@padraig o connell: (In David Attenborough voice) “And here we have the classic defensive posture……. knowing they have no defence they try to change the subject. It’s a particularly well known behaviour anthropologists call “Whataboutery” or “Classic Deflection”.

@padraig o connell: “Her evidence has been discredited already”

You know that we can see you lying, right?

@padraig o connell: Even if he is proven to be innocent of this, his lying, childish ranting and partisan outbursts have proven that he is not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge.

@Tricia G: it’s easier if you just say that he’s a moron. He’ll understand that, but long words and thoughtful phrasing are wasted on Paddy there.

@Mary Mc Carthy: pure dirt

@Tricia G: where is the evidence she contacted the republicans before he was the nominee

@Mary Mc Carthy: Donald Tramp.

@Karen Ryan: She called her Congress Member on July 6th. She testified under oath, if she hadn’t you can bet your bottom dollar her phone records would prove it. And they’d be ALL over it because it would have proved she lied.

@Karen Ryan: Timeline

JULY 6: Christine Ford sends a letter to Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) alleging that she was sexually assaulted in high school by Brett Kavanaugh, a leading contender to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Ford also sends a text about the incident to the Washington Post. The assault allegedly took place in the early 1980s, when Ford was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17.

JULY 6 to JULY 8: Christine Ford tells ‘beach friends’ in California for the first time that she was assaulted by Kavanaugh and asks for advice on whether to go public.

JULY 9: President Donald Trump nominates Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. After the announcement, a staffer in Rep. Eshoo’s office calls Ford to discuss her allegations against Kavanaugh.

@Tricia G: no, you stated she contacted “Republicans” before he was the nominee. I’m asking you where is the evidence to support your claim ?

@padraig o connell: weather it’s a con by the democrats or not it’s hardly appropriate for Trump to openly mock someone who’s at the centre of the biggest news story right now. There’s such a thing as restraint it’s something that somebody in a position of power like he is should show because it’s simple decency. Some say he’s evil and I don’t agree but things like this cements my opinion that he’s a narcissistic bully with little to no respect for anyone but himself. No other world leader would do anything like this

@Tricia G: to quote you “Dr. Ford started the process of trying to contact the Republicans BEFORE Kavanaugh was the nominee. She wanted to prevent this. There is evidence showing this and yet you think this is some big “sting” operation.” again where is the evidence she contacted the Republicans , we all know she contacted the Dems ,

@padraig o connell: Yes, in an ironic twist of fate, Kavanaugh was actually part of the legal team that cruelly threatened a then 22 year-old Lewinsky with federal prison if she didn’t cooperate in their plan to have him impeached for perjury. Turns out, they had no grounds for making this threat, but they were that desperate to oust Clinton that they did it anyway, so it was – as you say – a complete ‘con’ job. They ruined the poor girls life, you can learn more about it on the ‘slow burn’ podcast:

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/panoply/slow-burn-a-podcast-about-watergate

@Karen Ryan: You’re right, I did. My mistake, I meant she contacted her Congressperson.

But surely you can see that she still was attempting to prevent him being picked as the nominee. Surely what matters is she did it whilst he was still on the shortlist and before he was nominated.

@Karen Ryan: If it was a big con as some people are claiming wouldn’t she have only accused him after he became the nominee? What benefit to the Dems by raising it prior to him even being the nominee.

@padraig o connell: what a cockswab you are.

@padraig o connell: Delusional thinking.

@Tricia G: grasping at straws :D you did realize that her witnesses said it never happened right?

@Ballybunion Surf: Are you seriously defending the mocking of a woman claiming to have been sexually assaulted?

Due Process would have been an FBI investigation like the one ordered for Clarence Thomas. It would have been interviewing the witnesses named as being IN the room.

There is literally no depth some people will sink to defend that man.

@Liam O’Conchubhair: I haven’t heard anything about him tampering & I don’t know how he could have but although it’s probably unpopular of me to say, I still believe that his testimony (while a little bit shaky) was a lot more convincing than hers. How she can remember the incident so perfectly clearly and remember perfectly she had only one drink (at 15yrs of age) and not remember which house or whose, what date, how she got there or got home is not believable. Generally, victims remember the build up & the aftermath while the incident is hazy because it’s traumatic. It’s sounds too convenient but I definitely agree with you that the president should refrain from mimicking her even if she was found to be lying. It should be beneath the office but unfortunately it’s not beneath Trump.

@John Mullin: I disagree with you on his testimony, it was all over the place and he sounded like he was about to cry over some things and scream in rage at some others. But yes, it’s important to keep the presumption of innocence, while taking the accusations seriously
.

@John Mullin: convincing? He broke down during his own prepared remarks, got outraged during his own prepared remarks, insulted senators and resorted to political hackery, all he did was give another reason why he shouldn’t be confirmed.

@neilo: I know that memories can vary from person to person but research backs up what I said to be true also. In fact, assuming that Kavanaugh is innocent, research can also show that as a victim of serious false allegations with the potential to ruin his career, financially, his reputation, his marriage, his family situation and therefore access to his own children, then it’s quite understandable if he was emotional on the stand and he was acting in accordance with how a victim of this would act. It works both ways and as you know different research dictates different results. I’m not taking anything away from your post but I did say “generally” on purpose because I know that one rule does not fit all. I’m not saying she is lying just that (I believe) him to be more credible than her.

@neilo: To refer to the attendance of both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh at the Senate hearing as a “job interview” displays a total lack of understanding of the seriousness of the situation for both.
The evidence they gave, and the other sworn statements, were made under penalty of felony, as they describe it, and if they are found to have lied could end up in jail as a result.
Which, from overnight reports from the US, could be a much greater problem for Professor Ford than Judge Kavanaugh.
Trump has let himself down again with his comments, but over the weekend Judge Kavanaugh on SNL, and his young daughter in a newspaper cartoon, were mocked mercilessly by the Clinton Democrat media.
But I guess they deserved it.

@Dave O Keeffe: I wasn’t talking about his job application, I was talking about him responding to a serious allegation of sexual violence. It’s obvious from your posts that you don’t believe him and that’s ok because I respect your right to your opinion based on what you saw. But can I ask you seriously, if he was cool, calm and collected in his testimony responding to those allegations, would you then have believed him? I doubt it, tbh, because I believe that you had your mind made up beforehand like many others. If I was in his position and I believed that I was being stitched up by political rivals in a way that will not only ruin my job prospects but my life also, I believe I would probably have been going between those same exact emotions during testimony as he was.

@Liam O’Conchubhair: I felt her testimony was rehearsed as she had a lot more time than Kavanaugh who only had 2 days but in my opinion he acted like someone who was distressed over wrongful allegations. If he was very calm throughout, I would have doubted him but I thought he acted like any man would who thought he was about to lose everything so I guess we’ll agree to disagree on testimony and I respect your belief in hers too. Like I said before, nobody knows for sure.

@Liam O’Conchubhair: not to mention the disabled reporter he also mocked. He has no filter whatsoever; anything is fair game to him.

@neilo: An old partner of hers has come forward to say that he witnessed her coaching someone on how to take a polygraph test.
She was asked directly during the Senate hearing if she had ever done any such coaching, and she replied “Never”.
If this is found to be accurate, it could be a bit awkward for her.

@John Mullin: sorry but unlike most people I am able to separate my personal opinions on him from my opinion on his guilt/innocence with regard to the allegations. My opinion on him was solidified by his testimony. My opinion on his guilt/innocence was not changed. I still believe that both could be telling the truth. We do not have enough information. There’s also a scenario where they are both telling the truth which is also plausible. I do not believe that Dr. Blasey Ford is lying. Now that to me either means she’s 100% correct or she has the wrong guy. I still believe that if the FBI does not come back with something conclusive that the vote should be held. Like I said, it is not the accusations that make me not want him to be confirmed, it’s his record.

@Rachel O’ Meara: You don’t that was mocking?
Really?

Right…….

@Tricia G: I’d say it was a factual portrayal. When asked those questions those were her responses. Is your point of view that she didn’t say those things or is it you’re annoyed that Trump repeated them?

@Rachel O’ Meara: The man is clearly unhinged

@Rachel O’ Meara: I think you know very well what his intention was repeating his interpretation of her testimony in front to that crowd.

All the laughing and clapping? That, in your apparent opinion, wasn’t mocking.

You realise no one believes you when you say he wasn’t mocking her.

What WAS his intention then? Why was the crowd laughing and clapping?

You know fine well what was going on there and the fact your defending it is absolutely appalling.

Anyone with an ounce of empathy would have made those comments in front of that crowd. He wanted the laughing and clapping. And you know it.

Stop being disingenuous, no one thinks you mean anything you say, you’re desperately grasping at straws because you know it’s appalling behaviour.

@JedBartlett: Which man? Trump or Kavanaugh?

@Rachel O’ Meara: Like you,i already know the answer to that question…but thanks for your reply..

@Tricia G: He was commenting on the fact that according to some it’s now guilty until proven innocent, he repeated what she said under questioning, the crowd laughed and clapped. Is he now responsible for the crowds reaction? Has he that much power? Or are you annoyed that he’s a man stating that anyone accused should be considered innocent until proven guilty?

@Rachel O’ Meara: Ah now you’re just being ridiculous.

You know as well as I do that he’s perfectly cognizant of what the crowds reaction is going to be. Putting your fingers in your ears and going la la la la la doesn’t alter that fact.

Flat our lying doesn’t help you win the debate “Rachel” when everyone knows that’s what you’re doing.

@Tricia G: Again you have to watch the lead up to that clip. He made an important point on the fact that it’s now guilty until proven innocent, I’d say in today’s climate that’s an accurate statement. He spoke about lack of evidence and used her responses to weight his point of view. Again it was an accurate portrayal. Of course the crowd was going to applaud it was a conservative rally full of Trump supporters. The crowd laughed that’s the problem you have, your issue is not what Trump said but their reaction to what he said.

@Rachel O’ Meara: Psst, innocent until proven guilty applies to both sides

@Dave O Keeffe: Not if you’re accusing someone of something serious, isn’t the mantra automatically believe the accuser. I’m of the opinion no one should be belived until evidence backs the innocent party up, be that accused or accuser, man or woman.

@Rachel O’ Meara: Her testimony WAS evidence, as was his. That’s enough to form an opinion on who is more credible and both their EVIDENCE backs her up.

@Rachel O’ Meara: grow the f**K up woman. Pathetic view point.

@Kem Trayle: Partly, there’s absolutely no one backing her story up, even her best friend has no recollection of that party or even knowing Kavanaugh.

@Nial D: How very grown up of you Nial. Well done.

@Tom Doyle: Her responses don’t even meet the minimum measure of evidence required for a trial let alone actually proving he’s guilty. There’s no when, what where, there’s only who. I COULD say you sexually assaulted me without any shred of evidence and your saying people should believe me just because I said it was true. That seems fair…

@Tom Doyle: Triggered

@Rachel O’ Meara: You are clearly struggling with this.
We will never get to the truth of this matter,as the statue of limitations has passed.What my main irk is,is a ‘presidents’ behaviour towards a person that has made those allegations.Do you get it now ?

@Mark Mc Steve: Would you ever just fe.ck off,yah annoying little git.You pop up on these threads,saying the same old stupid comments ‘over and over’ again..lols,hahaha..*huge yawn*..

@Mark Mc Steve: You’re like a child, aren’t you.

I asked on another article what it was about Trump that made you like him and want to defend him but I don’t think you actually know……..

I think you just like those men that put themselves out there a “strong men” and you feel safer. Even though logically and historically “strong men” are usually dictators in waiting and pretty frickin paranoid.

You really don’t know what it is about him you admire, (because you know logically there isn’t much there but you can ignore all that cos it makes you “feel good”.

That’s kinda sad really……

@Tom Doyle: Have you watched the speech leading up to that clip, he was talking about being innocent until proven guilty and how it’s now considered by some that it’s guilty until proven innocent and he referenced the compleat lack of evidence in this particular case, he has every right to comment on that, be it in an interview or at a rally.

@Mark Mc Steve: You understandably consider yourself to be a weak, pathetic man so you latch on to the fantasy of a terrible human being becoming president. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

@Rachel O’ Meara: It is like reasoning with a rock with ye folks.As the president of the U.S.,does he represent ‘all of the people’ in America ? ‘yes’ or ‘no’?

@Tom Doyle: I understand your need to lash out verbally but insulting me for stating facts is a bit childish. Trump is part of this circus and he has every right to comment on it publicly. Just like everyone else involved. I don’t particularly like him but that doesn’t mean I can’t look at the situation from an unbiased point of view.

@Rachel O’ Meara: He is the president of his country,which means that he represents ‘all’ of the people.I would have more respect for him if he just let things play out and go and wish the lady well…What is the point of making his fans hate her even more ?

@Tom Doyle: Tom I do agree he tends to get sucked into them vs us at events but that’s him, it’s also one of the reasons I dislike him, that and his voice (it grates on my nerves) but in this case as he’s part of it he’s entitled to comment. He’s not the only one who gets sucked into them vs us, when it comes to him people automatically take sides, some people hate him so much they’re blinded by their rage, same can be said about those who support him, they’re blinded by their devotion. Like all things in life it’s not black and white. Here personally speaking I believe he had the right to say what he said.

@Tom Doyle: Take a chill pill man, relax no need to get so pent up over the US president get a life ha

@Tricia G: I like him because he drives all you nutters crazy for some strange reason. The only thing thats sad is all you lot loosing your **** over something that has no bearing on you whatsoever imo

@Luke McDermott: pay day today. Thanks for that. Keep up the good work

@Rachel O’ Meara: so why then does he assume she’s guilty of lying? It works both ways

@Mark Mc Steve: That’s a really terrible reason for liking someone…….

@Dave O Keeffe: He didn’t assume, there’s literally no evidence, even her best friend denied they were there. She’s contradicted herself on several occasions after saying the event was so traumatic it was burned into her memory. She’s a walking contradiction.

@John Mullin: “that’s one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen posted here and that’s saying something.”

That’s very harsh John.
Chucky regularly posts utter nonsense much worse than that.
You owe her an apology.

@Dell: which same people are you referring to Dell? Are you on about the same type of people who believe in innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and judged by a jury of your peers or the type of people who love to join in on a mob rule sort of witch hunt based on one persons accusation which resulted in the death by burning, drowning or hanging of thousands of unfortunate innocent women during the Middle Ages? It’s not quite clear from your post…

@Dell: If Trump had picked him? Of course they would defend him…

@Tom Doyle: defending the integrity of the innocent until proven guilty notion, rejecting the trial by media/social media concept and the right of anyone to due process is what people are doing not defending Trump but some people are a bit slow and might have a Trump/ anti-Trump fetish and need to make it all about him. There’s only so many times that this can be explained.. you can bring a stupid thirsty donkey to water but you can’t make him drink it, I suppose.

@John Mullin: ..or you can also say that you have a few garda friends and take their “research” as facts…

This is a job interview ,not a criminal case,lad.The lady cannot have ‘due process’ as the ‘statue of limitations’ has gone..

ps; I’ve never said that she is ‘innocent’ nor that he is ‘guilty’…now, jog on..

@John Mullin: everyone has an opinion on whether someone is innocent or not and just like trump did here at a rally, they are entitled to express that opinion.. The problem is when someone makes an accusation and the government have to be forced to actually investigate it. This should have been the first thing to happen, not some public hearing that amounted to nothing except to allow an investigation. Is this being used by the Democrats to keep him out? Yes it is. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be investigated and let’s face it, if he did do it, under no circumstance should he be given that job. You can’t stop people from having an opinion and trump himself has gotten to where he is by making ridiculous claims and accusations, let’s not forget his claims about Mexicans and only some of them being good. This excuse for a man has been preaching nothing but hatred and now turns around and talks about innocent until proven guilty and expresses his worries about men as a collective when he judges all as collectives.

@Tom Doyle: first of all “lad”, I never said I had a few Garda friends doing research for me. Secondly, I know it was a type of job interview and I only referred to the serious allegation made against him and his right to defend himself. Thirdly, the due process I was talking about was Kavanaugh being given the right to defend himself against any such allegations that could ruin his life. Lastly, maybe you should “jog on” as you seem to be finding it difficult to understand the language or messages in these posts or is it that you are one of these snowflake types that feels compelled to act all outraged towards people who don’t share the same opinion as you & your macho rhetoric is simply phrases you’ve copied from posters hanging on the walls of your internet sanctuary ie parents basement

@Dell: I don’t disagree with anything you wrote in that post, Dell

@Tom Doyle: lad

@Chucky Arlaw: Why didn’t she bring him to court? that’s what i can’t understand.

@Sean Conway: there are vast quantities of women and men who have been sexually assaulted who do not go to court. Bare in mind also that he is a judge. Even here that would be an impossible task, let alone there where he is backed by some incredibly wealthy republicans

@Mark McAuley: “complete disregard for due process”?

Democrats, and most right-thinking people, have been crying out for a professional investigation by one of the world’s highest-regarded investigating bodies – the FBI. But Republicans have been saying “no no no”.

So unless you are referring to Republicans when you talk about “liberals who have complete disregard for due process” I don’t know what you think you are on about.

@Vote4Pedro: Getting “bent out of shape” is just another word for “appalled”, which is what you’ll find how most decent, empathetic people would react to his “performance”.

@Tricia G: Appalled is not synonym for bent out of shape try shocked, astonished, infuriated, incensed, irate, livid or desperate.

@Tricia G: because it’s funny

@Larissa Nikolaus: no matter how many times that it is said to them,they just go and ignore it..

@Jackie Carvill Caruana: Indeed everyone should be afforded the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise..however do you think this is an appropriate manner for the president of a country to behave? Would you be proud to see the President of Ireland or the Taoiseach behaving like this?

@neilo: actually the article from the onion is being posted by anti Kavanaugh people. It ridicules him for his reaction to the claim(not evidence as the article above states). What exactly is the ‘right’ way for someone to respond to a 32 year old allegation?

@Sorcha Ní Shúilleabháin: I’ve seen the Taoiseach behave a lot worse!

@Jackie Carvill Caruana: when have you seen the taoiseach behave worse exactly? I’m no fan of Leo but seriously?

@Tricia G: how do u know he identifies as male?

@Vote4Pedro: You seem very focused on Trans people, are you scared of them? So many guys seem to be terrified of those that don’t conform to their understanding of what masculine behaviour should be.

@Kieran Hughes: mind you you look a little old to be a snowflake . “Scary sh,t” grow up man

@nick_d: you are upset that an on-line newspaper hasn’t run articles about a comedy / satire show taking the mick out of the American president? Taking the mick out of politicians is what shows like SNL *do* – it’s their bread and butter! It’s what they are *about*! What’s next – a complaint that the onion isn’t reporting on Trump accurately, or that our own Waterford Whispers isn’t reporting proceedings in the Oireachtas fairly??? :D lol

Good grief I thought it was liberals who were supposed to be the special snowflakes who couldn’t handle satire!