Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:It's a generation, now?

Oh no I am on the wrong side of history.

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh no I am on the wrong side of history.

*herstory

I could see were if the media lays it on him real thick he would bow out

1) because there is at least some truth to this and
2) he was just a GWB errand-boy bitch and is weak

prove me wrong, space coyote

I am jacks total lack of surprise. Whose stupid idea was it to go get him references from women who he didn’t happen to rape or even know 30 years ago. Jesus

I don’t have this much faith, but I do think withdrawing the nomination would be the best possible next step for republicans. They scheduled a hearing, so they look like they were ready to investigate in good faith, but they don’t risk the PR nightmare that said hearing is sure to be (attack dogs like Cornyn are a disaster waiting to happen right now) and they still have a chance to get a nominee in.

the optics of sitting in front of the camera and answering those questions.... the GOP should know - it doesn't matter what is said, he will look guilty ...

of course they only care if it negatively impacts them in the elections

so they will need to do their calculus

maybe it's time to brush off some other "elitist" shine boy and step him up to the plate

they must not of known this when they nominated him

there must be a dozen other stooges with good credentials that would do their bidding for them

So how is this one different than Clarence Thomas? Is it just the metoo movement, or something else?

bune wrote:So how is this one different than Clarence Thomas? Is it just the metoo movement, or something else?

Yeah.

CT happened 10 years prior in a professional environment, and Senators didn't want to talk about sex.

BK happened 30 years prior among adolescents, and Senators are scared as shit to not address harassment concerns.

I do not know how the differences will play out.

"You know what's kind of incriminating? You're accused of assaulting a woman, and you just happen to have a list of 65 women that you did NOT assault."

McParadigm wrote:

98% chance its the pro-lifers attacking her

read an article today that her and her lawyers haven't yet responded as to whether she will attend on Monday

also

In Hiding

Off She Goes

Gone

96583UP wrote:read an article today that her and her lawyers haven't yet responded as to whether she will attend on Monday

also

In Hiding

She has. She doesn’t want public testimony without an FBI investigation, due to the committees’s desire to avoid calling others and essentially make it a “he said she said.”

McParadigm wrote:

She just made this up for attention.

McParadigm wrote:

96583UP wrote:read an article today that her and her lawyers haven't yet responded as to whether she will attend on Monday

also

In Hiding

She has. She doesn’t want public testimony without an FBI investigation, due to the committees’s desire to avoid calling others and essentially make it a “he said she said.”

can the FBI investigate? isn't there a statute of limitations on this stuff?

96583UP wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

96583UP wrote:read an article today that her and her lawyers haven't yet responded as to whether she will attend on Monday

also

In Hiding

She has. She doesn’t want public testimony without an FBI investigation, due to the committees’s desire to avoid calling others and essentially make it a “he said she said.”

can the FBI investigate? isn't there a statute of limitations on this stuff?

I believe they do background checks on potential nominees. So not a criminal investigation, but basically character interviews and such.