So, what are everyone's thoughts on this woman coming forward with a sexual assault charge from high school the weekend before the confirmation vote?

She's willing to go before the committee, so hear her out. Even Conway is taking that stance. If what she's saying can be substantiated to any degree, end the process with Kavanagh and bring on the inevitable Amy Coney Barrett nomination. If there's not a shred of proof behind her story from 36 years ago, proceed with the vote and let individual Senators decide who they believe.

The timing of this is rather opportunistic. I wouldn't discredit anyone alleging sexual abuse without hearing them out, but I also see the obvious benefit to Democrats of this becoming public right now.

---

This is now the political "go-to" move. Sensitive enough to where it can't be swept under the rug due to its nature, but serious enough to where it can take time to resolve.

There can't be a human alive that truly believes this woman came to her senses the weekend before a conformation vote decades after the alleged "incident". If this were a year ago, odds are none of this would be happening because the sole purpose of this delay tactic is an attempt to get to the mid term elections before voting on Kavanaugh.

IMO, a hard example needs to be set for false accusations like this to make others think long and hard

She wrote the letter, using Kavanaugh's name, in July.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is now the political "go-to" move. Sensitive enough to where it can't be swept under the rug due to its nature, but serious enough to where it can take time to resolve.

There can't be a human alive that truly believes this woman came to her senses the weekend before a conformation vote decades after the alleged "incident". If this were a year ago, odds are none of this would be happening because the sole purpose of this delay tactic is an attempt to get to the mid term elections before voting on Kavanaugh.

IMO, a hard example needs to be set for false accusations like this to make others think long and hard

How do you know this is a false accusation?

---

This is now the political "go-to" move. Sensitive enough to where it can't be swept under the rug due to its nature, but serious enough to where it can take time to resolve.

There can't be a human alive that truly believes this woman came to her senses the weekend before a conformation vote decades after the alleged "incident". If this were a year ago, odds are none of this would be happening because the sole purpose of this delay tactic is an attempt to get to the mid term elections before voting on Kavanaugh.

IMO, a hard example needs to be set for false accusations like this to make others think long and hard

Looks like we may get to see how many male Republican senators have it in them to attack her credibility to her face, then go home to face their wives, daughters and female constituents.

As for a stalling tactic, I've got two words for you: Merrick Garland. You reap what you sow.

Bingo.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is now the political "go-to" move. Sensitive enough to where it can't be swept under the rug due to its nature, but serious enough to where it can take time to resolve.

There can't be a human alive that truly believes this woman came to her senses the weekend before a conformation vote decades after the alleged "incident". If this were a year ago, odds are none of this would be happening because the sole purpose of this delay tactic is an attempt to get to the mid term elections before voting on Kavanaugh.

IMO, a hard example needs to be set for false accusations like this to make others think long and hard

How do you know this is a false accusation?

Because the only witness she named denied it happened? Because it was 36 years ago? Because the timing and handling of this event reeks of the Democrat playbook? Because we already saw it happen to Justice Thomas? Lots of reasons it seems.

---

Looks like we may get to see how many male Republican senators have it in them to attack her credibility to her face, then go home to face their wives, daughters and female constituents.

As for a stalling tactic, I've got two words for you: Merrick Garland. You reap what you sow.

Bingo.

Lol, the Garland nomination was exactly the correct thing to do. The Congress would and should not have approved a Lame Duck nomination.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How do you know this is a false accusation?

Because the only witness she named denied it happened? Because it was 36 years ago? Because the timing and handling of this event reeks of the Democrat playbook? Because we already saw it happen to Justice Thomas? Lots of reasons it seems.

---

Bingo.

Lol, the Garland nomination was exactly the correct thing to do. The Congress would and should not have approved a Lame Duck nomination.

That's Calvinball and you know it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

How do you know this is a false accusation?

Because the only witness she named denied it happened? Because it was 36 years ago? Because the timing and handling of this event reeks of the Democrat playbook? Because we already saw it happen to Justice Thomas? Lots of reasons it seems.

---

Bingo.

Lol, the Garland nomination was exactly the correct thing to do. The Congress would and should not have approved a Lame Duck nomination.

Where is that stated in the Constitution?

---

Appears the vote is going through on Thursday, as it should.

---

This is now the political "go-to" move. Sensitive enough to where it can't be swept under the rug due to its nature, but serious enough to where it can take time to resolve.

There can't be a human alive that truly believes this woman came to her senses the weekend before a conformation vote decades after the alleged "incident". If this were a year ago, odds are none of this would be happening because the sole purpose of this delay tactic is an attempt to get to the mid term elections before voting on Kavanaugh.

IMO, a hard example needs to be set for false accusations like this to make others think long and hard

Looks like we may get to see how many male Republican senators have it in them to attack her credibility to her face, then go home to face their wives, daughters and female constituents.

As for a stalling tactic, I've got two words for you: Merrick Garland. You reap what you sow.

You mean question the veracity of her claims? I will say, though, your red meat description would make Chuck Schumer proud. 

And if I were a female member of a Republican senator's family, I would be angry if they did not use this opportunity to determine if Ford is crying wolf. I can't think of anything that cheapens women's rights more than one who does so strictly for political purposes.

---

Last I heard the committee recommendation vote has been postponed. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold full hearings on this accusation at the beginning of Next Week.

Just to Recap, The accuser in this case does not know when this alleged incident happened. This accuser does not know where this alleged incident happened. The accuser has named one potential corroborating witness, Mark Judge, who categorically denies that the event ever took place. The Accuser points to one other documented recounting of her story to a Couples therapist in 2012, some 30 years after the alleged incident and the released notes from that session do NOT name Bret Kavanaugh, just a random group of 4 (not two as the accuser currently asserts) Boys who attacked her at some alleged party/get together.

What the @#$^ Is there to investigate?

With sexual assault charges we have actually begun to invert the concept of due process. The modern left (in the public eye anyway) has lead us down the perception that an alleged victim has the right to be believed. What that means is that any woman making an allegation of sexual assault against a man is to be believed regardless of the veracity of her claim and apart from any supporting evidence or the lack there of. In reality, in a free democratic society with the presumption of innocence, then the opposite should be true. Criminal investigations should only be launched when there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and there is some supporting evidence. In the case of modern sexual assault the fact that the accuser is female is all the probable cause that the media needs. This claim is lacking any supporting evidence or even a basic testable premise of time place setting etc. The idea that we are going to give this woman the floor of the United States Senate to tell some sad story about a Party she doesn't even remember is laughable on its face.

Anyone comparing this to Merrick Garland is either ignorant or kidding themselves. The Republicans controlled the Senate and stated very clearly that they were not going to consider Garland's nomination because of previous stances taken by the Democrats and the coming election. They didn't coordinate a leak strategy to time a Story and destroy the name he spent his entire life building on the foundation of baseless unprovable claims to make him out to be a rapist. #contextmatters.

---

So, what are everyone's thoughts on this woman coming forward with a sexual assault charge from high school the weekend before the confirmation vote?

My thoughts regarding this woman?  I think that she is nothing more than a political hack hired by the DNC as a last ditch effort to foil President Trump's nomination to the Supreme Court.

There is no proof that the alleged assault ever took place and the only witness that she named denies that it ever happened.

It's nothing more than a cheap smear campaign by the left.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Not to mention this has been known about for weeks, including during the confirmation hearings.

This poor woman must be absolutely devastated.

---

What does the future of dating look like? Is the goal of the left to make men scared as hell of hitting on women?

---

Last I heard the committee recommendation vote has been postponed.  The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold full hearings on this accusation at the beginning of Next Week.  

Just to Recap, The accuser in this case does not know when this alleged incident happened.  This accuser does not know where this alleged incident happened.  The accuser has named one potential corroborating witness, Mark Judge, who categorically denies that the event ever took place.  The Accuser points to one other documented recounting of her story to a Couples therapist in 2012, some 30 years after the alleged incident and the released notes from that session do NOT name Bret Kavanaugh, just a random group of 4 (not two as the accuser currently asserts) Boys who attacked her at some alleged party/get together.  

What the @#$^ Is there to investigate?  

With sexual assault charges we have actually begun to invert the concept of due process.  The modern left (in the public eye anyway) has lead us down the perception that an alleged victim has the right to be believed.  What that means is that any woman making an allegation of sexual assault against a man is to be believed regardless of the veracity of her claim and apart from any supporting evidence or the lack there of.  In reality, in a free democratic society with the presumption of innocence, then the opposite should be true.  Criminal investigations should only be launched when there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and there is some supporting evidence.  In the case of modern sexual assault the fact that the accuser is female is all the probable cause that the media needs.  This claim is lacking any supporting evidence or even a basic testable premise of time place setting etc.  The idea that we are going to give this woman the floor of the United States Senate to tell some sad story about a Party she doesn't even remember is laughable on its face.  

Anyone comparing this to Merrick Garland is either ignorant or kidding themselves.  The Republicans controlled the Senate and stated very clearly that they were not going to consider Garland's nomination because of previous stances taken by the Democrats and the coming election.   They didn't coordinate a leak strategy to time a Story and destroy the name he spent his entire life building on the foundation of baseless unprovable claims to make him out to be a rapist.  #contextmatters.

You're correct that this situation is not exactly similar to Merrick Garland. First of all, it's not entirely clear that this is a deliberate delay tactics on the part of Democrats.  It was entirely clear that the Republicans intended to run out the clock on Merrick Garland.  Second of all the Republicans made no specific compalints against Merrick Garland at all.  They never said, "he made such and such decision that we disagreed with" or "he wrote such and such academic paper that we didn't like." They gave him no opportunity to answer any questions. They gave him no questions Democrats are at least making complaints about Kavanaugh that are specific to him.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Last I heard the committee recommendation vote has been postponed.  The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold full hearings on this accusation at the beginning of Next Week.  

Just to Recap, The accuser in this case does not know when this alleged incident happened.  This accuser does not know where this alleged incident happened.  The accuser has named one potential corroborating witness, Mark Judge, who categorically denies that the event ever took place.  The Accuser points to one other documented recounting of her story to a Couples therapist in 2012, some 30 years after the alleged incident and the released notes from that session do NOT name Bret Kavanaugh, just a random group of 4 (not two as the accuser currently asserts) Boys who attacked her at some alleged party/get together.  

What the @#$^ Is there to investigate?  

With sexual assault charges we have actually begun to invert the concept of due process.  The modern left (in the public eye anyway) has lead us down the perception that an alleged victim has the right to be believed.  What that means is that any woman making an allegation of sexual assault against a man is to be believed regardless of the veracity of her claim and apart from any supporting evidence or the lack there of.  In reality, in a free democratic society with the presumption of innocence, then the opposite should be true.  Criminal investigations should only be launched when there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and there is some supporting evidence.  In the case of modern sexual assault the fact that the accuser is female is all the probable cause that the media needs.  This claim is lacking any supporting evidence or even a basic testable premise of time place setting etc.  The idea that we are going to give this woman the floor of the United States Senate to tell some sad story about a Party she doesn't even remember is laughable on its face.  

Anyone comparing this to Merrick Garland is either ignorant or kidding themselves.  The Republicans controlled the Senate and stated very clearly that they were not going to consider Garland's nomination because of previous stances taken by the Democrats and the coming election.   They didn't coordinate a leak strategy to time a Story and destroy the name he spent his entire life building on the foundation of baseless unprovable claims to make him out to be a rapist.  #contextmatters.

You're correct that this situation is not exactly similar to Merrick Garland. First of all, it's not entirely clear that this is a deliberate delay tactics on the part of Democrats.  It was entirely clear that the Republicans intended to run out the clock on Merrick Garland.  Second of all the Republicans made no specific compalints against Merrick Garland at all.  They never said, "he made such and such decision that we disagreed with" or "he wrote such and such academic paper that we didn't like." They gave him no opportunity to answer any questions.  They gave him no questions  Democrats are at least making complaints about Kavanaugh that are specific to him.

More erudite commentary by our resident True Republican.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Looks like we may get to see how many male Republican senators have it in them to attack her credibility to her face, then go home to face their wives, daughters and female constituents.

As for a stalling tactic, I've got two words for you: Merrick Garland. You reap what you sow.

Herein lies the problem being accused of a sex crimes. Anyone that criticizes the accuser is implied to be sexist or misogynist. What would you do if you were accused? Just accept it?

Is she above criticism? Are men unable to criticize women?

Kavanaugh's mother evicted the accuser's parents decades ago. The person she said was a witness said it didn't happen. She doesn't even known when it happened or even most of the details. This was held for months. If it were important, or there was substance to it, then it would've been revealed earlier. There's nothing to these accusations.

---

Last I heard the committee recommendation vote has been postponed.  The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold full hearings on this accusation at the beginning of Next Week.  

Just to Recap, The accuser in this case does not know when this alleged incident happened.  This accuser does not know where this alleged incident happened.  The accuser has named one potential corroborating witness, Mark Judge, who categorically denies that the event ever took place.  The Accuser points to one other documented recounting of her story to a Couples therapist in 2012, some 30 years after the alleged incident and the released notes from that session do NOT name Bret Kavanaugh, just a random group of 4 (not two as the accuser currently asserts) Boys who attacked her at some alleged party/get together.  

What the @#$^ Is there to investigate?  

With sexual assault charges we have actually begun to invert the concept of due process.  The modern left (in the public eye anyway) has lead us down the perception that an alleged victim has the right to be believed.  What that means is that any woman making an allegation of sexual assault against a man is to be believed regardless of the veracity of her claim and apart from any supporting evidence or the lack there of.  In reality, in a free democratic society with the presumption of innocence, then the opposite should be true.  Criminal investigations should only be launched when there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and there is some supporting evidence.  In the case of modern sexual assault the fact that the accuser is female is all the probable cause that the media needs.  This claim is lacking any supporting evidence or even a basic testable premise of time place setting etc.  The idea that we are going to give this woman the floor of the United States Senate to tell some sad story about a Party she doesn't even remember is laughable on its face.  

Anyone comparing this to Merrick Garland is either ignorant or kidding themselves.  The Republicans controlled the Senate and stated very clearly that they were not going to consider Garland's nomination because of previous stances taken by the Democrats and the coming election.   They didn't coordinate a leak strategy to time a Story and destroy the name he spent his entire life building on the foundation of baseless unprovable claims to make him out to be a rapist.  #contextmatters.

You're correct that this situation is not exactly similar to Merrick Garland. First of all, it's not entirely clear that this is a deliberate delay tactics on the part of Democrats.  It was entirely clear that the Republicans intended to run out the clock on Merrick Garland.  Second of all the Republicans made no specific compalints against Merrick Garland at all.  They never said, "he made such and such decision that we disagreed with" or "he wrote such and such academic paper that we didn't like." They gave him no opportunity to answer any questions.  They gave him no questions  Democrats are at least making complaints about Kavanaugh that are specific to him.

Lol.  Not exactly similar?  One instance was the Senate majority leader using his constitutional role overseeing the senate in the process of advise and consent.  He stated, based on the stance taken by then sitting Vice President of the United States when he was head of the senate Judiciary committee.  Conversely this is a replay of the same disgusting political hit job that plagues certain Republican nominees when the Dems feel like they want to score political points at the expense of someone's life's work.  

As for no evidence, please.  a.) you can call it a stall tactic or a blatant attempt to derail his nomination wholesale.  The fact of the matter is that the Dems see, based on the generic ballot question, that there is an outside chance they could win the senate in November and if they get Kavanaugh pulled then that means that Schumer gets to gavel in a much more moderate even potentially left leaning nominee to fill Kennedy's seat.  b.) This guy has already undergone something on the order of 6 FBI background checks and already been through senate confirmation to the DC circuit court and his name has been out there for a year and this "letter" has been out there for the last 2 months.  It's just a coincidence that the left sat on this until all the hearings were over and we were less than two months away from an election and there is literally no time to in any way give this due process?  I have some swamp land to sell you.  

They Democrats didn't want a real investigation, there's no evidence or testable premise to investigate.  They want this to play out in the court of Public opinion and advance the narrative that republicans are the party of Fred Weatherford.

---

You're correct that this situation is not exactly similar to Merrick Garland. First of all, it's not entirely clear that this is a deliberate delay tactics on the part of Democrats.  It was entirely clear that the Republicans intended to run out the clock on Merrick Garland.  Second of all the Republicans made no specific compalints against Merrick Garland at all.  They never said, "he made such and such decision that we disagreed with" or "he wrote such and such academic paper that we didn't like." They gave him no opportunity to answer any questions.  They gave him no questions  Democrats are at least making complaints about Kavanaugh that are specific to him.

Lol.  Not exactly similar?  One instance was the Senate majority leader using his constitutional role overseeing the senate in the process of advise and consent.  He stated, based on the stance taken by then sitting Vice President of the United States when he was head of the senate Judiciary committee.  Conversely this is a replay of the same disgusting political hit job that plagues certain Republican nominees when the Dems feel like they want to score political points at the expense of someone's life's work.  

As for no evidence, please.  a.) you can call it a stall tactic or a blatant attempt to derail his nomination wholesale.  The fact of the matter is that the Dems see, based on the generic ballot question, that there is an outside chance they could win the senate in November and if they get Kavanaugh pulled then that means that Schumer gets to gavel in a much more moderate even potentially left leaning nominee to fill Kennedy's seat.  b.) This guy has already undergone something on the order of 6 FBI background checks and already been through senate confirmation to the DC circuit court and his name has been out there for a year and this "letter" has been out there for the last 2 months.  It's just a coincidence that the left sat on this until all the hearings were over and we were less than two months away from an election and there is literally no time to in any way give this due process?  I have some swamp land to sell you.  

They Democrats didn't want a real investigation, there's no evidence or testable premise to investigate.  They want this to play out in the court of Public opinion and advance the narrative that republicans are the party of Fred Weatherford.

There's no real connection between what McConnell did and what Biden proposed in 1992. Senator Biden specifically said that they should take up any nomination the day after the election in a lame duck session. McConnell specifically excluded that possibility and in fact intended to ignore anyone Hillary nominated as well if she won and McConnell also remained majority leader.  McConnell created an entirely new precedent of simply not allowing a judge to be added to the supreme Court unless the party of the President and the Majority Leader match.  This is a terrible precedent that is sure to bite us in the future even if it isnt now.

I agree that the letter alleging sexual assault is not really testable in terms of proof, but, like impeachment, Senate confirmation is not a process intended to prove anything.  It is a political process where the judge and jury are the same. The senators don't want to react to stuff that we don't understand, they want us, voters, to be engaged.  They already tried to show that Kavanaugh, about 15 years ago, while working for a President, used confidential documents that his friend stole off of Democrats' computers to give people he liked a heads up on what questions would be asked.  This indicates strongly that he thinks executive officials are allowed to spy on the other political party.  And he played dumb, saying he thought the Democrats wanted his nominees to have advance notice of questions.  Anyone shoukd be able to see the parallels between what he did to serve Bush 43 and what Trump alleges Obama did in spying on his campaign.  This is MUCH more indicative of the type of smarmy, corrupt, nakedly partisan judge he is likely to be, than which parts of which fully clothed girl he and a drunk friend may have groped 35 years ago.  
But the public is fickle.  15 year old female flesh is an easier story to sell.

---

You're correct that this situation is not exactly similar to Merrick Garland. First of all, it's not entirely clear that this is a deliberate delay tactics on the part of Democrats.  It was entirely clear that the Republicans intended to run out the clock on Merrick Garland.  Second of all the Republicans made no specific compalints against Merrick Garland at all.  They never said, "he made such and such decision that we disagreed with" or "he wrote such and such academic paper that we didn't like." They gave him no opportunity to answer any questions.  They gave him no questions  Democrats are at least making complaints about Kavanaugh that are specific to him.

More erudite commentary by our resident True Republican.

Again, asking the wrong questions.
RollerJag only mentioned the process of blacking Garland.  And I agree with him there.
If someone had mentioned anything about Garlands legal opinions, you'd probably see me agreeing that Gorsuch was better to fill that seat.

---

[quote='flsprtsgod' pid='1147627' dateline='1537241621']

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Because the only witness she named denied it happened? Because it was 36 years ago? Because the timing and handling of this event reeks of the Democrat playbook? Because we already saw it happen to Justice Thomas? Lots of reasons it seems.

---

Lol, the Garland nomination was exactly the correct thing to do. The Congress would and should not have approved a Lame Duck nomination.

Where is that stated in the Constitution?

Where is it not?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Where is that stated in the Constitution?

Where is it not?

"Congress should do everything that isn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, whenever politically convenient in the short term, even if it's never been done in 200 years" is not how conservative or libertarian or originalist thought is supposed to work.  That's how liberals think. And you know it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol.  Not exactly similar?  One instance was the Senate majority leader using his constitutional role overseeing the senate in the process of advise and consent.  He stated, based on the stance taken by then sitting Vice President of the United States when he was head of the senate Judiciary committee.  Conversely this is a replay of the same disgusting political hit job that plagues certain Republican nominees when the Dems feel like they want to score political points at the expense of someone's life's work.  

As for no evidence, please.  a.) you can call it a stall tactic or a blatant attempt to derail his nomination wholesale.  The fact of the matter is that the Dems see, based on the generic ballot question, that there is an outside chance they could win the senate in November and if they get Kavanaugh pulled then that means that Schumer gets to gavel in a much more moderate even potentially left leaning nominee to fill Kennedy's seat.  b.) This guy has already undergone something on the order of 6 FBI background checks and already been through senate confirmation to the DC circuit court and his name has been out there for a year and this "letter" has been out there for the last 2 months.  It's just a coincidence that the left sat on this until all the hearings were over and we were less than two months away from an election and there is literally no time to in any way give this due process?  I have some swamp land to sell you.  

They Democrats didn't want a real investigation, there's no evidence or testable premise to investigate.  They want this to play out in the court of Public opinion and advance the narrative that republicans are the party of Fred Weatherford.

There's no real connection between what McConnell did and what Biden proposed in 1992. Senator Biden specifically said that they should take up any nomination the day after the election in a lame duck session. McConnell specifically excluded that possibility and in fact intended to ignore anyone Hillary nominated as well if she won and McConnell also remained majority leader.  McConnell created an entirely new precedent of simply not allowing a judge to be added to the supreme Court unless the party of the President and the Majority Leader match.  This is a terrible precedent that is sure to bite us in the future even if it isnt now.

1.) It was cited as the BIDEN rule, there are tapes.  2.) Please show me anywhere that Mitch McConnel said he would not hold hearings on a Clinton Nominee during her presidency.  

I agree that the letter alleging sexual assault is not really testable in terms of proof, but, like impeachment, Senate confirmation is not a process intended to prove anything.  It is a political process where the judge and jury are the same. The senators don't want to react to stuff that we don't understand, they want us, voters, to be engaged.  They already tried to show that Kavanaugh, about 15 years ago, while working for a President, used confidential documents that his friend stole off of Democrats' computers to give people he liked a heads up on what questions would be asked.  This indicates strongly that he thinks executive officials are allowed to spy on the other political party.  And he played dumb, saying he thought the Democrats wanted his nominees to have advance notice of questions.  Anyone shoukd be able to see the parallels between what he did to serve Bush 43 and what Trump alleges Obama did in spying on his campaign.  This is MUCH more indicative of the type of smarmy, corrupt, nakedly partisan judge he is likely to be, than which parts of which fully clothed girl he and a drunk friend may have groped 35 years ago.  
But the public is fickle.  15 year old female flesh is an easier story to sell.

---

More erudite commentary by our resident True Republican.

Again, asking the wrong questions.
RollerJag only mentioned the process of blacking Garland.  And I agree with him there.
If someone had mentioned anything about Garlands legal opinions, you'd probably see me agreeing that Gorsuch was better to fill that seat.

---

More erudite commentary by our resident True Republican.

Again, asking the wrong questions.
RollerJag only mentioned the process of blocking Garland.  And I agree with him there.
If someone had mentioned anything about Garlands legal opinions, you'd probably see me agreeing that Gorsuch was better to fill that seat.

Unfortunately, you don't have that much credibility to loose, but any and all of it just went out the window when you compared passing along a leaked staffer's copy of a few confirmation questions to a multi million dollar counter intelligence operation against American citizens in violation of pretty much every rule we have on using American intelligence assets for the purpose of spreading disiniformation, providing a foundation for foreign (including Russian) propaganda used to deceive the FISC court and resulted in the frivolous prosecution of American citizens including a uniformed General and National Security Adviser Designee.  

Please, do your homework next time!

---