Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "" video.

Why would she make the claim in therapy 6 years in advance of a supreme court nomination that she wouldn't know he'd be up for? And then, why put his friend in the room at the time it was happening? What people at the party said nothing happened, there hasn't been an FBI investigation. And at this point, we should all know that it's a crime to lie to the FBI, but it's not a crime to lie to the press. Plus, they're lying. The accuser hasn't specified in public which part it is that this is alleged to have happened at. So, anybody claiming that nothing happened at "the" party is a liar. Either they're falsely claiming to know that it didn't happen or they're falsely claiming to know which party it didn't happen at. Either way, they're liars. The fact that the GOP is trying to avoid having the FBI do an investigation as part of their background check duties gives reasonable people reason to suspect that the allegations might be credible.
10
This is a life time appointment to the Supreme Court as in he'd be one of the people that gets to decide how the other courts rule on things including sexual assault. Given that once put on the court, he cannot be removed without him either resigning or dying, it's unreasonable to put him on the court if the story is credible. And at this point, the story sounds rather credible. Dr. Ford made the allegation in a therapy session 6 years ago and the therapist has already indicated that the allegation was made. She put one of his friends in the room at the time, which is not something a liar is likely to do. That friend cannot say that it didn't happen as he can't remember. Orrin Hatch has come out and said that Kavenaugh has denied being at "that party" despite nobody indicating which party it was, which means that either Hatch or Kavenaugh are lying and probably both of them. There's also that list of 65 women that they were able to get within 24 hours of the allegations being made public. If you have a list of women that you haven't sexually assaulted, it should not get you off the hook for sexually assaulting a 66th woman. That's crazy There's also the fact that the GOP is refusing to request the FBI to look into the matter. If he's as innocent as he claims, then why not just do what the accuser is asking and have the FBI do a simple investigation to see if Kavenaugh can pass the background check. Yes, he might not be guilty, but he shouldn't be put on the court if we can't be reasonably sure that he's not a sex offender as crimes related to sex offenses will appear before the court. Not to mention the fact that there could be other things that he could be subjected to black mail over.
9
Yes. In an ideal world the allegation would have been made at the time so that it could be properly investigated and possibly prosecuted if the evidence was there. But, it does look like the allegation is credible and even if he is confirmed, this is going to be a cloud that looms over every and all case that the court takes related to women's rights and sex crimes. The only reason he's this far into the process is that the GOP is hell bent on getting the President off the hook no matter what damage it does to our country.
8
It came out at this point in the process in part because the GOP has been shortcutting much of the normal review. Had he been subjected to the usual review, it's entirely possible that the allegation wouldn't have been made public at all as he'd have been voted down based upon his record. AFAIK, there's no possibility of prison time at this point as the statute of limitations has already expired, and the whole point of making this public during these proceedings is that it's incredibly problematic to have an individual who allegedly sexually assaulted a woman on the Supreme Court where he can potentially cast a vote on issues related to women's rights. It was bad enough that Justice Thomas was confirmed despite being wholly unqualified for the position, but he was only accused of sexual harassment, not sexual assault.
3
Who said it's OK for Democrats to beat their girlfriends? This is a lifetime appointment to the court that decides how the laws are interpreted and what laws are and aren't constitutional. The fact that people like you don't understand that is terrifying. Nobody is saying that he shouldn't be confirmed due to the allegations. There are people saying he shouldn't be confirmed due to gross incompetence and there are people who are saying that the allegations are credible enough to justify proper investigation, but people aren't saying that he shouldn't be confirmed solely on the basis of this allegation.
3