Skip to comments.New Kavanaugh Disclosure Shows Little Sign of Impeding His Nomination
Posted on 09/16/2018 5:06:17 AM PDT by cotton1706
WASHINGTON Sudden new revelations in Supreme Court confirmation fights are not new. Anita Hills accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas surfaced after his initial hearings had concluded. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trumps first nominee to the court, faced claims that he had plagiarized parts of his book just as his nomination headed toward a Senate floor vote.
Now the bitter and extremely contentious Senate fight over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has taken its own post-hearing turn with the disclosure that a top Democrat had for weeks possessed a letter accusing the nominee of sexual misconduct while he was in high school. The development, coming a week before the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on his nomination, did not yet appear to be impeding Judge Kavanaughs steady progress toward assuming a seat on the court this fall.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I think DiFi’s original game plan was to win November’s election...settle in til summer of 2019, and retire...letting new Gov (assuming he wins) Gavin Newsom to pick himself to assume the office.
If you check the numbers right now....Newsom is real iffy on the polls, and might actually lose.
Is it really a “disclosure”?
Or is it a wild, unsourced made up allegation?
Is the Times admitting that these “October” suprises are no longer working?
“Or is it a wild, unsourced made up allegation?”
Even “allegation” gives it more credence than it deserves, IMO. I’m going with “unsubstantiated rumor by a bug-eyed and desperate politician”.
The Times needed to clarify that last minute disclosures are not new for democrats. All their examples were republican nominees.
The so called informer needs to be name...and her familiy and friends and their employers...
Perhaps they should consider a rule that once the confirmation hearing is completed no new evidence will be considered.
WelIs it really a disclosure?
Or is it a wild, unsourced made up allegation?
Well, the Fake News NYTimes says it’s a disclosure and a revelation.
Maybe “crying wolf” every single time.. isn’t working for the dimwits anymore???
...Is the Times admitting that these October suprises are no longer working?...
October’s not even here yet
Octobers not even here yet
It’s just like how Christmas displays keep getting earlier every year.
Disclosure is not a synonym for assertion. DF’s pronouncement was not a disclosure.
The alligator made an assertion.
If there is no such informer then he/she/it does not have a name.
Far from sinking the nomination, this is an opportunity for people to experience how radical and anti-experience the #MeToo “movement” is.
Sex is fraught with ambiguity. This is everyone’s experience, without exception (we all know this).
There is no man alive who, as a teenager, didn’t awkwardly boot a few ground balls and swing and miss at a few pitches before hitting his first home run.
So, in interpreting a story like this one (and I presume something like this actually happened), you have to use probability.
1) Kavanaugh is a sexual predator, a rapist, and he selected a random victim and attacked her (OK, at a “party”), and has never done that again after age 17 (or we would surely know of it). Probability .000001
2) He’s a normal man, who was once a boy, and while trying to decipher the eternal question of “what does this female behavior mean (does she want it?)” made a mess of things and, in the end, nobody was harmed but two kids felt bad. Probability 99.999990.
The thing is, what these leftist dummies do not seem to grasp, is that their preferred narratives, like #1 here, do not correspond with anyone’s lived experience, and the attempt to force people to conform to anti-experience is creating enormous tension which, when it breaks, will bring down their cloud castles, probably violently.
First thing I noticed was odd choice of words by the New York Times. "Disclosure" cloaks this bald-face smear with a cloak of plausibility.
The most likely hypothesis is that the “disclosure” is a fabrication.
The manner and timing of the “disclosure” rules out taking it seriously in any case.
Why is any of this a surprise? This is standard procedure for the RATS to bring up supposed allegations against their political enemies. DiFi, in a sane world, would be investigated for the millions her husbands businesses have gotten through federal contracts she no doubt had a hand in obtaining. DiFi is a Queen RAT among RATS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.