Republicans War on Women

Posts : 2141

Artie60438 wrote:

Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public

Source: NBC News

Quote :: WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.

So Rapey K is mounting a defense via text messages about an incident where he allegedly shoved his junk in a victim's face.....before the story even went public? Shocked

No wonder he didn't want an FBI investigation.

Quote :: Further, the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

If this is true, and it's investigated by the FBI, then I don't see how the Kavanaugh nomination can go forward...

Posts : 3520

If they *let* the FBI investigate it. They all seem to be against that.

Sent from Topic'it App

Posts : 2141

Heretic wrote:: If they *let* the FBI investigate it. They all seem to be against that.

Sent from Topic'it App

Yep. But that's unacceptable, and I don't think that attempts to limit the investigation are going to succeed. This latest revelation amounts to "witness tampering." By a Federal Judge. If these texts exist, they'll soon be public. Then what?

The GOP needs to cut this guy loose... and let Kavanaugh use some version of the "I'm withdrawing because of my family" exit... before it's too late.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: In the event anyone is interested:

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html

Read prosecutor Rachel Mitchell's memo about the Kavanaugh-Ford hearing

In a memo sent to all GOP senators, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell — who was hired by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask questions of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford during last week's hearing — said she did not believe "a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee," per NBC News.
The other side: Democrats condemned Republicans' choice of Mitchell, arguing that it created a judicial setting for the hearing — when neither Ford nor Kavanaugh was on trial.

Ex-colleague blasts outside counsel's Kavanaugh memo as 'disingenuous'

Quote :: A former colleague of Rachel Mitchell, the outside counsel hired by Republicans to question Christine Blasey Ford last week, is blasting a memo the lawyer drafted as "disingenuous."

In a memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mitchell wrote that Ford's sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were "weak" on legal grounds.

Mitchell, an Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor, wrote that she does not believe a "reasonable prosecutor" would bring Ford's case to trial.

Matthew Long in an interview with Mother Jones said he is "very disappointed" in Mitchell. Long worked as a prosecutor under Mitchell in Maricopa County, Ariz. for years. He now works in private practice, the outlet reported.

“I find her willingness to author this absolutely disingenuous," Long told Mother Jones. “She knows better. She should only be applying this standard when there’s an adequate investigation.

“Mitchell doesn’t have sufficient information to even draw these conclusions,” he said.

Mitchell in the memo emphasized her background is not in politics, so she can only present an analysis of the allegations from a legal perspective. The memo does not include any analysis of Kavanaugh's testimony, for which Mitchell was present.

Long accused Mitchell of revealing "political bias" by omitting analysis of Kavanaugh's defense.

Mitchell in the memo pointed to gaps in Ford's memory of the event, particularly when it occurred, as one inconsistency in her account.

Long said Mitchell would not hold victims to that standard in her own office.

“The spotty memory Ms. Mitchell talks about, as if that’s an indication it didn’t happen, is just absurd,” he said. “I was trained by Ms. Mitchell about how trauma explicitly does prevent memory from happening.”

Victims often struggle to identify specific details from traumatic events, such as assault.

Long emphasized that Mitchell should not have authored the memo without conducting a full investigation, pointing out she was only able to question Ford in short increments at a public hearing. He said the statements from other people named by Ford wouldn't "meet any type of standard" in Mitchell's typical cases.

Posts : 3520

Quote :: “I find her willingness to author this absolutely disingenuous," Long told Mother Jones. “She knows better. She should only be applying this standard when there’s an adequate investigation.

“Mitchell doesn’t have sufficient information to even draw these conclusions,” he said.

Exactly. Like that commercial, "that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works." No prosecutor would bring charges on witness statements alone, with no corroboration, no investigation, into either side. That the GOP is using this as some sort of revelation, or absolution, is just another example of how desperate they are.

But there's plenty of other problems in that report. Marcy Wheeler gives a proper fisking here:

Rachel Mitchell Is Not Very Good at Propaganda

Quote :

The Senate Judiciary Republicans’ hand-picked sex prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, has released a report that is generating the desired headlines from credulous journalists. It should take reporters no more work than to compare what Mitchell claims in her memo with what actually happened last Thursday to declare it a sham report. But since journalists are reporting it as an honest submission, I guess I’ll have to debunk it.

Mitchell’s Report Makes No Mention of July 1
The Report Makes No Mention of Mitchell’s Truncated Questioning of Kavanaugh, At All
Mitchell Held Ford’s Statements to A Much Higher Standard Than She Did Kavanaugh’s
Kavanaugh’s Statements Would Not Survive the Kind of Apples to Orange Comparison Mitchell Subjected Ford’s Statements To
Both Witnesses Had Short Term Memory Loss

In short, this report is an attack on Ford. It’s not a measure of a he said she said dispute. To assess such a dispute, Mitchell would have had to examine how badly Kavanaugh flubbed his responses to her.

And she wasn’t paid for that kind of scrutiny.

Posts : 6988

happy jack wrote:: In the event anyone is interested:

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html

Read prosecutor Rachel Mitchell's memo about the Kavanaugh-Ford hearing

In a memo sent to all GOP senators, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell — who was hired by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask questions of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford during last week's hearing — said she did not believe "a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee," per NBC News.
The other side: Democrats condemned Republicans' choice of Mitchell, arguing that it created a judicial setting for the hearing — when neither Ford nor Kavanaugh was on trial.

Heretic wrote:: Of course not.

Heretic wrote:

Quote :: “I find her willingness to author this absolutely disingenuous," Long told Mother Jones. “She knows better. She should only be applying this standard when there’s an adequate investigation.

“Mitchell doesn’t have sufficient information to even draw these conclusions,” he said.

Exactly. Like that commercial, "that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works." No prosecutor would bring charges on witness statements alone, with no corroboration, no investigation, into either side. That the GOP is using this as some sort of revelation, or absolution, is just another example of how desperate they are.

But there's plenty of other problems in that report. Marcy Wheeler gives a proper fisking here:

Rachel Mitchell Is Not Very Good at Propaganda

Quote :

The Senate Judiciary Republicans’ hand-picked sex prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, has released a report that is generating the desired headlines from credulous journalists. It should take reporters no more work than to compare what Mitchell claims in her memo with what actually happened last Thursday to declare it a sham report. But since journalists are reporting it as an honest submission, I guess I’ll have to debunk it.

Mitchell’s Report Makes No Mention of July 1
The Report Makes No Mention of Mitchell’s Truncated Questioning of Kavanaugh, At All
Mitchell Held Ford’s Statements to A Much Higher Standard Than She Did Kavanaugh’s
Kavanaugh’s Statements Would Not Survive the Kind of Apples to Orange Comparison Mitchell Subjected Ford’s Statements To
Both Witnesses Had Short Term Memory Loss

In short, this report is an attack on Ford. It’s not a measure of a he said she said dispute. To assess such a dispute, Mitchell would have had to examine how badly Kavanaugh flubbed his responses to her.

And she wasn’t paid for that kind of scrutiny.

Strange post, indeed, considering the fact that you claimed to not be interested.
Ritalin, anyone?

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: If they *let* the FBI investigate it. They all seem to be against that.

Tell me: after this 7th FBI investigation of Kavanagh is complete, do you have any suggestions for Senate Democrats as to what the next delaying tactic should be?

Posts : 9728

Trump Worshiping Misogynist Moron wrote:

happy jack wrote:: In the event anyone is interested:

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html

Read prosecutor Rachel Mitchell's memo about the Kavanaugh-Ford hearing

In a memo sent to all GOP senators, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell — who was hired by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask questions of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford during last week's hearing — said she did not believe "a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee," per NBC News.
The other side: Democrats condemned Republicans' choice of Mitchell, arguing that it created a judicial setting for the hearing — when neither Ford nor Kavanaugh was on trial.

Heretic wrote:: Of course not.

Heretic wrote:

Quote :: “I find her willingness to author this absolutely disingenuous," Long told Mother Jones. “She knows better. She should only be applying this standard when there’s an adequate investigation.

“Mitchell doesn’t have sufficient information to even draw these conclusions,” he said.

Exactly. Like that commercial, "that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works." No prosecutor would bring charges on witness statements alone, with no corroboration, no investigation, into either side. That the GOP is using this as some sort of revelation, or absolution, is just another example of how desperate they are.

But there's plenty of other problems in that report. Marcy Wheeler gives a proper fisking here:

Rachel Mitchell Is Not Very Good at Propaganda

Quote :

The Senate Judiciary Republicans’ hand-picked sex prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, has released a report that is generating the desired headlines from credulous journalists. It should take reporters no more work than to compare what Mitchell claims in her memo with what actually happened last Thursday to declare it a sham report. But since journalists are reporting it as an honest submission, I guess I’ll have to debunk it.

Mitchell’s Report Makes No Mention of July 1
The Report Makes No Mention of Mitchell’s Truncated Questioning of Kavanaugh, At All
Mitchell Held Ford’s Statements to A Much Higher Standard Than She Did Kavanaugh’s
Kavanaugh’s Statements Would Not Survive the Kind of Apples to Orange Comparison Mitchell Subjected Ford’s Statements To
Both Witnesses Had Short Term Memory Loss

In short, this report is an attack on Ford. It’s not a measure of a he said she said dispute. To assess such a dispute, Mitchell would have had to examine how badly Kavanaugh flubbed his responses to her.

And she wasn’t paid for that kind of scrutiny.

Strange post, indeed, considering the fact that you claimed to not be interested.

Showing off your stupidity again,or just some more brainless trolling?

Posts : 2141

Powerful Stuff!

Republicans War on Women - Page 23 CH-MacKinnon-09_29_2018_original

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/editorial-cartoons/editorial-cartoon-sept-29-2018-245696/

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

Trump Worshiping Misogynist Moron wrote:

happy jack wrote:: In the event anyone is interested:

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html

Read prosecutor Rachel Mitchell's memo about the Kavanaugh-Ford hearing

In a memo sent to all GOP senators, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell — who was hired by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask questions of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford during last week's hearing — said she did not believe "a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee," per NBC News.
The other side: Democrats condemned Republicans' choice of Mitchell, arguing that it created a judicial setting for the hearing — when neither Ford nor Kavanaugh was on trial.

Heretic wrote:: Of course not.

Heretic wrote:

Quote :: “I find her willingness to author this absolutely disingenuous," Long told Mother Jones. “She knows better. She should only be applying this standard when there’s an adequate investigation.

“Mitchell doesn’t have sufficient information to even draw these conclusions,” he said.

Exactly. Like that commercial, "that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works." No prosecutor would bring charges on witness statements alone, with no corroboration, no investigation, into either side. That the GOP is using this as some sort of revelation, or absolution, is just another example of how desperate they are.

But there's plenty of other problems in that report. Marcy Wheeler gives a proper fisking here:

Rachel Mitchell Is Not Very Good at Propaganda

Quote :

The Senate Judiciary Republicans’ hand-picked sex prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, has released a report that is generating the desired headlines from credulous journalists. It should take reporters no more work than to compare what Mitchell claims in her memo with what actually happened last Thursday to declare it a sham report. But since journalists are reporting it as an honest submission, I guess I’ll have to debunk it.

Mitchell’s Report Makes No Mention of July 1
The Report Makes No Mention of Mitchell’s Truncated Questioning of Kavanaugh, At All
Mitchell Held Ford’s Statements to A Much Higher Standard Than She Did Kavanaugh’s
Kavanaugh’s Statements Would Not Survive the Kind of Apples to Orange Comparison Mitchell Subjected Ford’s Statements To
Both Witnesses Had Short Term Memory Loss

In short, this report is an attack on Ford. It’s not a measure of a he said she said dispute. To assess such a dispute, Mitchell would have had to examine how badly Kavanaugh flubbed his responses to her.

And she wasn’t paid for that kind of scrutiny.

Strange post, indeed, considering the fact that you claimed to not be interested.

Showing off your stupidity again,or just some more brainless trolling?

Exactly what is this "stupidity" you seem to be referencing?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: If they *let* the FBI investigate it. They all seem to be against that.

Tell me: after this 7th FBI investigation of Kavanagh is complete, do you have any suggestions for Senate Democrats as to what the next delaying tactic should be?

I see. So you view an investigation of credible allegations of sexual assault as simply another "delaying tactic?" Wow.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Powerful Stuff!

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/editorial-cartoons/editorial-cartoon-sept-29-2018-245696/

Powerful stuff, indeed!!!!
And even more powerful if you base your entire argument upon comic strips!!!

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: Tell me: after this 7th FBI investigation of Kavanagh is complete, do you have any suggestions for Senate Democrats as to what the next delaying tactic should be?

I'm fine with just one "free reign" investigation Trump promised us. I mean, we already know he's unfit for the position, for multiple reasons that don't have to do with him getting rapey when drunk or his penchant for lying, but
the GOP has already decided to back this guy whatever the investigation uncovers.

So regardless, this continuing charade exists only as proof of how much contempt Republicans have for women's bodily autonomy and the dishonest lengths they'll go to take it away. Independants, especially women, are taking notice, and an honest investigation at this point will only help impeachment proceedings in the future.

Posts : 3520

Scorpion wrote:: So you view an investigation of credible allegations of sexual assault as simply another "delaying tactic?" Wow.

He has that comic framed and hanging in his living room.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Powerful Stuff!

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/editorial-cartoons/editorial-cartoon-sept-29-2018-245696/

Powerful stuff, indeed!!!!
And even more powerful if you base your entire argument upon comic strips!!!

It's hardly my "entire argument."

Just wanted to share. As the saying goes... sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Powerful Stuff!

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/editorial-cartoons/editorial-cartoon-sept-29-2018-245696/

Powerful stuff, indeed!!!!
And even more powerful if you base your entire argument upon comic strips!!!

It's hardly my "entire argument."

Just wanted to share. As the saying goes... sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

And sometimes, pretty pictures are just pretty pictures.
If that is not your entire argument, then what is?
Please, lay it out.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Powerful Stuff!

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/editorial-cartoons/editorial-cartoon-sept-29-2018-245696/

Powerful stuff, indeed!!!!
And even more powerful if you base your entire argument upon comic strips!!!

It's hardly my "entire argument."

Just wanted to share. As the saying goes... sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

And sometimes, pretty pictures are just pretty pictures.
If that is not your entire argument, then what is?
Please, lay it out.

I've been commenting all along... so where I stand on the Kavanaugh nomination should be pretty damn clear by now... all you need to do is read my posts!

I guess the difference between us is that you don't seem to care about the quest for justice for Ms. Ford. I do. You see the investigation of her allegations as a "delaying tactic" by the Democrats. I see anything less than a full investigation as GOP malfeasance and abuse of power.

Sure, the Democrats don't want Kavanaugh on the court. I certainly don't dispute that... but that's irrelevant. This is no longer about politics, my friend... it's about Justice.

Posts : 9728

Pathetic Troll wrote:: And sometimes, pretty pictures are just pretty pictures.
If that is not your entire argument, then what is?
Please, lay it out.

Earlier you asked me the following.....

Pathetic Trump Worshiping Troll wrote:: Exactly what is this "stupidity" you seem to be referencing?

Thinking that we're going to play into your game of endless questions. Not happening,troll. Sleep

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: I guess the difference between us is that you don't seem to care about the quest for justice for Ms. Ford. I do. You see the investigation of her allegations as a "delaying tactic" by the Democrats. I see anything less than a full investigation as GOP malfeasance and abuse of power.

I care about the quest for justice for both Ford and Kavanagh, but this entire thing has been about nothing but delay, and I'm pretty sure you know that. If a full investigation is so important to you, and the Democrats, it should have been put into motion the second Feinstein laid eyes on the allegations, not ramrodded through at the eleventh hour. The very fact that the allegations were held back as long as they were makes it clear to me that "the quest for justice for Ms. Ford" was a secondary afterthought, and subordinate to destroying the nomination at all costs. You should at least admit that.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I guess the difference between us is that you don't seem to care about the quest for justice for Ms. Ford. I do. You see the investigation of her allegations as a "delaying tactic" by the Democrats. I see anything less than a full investigation as GOP malfeasance and abuse of power.

I care about the quest for justice for both Ford and Kavanagh, but this entire thing has been about nothing but delay, and I'm pretty sure you know that. If a full investigation is so important to you, and the Democrats, it should have been put into motion the second Feinstein laid eyes on the allegations, not ramrodded through at the eleventh hour.

The victim did not want to be identified when Sen Feinstein received that letter.

Gee,I wonder why??
Trump mocks Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault testimony at Mississippi rally

Quote :: President Donald Trump for the first time directly mocked Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a rally in Mississippi, casting doubt on her testimony about her alleged sexual assault.

Trump imitated Ford during her testimony before the crowd, mocking her for not knowing the answer to questions such as how she got to the party.

“'I had one beer.' Well do you think it was… 'Nope. It was one beer.' Oh good. How did you get home? 'I don’t remember.' How did you get there? 'I don’t remember.' Where is the place? 'I don’t remember.' How many years ago was it? 'I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.'"

The crowd began to cheer and laugh, as the President continued imitating Ford recounting the night she says she was nearly raped.

"What neighborhood was it in? 'I don’t know.' Where’s the house? 'I don’t know. Upstairs. Downstairs. I don’t know. But I had one beer that’s the only thing I remember,'" Trump continued.

Easily the most disgusting comments ever uttered by a POTUS. You can't go any lower than that,but I'm sure he will at some time in the future.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: If a full investigation is so important to you, and the Democrats, it should have been put into motion the second Feinstein laid eyes on the allegations, not ramrodded through at the eleventh hour.

The investigation was solely up to the discretion of Democrats?

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: I care about the quest for justice for both Ford and Kavanagh, but this entire thing has been about nothing but delay, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Assuming that's true, that it's nothing but delay and not simply taking advantage of an enormous opportunity, can you blame them? Why shouldn't Democrats do everything possible to keep a possible rapist, a demonstrable liar, and terrible judge off the court, especially since it's clear Republicans do not care if he's guilty of being the monster Ford claims he is?

Delay seems to be the new standard tatic thanks to Republicans, but at least Kavanaugh's getting far more than Garland did. It's cute that you're pretending to care.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: If a full investigation is so important to you, and the Democrats, it should have been put into motion the second Feinstein laid eyes on the allegations, not ramrodded through at the eleventh hour.

The investigation was solely up to the discretion of Democrats?

The investigation was up to whomever knew of the allegations and was in a position to call for an investigation. In this case, it was Feinstein, who happens to be the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She could have initiated an investigation as early as late July, yet she didn't. Apparently, to her, a thorough and proper investigation was not nearly as important as the ace up her sleeve, to be pulled out at the most opportune moment. Pure bullshit partisan politics at the expense of Ms. Ford.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I guess the difference between us is that you don't seem to care about the quest for justice for Ms. Ford. I do. You see the investigation of her allegations as a "delaying tactic" by the Democrats. I see anything less than a full investigation as GOP malfeasance and abuse of power.

I care about the quest for justice for both Ford and Kavanagh, but this entire thing has been about nothing but delay, and I'm pretty sure you know that. If a full investigation is so important to you, and the Democrats, it should have been put into motion the second Feinstein laid eyes on the allegations, not ramrodded through at the eleventh hour.

The victim did not want to be identified when Sen Feinstein received that letter.

The only ones who needed to know the identity of the alleged victim were the members of the FBI investigative team; there was no need to identify her to the media, nor to anyone else.
There are undoubtedly countless investigations by the agency proceeding as we speak (that's kind of what the 'I' stands for in their acronym, just so you know).
How many of the subjects of those investigations are known to you?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I guess the difference between us is that you don't seem to care about the quest for justice for Ms. Ford. I do. You see the investigation of her allegations as a "delaying tactic" by the Democrats. I see anything less than a full investigation as GOP malfeasance and abuse of power.

I care about the quest for justice for both Ford and Kavanagh, but this entire thing has been about nothing but delay, and I'm pretty sure you know that. If a full investigation is so important to you, and the Democrats, it should have been put into motion the second Feinstein laid eyes on the allegations, not ramrodded through at the eleventh hour. The very fact that the allegations were held back as long as they were makes it clear to me that "the quest for justice for Ms. Ford" was a secondary afterthought, and subordinate to destroying the nomination at all costs. You should at least admit that.

No, I shouldn't, because that's not how this all went down... at all...

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/state/california/article218542315.html

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/

You know, it would be a lot easier to discuss things if you had actually watched Ms Ford's testimony, because all of this was covered by Ms Ford herself. So you either need to watch her testimony or find a transcript or simply click on the links that I provided.

Once you catch up on the facts, we can have an honest discussion, but you'll quickly find that the argument that you outlined in your post quoted above is not based upon reality. Just try taking off the partisan blinders, jack. Keep an open mind and review what actually happened.

» Women in combat
» Republicans Don't Like Their Leaders
» Republicans Voted Against TSA Funding
» Republicans...Then and Now
» Republicans vs. Making BP pay