So Schumer's great strategy failed, The Republican base is fired up, and his answer is

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/schumer-to-americans-angry-over-kavanaugh-vote/ar-BBO23YQ?li=BBnb7Kz


Vote.......you could have avoided this whole chit show, but no.......the American people are fired up about how unfair the Judge's treatment was at the hands of some pretty radical and very shrill Democrats.  If you do not think Steve Banyon was not jumping flips as the Democrats just gave the visual of two young not too smart black Senators being totally dismissive of senate rules and lacked civility toward the jurist. The whole I am Spartacus was seen that with their own eyes. So what was the Strategy Chuck.   Make fricking fools out of the democrats while appearing impotent, and now Chuck's answer is vote......vote.......look if Schumer is not immediately relieved of his leadership in the Senate, the mid terms are lost.  He coordinated this chit show, and he, Hillary, and nancy need to quietly get off centerstage, and quit firing up the Republican base......this was so stupid at so many levels.

McConnell just thanked the Democrats for something they could not figure out.....how to fire up their base in a midterm.......exactly my prediction. Where is the call for new leadership in the Democratic Party. Somebody planned this chit show, and there is no backlash in their minds.......their base was already fired up as democrats were going to bury Republican's turn out, and leadership allows Corey Booker to get up and call the Judge Evil, before one witness......The American people saw Harris and Booker thumb their noses at the hearing and go out in the hall and talk to reporters.......People who are basically racist who followed Trump just had hand delivered the worst perceptions of Democrats.....but worse......black democrats. Nobody knows how to win among democrats.....it is obvious.

Trump tonight in Kansas....."the only reason you would vote for Democrats if you were tired of winning"

From now until the mid term this will be the theme. Democrats are weak losers. Democrats response......screeching mobs in the halls of Congress.....brilliant.

If this confirmation hearing had control of the folks running for President, they should have used a targeted case approach, but the truth is they knew this guy was a moderate compared to some of the other crazies on the list. The best generals knew that an organized retreat, can lead to a later victory.

Now there is talk of impeachment.......just throw that gasoline on firing up Trump's base. The media once again walked these lemmings to the cliff and leadership had left the building.

Oh STFU Oatie! Kavanaugh was worse threatening "what goes around comes around!" He will be the most hated justice on the court.

2seaoat wrote:Trump tonight in Kansas....."the only reason you would vote for Democrats if you were tired of winning"

From now until the mid term this will be the theme.  Democrats are weak losers.  Democrats response......screeching mobs in the halls of Congress.....brilliant.

If this confirmation hearing had control of the folks running for President, they should have used a targeted case approach, but the truth is they knew this guy was a moderate compared to some of the other crazies on the list.  The best generals knew that an organized retreat, can lead to a later victory.

Now there is talk of impeachment.......just throw that gasoline on firing up Trump's base.   The media once again walked these lemmings to the cliff and leadership had left the building.

What left the building is respect for women and common decency. You are a fool.

What left the building is respect for women and common decency. You are a fool.


You still do not understand what just happened. If this allegation had been prosecuted and a Juvenile judgment entered......Non of this would be admissible. You see as a society, and particularly progressives for 100 years have said judging a juvenile on their mistakes should be guarded against future use to prejudice the grown man for the actions of the child. But this was much worse, the new standard in American jurisprudence was a mere allegation is probative despite being almost forty years old and not corroborated.

Tex, would you want your son accused of a crime without any corroboration or spontaneous declarations forty years after an alleged drinking party of teens. Nobody disrespected one woman other than President Trump. The proper standard in determining the validity of a claim in this hearing was more probable than not this happened and Brett was the person who did it.

No problem with most people that something happened. However, to meet the burden of proof you had to believe it was more probable than not it happened with Brett. So the witnesses do not corroborate, and Judge tells the FBI the same thing he told the committee in his written statement. The evidence clearly shows that more probable than not Brett did not do this. Now you can insult me, but you cannot insult the right of every senator to apply that standard. The yes votes did not feel like they were being disrespectful to woman, rather they were voting on the proofs. All the arguments about more proof is simply cumulative evidence and the chairman properly ruled. Again, no disrespect from Collins, or other Republican senators who did not believe the due process standard of innocent until proven guilty......the funny thing is the democrats could not even hand grenade the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which should have been the standard when you are being called a gang raper.

He will be a much better judge than the folks who tried to steer the lemmings concluded without tying these blind assumptions to his case decisions, and this is exactly what Steward said.

2seaoat wrote:What left the building is respect for women and common decency. You are a fool.


You still do not understand what just happened.   If this allegation had been prosecuted and a Juvenile judgment entered......Non of this would be admissible.  You see as a society, and particularly progressives for 100 years have said judging a juvenile on their mistakes should be guarded against future use to prejudice the grown man for the actions of the child.  But this was much worse, the new standard in American jurisprudence was a mere allegation is probative despite being almost forty years old and not corroborated.

Tex, would you want your son accused of a crime without any corroboration or spontaneous declarations forty years after an alleged drinking party of teens.  Nobody disrespected one woman other than President Trump.  The proper standard in determining the validity of a claim in this hearing was more probable than not this happened and Brett was the person who did it.

No problem with most people that something happened.  However, to meet the burden of proof you had to believe it was more probable than not it happened with Brett.  So the witnesses do not corroborate, and Judge tells the FBI the same thing he told the committee in his written statement.  The evidence clearly shows that more probable than not Brett did not do this.  Now you can insult me, but you cannot insult the right of every senator to apply that standard.  The yes votes did not feel like they were being disrespectful to woman, rather they were voting on the proofs.  All the arguments about more proof is simply cumulative evidence and the chairman properly ruled.   Again, no disrespect from Collins, or other Republican senators who did not believe the due process standard of innocent until proven guilty......the funny thing is the democrats could not even hand grenade the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which should have been the standard when you are being called a gang raper.

He will be a much better judge than the folks who tried to steer the lemmings concluded without tying these blind assumptions to his case decisions, and this is exactly what Steward said.

Don't tell me I don't understand this. I know about juvenile justice. That cretin lawyer that recently attacked me also represented the little POS drug addict that stole from my daughter and from me back when they were both teenagers...pleading out the case, and even though I was the one who called police and had him arrested (he had an outstanding warrant), no one ever contacted me from the state attorney's office. This slimy little "judge" was a Republican operative before he was rewarded in 2006, involved in the Brooks Brothers riots that stopped the Florida recount and gave us Bush. And it was Bush, BTW, that swayed Collins' vote. Kavanaugh wasn't on trial; he was being interviewed for the job, so don't try to use presumption of innocence. May he and Drumpf descend to the 9th circle of hell.

2seaoat wrote:What left the building is respect for women and common decency. You are a fool.


You still do not understand what just happened.   If this allegation had been prosecuted and a Juvenile judgment entered......Non of this would be admissible.  You see as a society, and particularly progressives for 100 years have said judging a juvenile on their mistakes should be guarded against future use to prejudice the grown man for the actions of the child.  But this was much worse, the new standard in American jurisprudence was a mere allegation is probative despite being almost forty years old and not corroborated.

Tex, would you want your son accused of a crime without any corroboration or spontaneous declarations forty years after an alleged drinking party of teens.  Nobody disrespected one woman other than President Trump.  The proper standard in determining the validity of a claim in this hearing was more probable than not this happened and Brett was the person who did it.

No problem with most people that something happened.  However, to meet the burden of proof you had to believe it was more probable than not it happened with Brett.  So the witnesses do not corroborate, and Judge tells the FBI the same thing he told the committee in his written statement.  The evidence clearly shows that more probable than not Brett did not do this.  Now you can insult me, but you cannot insult the right of every senator to apply that standard.  The yes votes did not feel like they were being disrespectful to woman, rather they were voting on the proofs.  All the arguments about more proof is simply cumulative evidence and the chairman properly ruled.   Again, no disrespect from Collins, or other Republican senators who did not believe the due process standard of innocent until proven guilty......the funny thing is the democrats could not even hand grenade the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which should have been the standard when you are being called a gang raper.

He will be a much better judge than the folks who tried to steer the lemmings concluded without tying these blind assumptions to his case decisions, and this is exactly what Steward said.

No, the evidence does not show that more probable than not he did not do this. The woman knows who assaulted her. If your idiocy was applied to child sexual assault cases we would never catch child molesters. For the umpth time this was not trial nor was his freedom in jeopardy. Big difference!

Vikingwoman wrote:
No, the evidence does not show that more probable than not he did not do this. The woman knows who assaulted her.

So, you reject the possibility that she could be mistaken?

Have you never been absolutely certain of something and then found out later you were wrong?

Deus X wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:
No, the evidence does not show that more probable than not he did not do this. The woman knows who assaulted her.

So, you reject the possibility that she could be mistaken?

Have you never been absolutely certain of something and then found out later you were wrong?

I've never been mistaken about someone who assaulted me. That is something you don't get wrong.

Vikingwoman wrote:

Deus X wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:
No, the evidence does not show that more probable than not he did not do this. The woman knows who assaulted her.

So, you reject the possibility that she could be mistaken?

Have you never been absolutely certain of something and then found out later you were wrong?

I've never been mistaken about someone who assaulted me. That is something you don't get wrong.

Do you hear yourself: "It's possible to be mistaken about ANYTHING but that?"

And because it's not possible for YOU, it must be likewise for every other woman? Yours is the universal human female experience?

Actually, I'm thinking it's probably not so much the universal female experience as the universal human experience. Absent conditions where the attacker's face cannot be clearly distinguished (darkness, masking, etc.) or where it's seen through the haze of drugs or alcohol (and Ford says she only had one beer before heading up to the bathroom) -- and even though I certainly don't have statistics to back me up -- it seems just common sense, don't you think, that the perpetrator of such a traumatic event as assault would forever be remembered?

I don't see why it would be any different from any other traumatic assault and hundred of people are convicted every year with mistaken identifications and later exonerated, usually with DNA. All I'm saying is that it's possible that she was mistaken.

2seaoat wrote:
You still do not understand what just happened.  

If you've ever wondered exactly what the term "mansplaining" means, it's always this line, and then a bunch of bullshit.

There were more accusers and there were witnesses after the fact. There is Mark Judge, who she says was in the room and piled on...he wasn't even questioned, nor was his former girlfriend who tried to testify.

Floridatexan wrote:
There were more accusers and there were witnesses after the fact.  There is Mark Judge, who she says was in the room and piled on...he wasn't even questioned, nor was his former girlfriend who tried to testify.  

This will not just fade away. There will always be a dark cloud over this SCOTUS. Perhaps that is how the GOP, 45 and their master Putin wants it. Dark days ahead if things don't change.

Floridatexan wrote:
There were more accusers and there were witnesses after the fact.  There is Mark Judge, who she says was in the room and piled on...he wasn't even questioned, nor was his former girlfriend who tried to testify.  

Where do you get your information, cherry pickers Anonymous? Judge did make a written statement to the investigation "under penalty of felony". He didn't have to do that and he didn't have to talk to anyone. There were "witnesses" to OTHER alleged incidents, not the one Ford referred to. Since when did hearsay become a legitimate legal weapon?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-legal-phrase-emerged-from-the-kavanaugh-hearings/2018/09/30/83333cd8-c4b7-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?utm_term=.e3d4bb219664

There were more accusers and there were witnesses after the fact. There is Mark Judge, who she says was in the room and piled on...he wasn't even questioned,

Why post untruth which can easily be verified. Mark Judge was interviewed by the FBI for three hours and every Senator saw the same.........It did not happen. So two men say this woman has misidentified them, and you think that magically, she reached the preponderance standard.....nope.....the vote tells the whole story. One more said chapter in impotent Democrats not having a strategy beyond blind Hubris.

I was not impressed with a professor in America not understanding the word exculpatory.......so it is not surprising to learn the tilt from which she comes and the groupthink of the average campus which is considered exclusive and where the average home in Alto is a million and a half. White privilege and wealth evolved to a curriculum of man hating.......wonderful to think these folks are elevating the sixth grader to an American hero. The arrogance can be cut with a knife, and Americans are not buying any of it.

2seaoat wrote:
There were more accusers and there were witnesses after the fact. There is Mark Judge, who she says was in the room and piled on...he wasn't even questioned,

Why post untruth which can easily be verified.  Mark Judge was interviewed by the FBI for three hours and every Senator saw the same.........It did not happen.  So two men say this woman has misidentified them, and you think that magically, she reached the preponderance standard.....nope.....the vote tells the whole story.  One more said chapter in impotent Democrats not having a strategy beyond blind Hubris.

We don't know what Mark Judge said to the FBI. It's being kept secret but I can guarantee you w/ three people in the room she did not misidentify anyone. Kavanaugh is lying or he was too drunk to remember. She passed a polygraph and reported it years prior to this hearing. Now's who stupid, Oatie?

2seaoat wrote:I was not impressed with a professor in America not understanding the word exculpatory.......so it is not surprising to learn the tilt from which she comes and the groupthink of the average campus which is considered exclusive and where the average home in Alto is a million and a half.  White privilege and wealth evolved to a curriculum of man hating.......wonderful to think these folks are elevating the sixth grader to an American hero.  The arrogance can be cut with a knife, and Americans are not buying any of it.  

52% believe her.

She passed a polygraph and reported it years prior to this hearing. Now's who stupid, Oatie?

The answer is obvious.

Errors made by eyewitnesses contribute to wrongful convictions in an alarmingly high
proportion of cases (Saks & Koehler, 2005; Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2000; Wells,
Memon, & Penrod, 2006); according to the most recent statistics such errors are involved in
75% of the DNA exoneration cases tracked by the Innocence Project.
1
While most
eyewitness errors in these cases represent mistaken person identifications, eyewitnesses
also report about events, physical action and conversations. Eyewitness errors cannot be
eliminated but the impact of such errors in criminal trials might be reduced if the principal
participants in the criminal justice system were aware of eyewitness fallibility, of the
limitations of human perception and memory and the factors that may distort these
processes (Schacter, 2001). Knowledge about such factors might make judges and jurors
look with sceptical eyes at the truly extraordinary memory feats....

I think the senate voted that they did not believe her memory from forty years ago was more probable than not flawed......who is stupid now.