Trump defends Kavanaugh: ‘Scary time for young men in America’

Kavanaugh's mother didn't have much control over his alcoholic blackouts, did she?

 

How is that offtopic when you made the baseless accusation in the first place?

(2 seconds)

 

Shocker! A claim by Guava that I am "running away". I bet schoolyard taunts like that get a **** ton of kudos from your peers.

 

And again. Troll. Stalk. Insult. Repeat. Typical Guava.

 

Nor Ruthie Ginsberg's ... I have a photo of Ruthie in her SCOTUS robes "blackout drunk" and passed out at the SOTU ... wanna see it? Got Ruthie on record admitting her alcoholic episode too. I'll show you mine, will you show me yours?

 

Well the entire Kavanaugh thing was a derogatory scenario and you are accusing him of derogatory acts based on his appearance and demeanor.

A white guy is accused of killing a black guy, he walks into the court with his skin head hair cut, a swastika tattooed on his forehead, combat boots, and appears very angry. Do we take that as evidence of his guilt?

Why are you running away from the legal principles you espoused?

 

I disagree with his take back, because Left Wingers will point to it rather than respond in kind, which is how humans deescalate.

COCAINE MITCH DOUBLES DOWN: McConnell Open to the Possibility of Filling Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020.

I notice that a lot of Dems on Twitter are saying this violates the “Garland principle” — they can’t call it the “Biden Rule,” which would be historically accurate, for obvious reasons — but that’s wrong. The rule’s based on a president and senate of opposite parties.

 

It's what happens when core principles were never core or principles to begin with.

 

Core principles always include the difference between right and wrong and how it applies to all of us. So, I believe that there is really a lack of them not a shifting. Now, core principles can be one's greatest strength as well a one's greatest weakness if used to manipulate. Nevertheless, one must be able to recognize the difference.........

 

That is why we are dedicated to securing INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Using the power of government to compel belief is not only immoral, it's terrifying in a 50/50 nation as the government structures set up to compel the beliefs on one side are quickly lost to the otherside. It's just different sides of the same bad penny.

If you feel like it, read Randy Barnett's Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People

That's small r republican, not the political party. He's a leading Libertarian Legal scholar as are most of the Legal Scholars your side calls "Conservative".

 

Are you claiming the Biden Rule is "wrong"?

The advancement of the Hammurabi code was that the punishment can't exceed the crime and most importantly, that even the leadership was bound by the law. As we see with Obama's illegal spying on the Trump campaign, we don't really have that principle completely secured, even at this late date.

 

Why do you keep making this about you?

Did Jane Mayer, Ronan Farrow, and Michael Avenatti give Trump his biggest victory yet?

The Avenatti-Swetnick story represented the moment when the anti-Kavanaugh forces jumped the shark. The allegation was off-the-scale serious: Who knew Brett Kavanaugh was a high-school Bill Cosby? But Swetnick produced no witnesses to the events she alleged, nor could she produce witnesses who confirmed even that such events occurred, nor could she produce witnesses who confirmed her presence at any such events, and, she was not even part of Kavanaugh’s social circle at the time (Swetnick was older than the others and from a more distant suburb of Washington and attended public school there, outside the tight-knit group of private school students with whom Kavanaugh hung out).

In short, Avenatti and Swetnick had nothing beyond an incendiary accusation. Nevertheless, some Democrats embraced the story to push the notion that there was an accumulating weight of sexual misconduct accusations against Kavanaugh.

“We already have three credible reports of sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh,” said Stupid Sen. Mazie Hirono, referring to Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick. Pressing for an FBI investigation, Stupid Hirono said it “certainly should cover the three credible reports that have come forward.”

“We now have three credible accusers of sexual assault,” said Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

Sen. Dianne Swinestein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a press release headlined: “Senate Democrats: FBI Must Investigate All Three Credible Allegations of Sexual Assault Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.” Other Democrats on the committee sent out the same release.

The talking point got some pickup in the press. ABC News asked President Trump: “Mr. President, there are now three women accusing Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Are you saying that all three of these women are liars?”

Democrats had their pattern. They demanded Trump order the FBI to interview people who might have knowledge about all three accusations.​

Releasing the FBI report would make for the most excellent October Surprise.

 

But OK to threaten and denigrate the accused in the most vile manner.

 

I would have to know more about the "event in question" re "social standards" to accurately comment but I do understand your confliction; are you certain that the core principle was actually really challenged? If so, I always question myself as to my right to hold my value and beliefs but not to impose them on others but certainly share them for perspective.

 

What was the vile manner?

 

Demonstrate what is being referred to by yourself.

 

Go watch the hearings and leftist attacks on Kavanaugh.

 

I watched them and their questioning was hardly "vile." I have watched "vile" attacks in the Senate and House committees by Republicans and you didn't refer to them as "vile" at the time.