cigarette smoking...nary a hint of an affair or untoward glance in all that time.  Generally, you don't need to find character witnesses for individuals who "are of good character" in the first place, right?