Trending Content - Off Topic Forum
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
July 31, 2026
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
High Finance Applications
Guaranteed
Get at least one offer GUARANTEED
- 1:1 support
- 92% success rate
- 2,000+ mentor network
- Unlimited Live bootcamps
- AI for resume + LinkedIn
- Networking automation tools
- HireVue simulation tool
- Full course library
- Private Slack community
- 20hrs of mocks
- + much more...
If anyone thinks these allegations are true need to do us all a favor and jump out of a high window. These accusers have said things like " I wasn't sure about the details from 30+ years ago until I just recently spent 6 days in a room with lawyers" Obviously leaving out the qualifer that these "lawyers" are activist attorneys who are doing nothing but driving a story into the person head until they actually believe it themselves. Who realeases a acquisation that is basically "I was too drunk to recall any details, but I remember distincly it was X person and the hip thrust that comes from pulling pants up". It just screams made up to anyone who isn't ideologically driven to believe.
Well.. I was trying to be inclusive
Un-biased review with plenty of quantifiable evidence. Thanks.
I don't believe her one bit. BUT to be honest, I was scared after originally hearing her speak. Then comes DA MAN... AKA Heavyweight Justice Kavanaugh with the KNOCK OUT punch. What a testimony.
Lindsey Graham is also a new found legend. WOW!
Lindsey Graham killed it.
Absolutely. That was beautiful.
Lindsey Graham came off as batshit insane and hypocritical. How can ANY Republican say this: "All I can say is that we’re 40 days away from the election, and their goal — not Ms. Ford’s goal — is to lay this past the midterms so they can win the Senate and never allow Trump to fill this seat"?
This is verbatim what the GOP did with Merrick Garland. Among the conservatives on this site, do any of you care to defend/explain this? Why is "the American people have a right to vote on SCOTUS nominees, if indirectly" a valid defense against appointing a moderate Merrick Garland but completely out of line for Kavanaugh?
So, Graham is bad because for once in his life he said the truth? I know you liberals think conservatives are dumb, but do you really think everyone is completely retarded and doesn't see what's going on?
The obvious difference here is the GOP simply refused to vote, whereas Graham is accusing the Dems of ruining someone's life by using these allegations for their own political motives. The latter, if true, is obviously worse.
That doesn't mean that I don't still harbor outrage for what the GOP did with Garland. I'm someone who probably, if given a vote, would choose Gorsich over Garland. But the ends in no way justify the means in my view. The Republicans in the Senate abused their power and refused to do their constitutional duty in order to keep a qualified candidate off the court. They worked around the intent of the constitution to fit their own agenda, and they did long-term damage to a sacred institution of the United States. I'm not saying that would justify the Dems behavior to the extent this is a political stunt, but I also can't bring myself to sympathize with the Republicans after they opened Pandora's box.
No, it is fundamentally different. The Senate has the explicit power to ignore any nominee a President puts forward. The minority party doesn't have the explict right to push forward pastys in a ridicilous ploy to try and run a nomination into the ditch. The hilarious part of this whole thing is that the democrats just got done complaining the republicans pulled a nuclear option to pass something. A thing the democrats created in the previous administration.
hell yeah he did bro
I'm not sure the allegations even need to be true at this point. Does this man look like someone qualified to be a Supreme Court justice? He's been on a partisan rant for the better part of an hour, and isn't shy about it. I understand the Court is politically polarized, but it beggars belief that anyone is considering putting someone into a lifetime appointment who has just spent 45 minutes saying "I'm not a judge, I am a Republican, and Democrats are going to reap what they've sown once I'm on the Court." The man is patently unfit for duty.
And all of this, of course, with GOP Senators making the unbelievably hypocritical spectacle of claiming that their nominee is being unfairly attacked for partisan reasons. That anyone can say with a straight face that shit like this happens only to Republicans, and not Democrats, is absurd. Al Franken resigned for much lesser reasons recently. And Merrick Garland certainly has something to say about the borderline-illegal politicization of the SCOTUS nominee process.
And by the way, I can remember details like hooking up with someone at a frat party, without being able to tell you what frat was hosting. Anyone who claims that they have a perfect memory is lying, while it's perfectly within the realm of possibility to remember a traumatic event in detail without remembering the contextual minutiae
I believe these allegations are false and political. That being said, I think Kavanaugh's temperament really hurt him today, in terms of being fit for a supreme court position. I understand how angry he is and I would act in a similar way, however, I believe it may end up providing hesitant Republican's an excuse not to vote for him. Anyone who believes these allegations are true and not political is an absolute fool.
"He shouldn't be mad at being accused of being a gang rapist, rather composed and sterile." Literally the worst argument ever made in the history of the fucking universe, and making me seriously rethink my position on whether to use the word "libtard."
She seemed credible and he seems credible. However, his defiance, defensiveness and arrogance is a bit much. He yelled and mocked people asking questions, these are the same people who will be voting for or against his confirmation. A much better strategy would have been to just answer the questions in a calm and respectful way.
To be fair... he was called a gang rapist.
Yes, but the senators were referencing the third accuser's statements. Swetnick implied that he had a role in gang rapes.
On a tangent, do you see how old these senators are? Leahy is the perfect case for term limits.
Chuck Grassley is 7 years older than Leahy.
Lump him in too.
I think that most of us can agree that term limits are a good idea.
He's not fit to be on the SCOTUS...like a poster above said, you don't want anyone who said they have a revenge campaign planned on the Supreme Court.
I can't blame the guy. The dems may have inadvertently pushed Kav farther to the right than when he started.
That is like... literally the opposite of non-partisan and unbiased if so..
So what you're saying is that a Supreme Court justice is allowed to be biased and overtly political if his feelings have been hurt? You do understand the purpose of the Supreme Court, and well, any judgeship at all, right?
He's all but stated that this hearing (which, by the way, is the POINT of Senate nomination hearings) has predisposed him to be antagonistic towards Democrats. Can you imagine if you were on trial, and you walked into a court, and the judge said that he was explicitly not going to give you an unbiased trial because of... well, anything? Maybe he doesn't like the initials SC, so he's going to favor the party to a case opposing @Spin Control.
The whole thing is bonkers and it's sad that partisanship is so bad that most of the Senate is going to vote for this clearly unqualified individual because they think he might overturn Roe vs Wade or something. I mean... there must be a hundred conservative judges who will vote the same way as Kavanaugh - just nominate one of them!
He needs to be unbiased if he is taking that position. You do not want an emotional manchild sitting in a position like that. Ideally they'd grab someone reputable for being a cold & calculated decision maker.
Strange that Kavanaugh thinks he's safe just because nothing will stop the Republicans from confirming him. I guess he's banking on the Dems never controlling Congress again.
I thought polls were suggesting that dems are favored for the midterms
If you look at history and past midterms, the Democrats have a better chance of winning, so that might come back to haunt him. But at the rate this is going, Kavanaugh should be confirmed before November. Honestly, Ford may have some credibility, but there's absolutely no doubt that this move is political.
Dems need a 2/3 majority to impeach. Even if they gain substantial seats, it’s very unlikely they’d ever gain a 2/3 majority.
Statistically, about 95% of sexual assault allegations are true. (It is possible that this one is not true) Why would a professor lie about sexual assault? The risk for her would be jail time. Why would she want to take that risk? About 2/3 of sexual assaults do not get reported for a variety of reasons.
Idk maybe she believes herself because she's a psycho super liberal? Either that or the DNC is putting a million bucks in her piggy bank.
Would you accept $1,000,000 but take the risk of going to jail? I definitely would not take the risk..
What is more likely, that she is a "psycho super liberal" who decided that she was going to make life difficult for a random judge, or that Brett Kavanaugh, who by all accounts is a heavy drinker, just blacked out about the night he sexually assaulted her. I'd bet most members of this site have nights where they have hazy-to-nonexistent memories, and Brett Kavanaugh is almost certainly no exception.
Plus... none of this came up around Neil Gorsuch. If this is all a liberal plot, why is it being so selectively applied?
This 95% stat being bandied about is absolutely absurd.
How can you say 95% of claims are true?
Do 95% of people who are accused of rape/harassment found guilty?
This is an unbelievably stupid statistic that constantly gets bandied about with no corroboration.
Lying about assault, and being wrong about details of an assualt are two entirely different thing.
Statistically you just 100% made up a number.
You told me to speak to a lawyer higher up on the thread.
I would ask you to speak to a law student at any decent school, and pose the question: should that 95% true statistic be used to assume guilt? Yes, yes, it’s not an actual trial. That is such a dangerous path to take and a perversion of the justice system.
Just want to drop this in now, my money is that Kavanaugh makes it through. This whole thing is looking more and more like a ruse.
After that revolting performance Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. He is unfit for office.
I was concerned about partisanship (he investigated the Vince Foster conspiracy theory) and legal judgement (he doesn't think Presidents should be investigated in office and may think they should be able to pardon themselves) before. Blasey's accusations, while possible, had a lot of holes.
Now I think Kavanaugh is an angry partisan, and pretty likely was a drunk groper (p.s. he's not accused of rape). Why is he (and the GOP) refusing an FBI investigation? Stepnick's claims match up with his own calendar timeline and she claims to have multiple witnesses, but GOP wants to vote without hearing her out or investigating it. There is no credible reason for this except fear of discovery.
How the hell does he expect to be taken as a fair arbiter when he just shat out a bunch of partisan GOP nonsense rather than trying to defend himself on the facts (which I thought might actually favor him in the Blasey case)?
This guy should be done, he's proven himself unfit for the Court. If his nomination passes without investigations into Stepnick/Blasey claims then he is an illegitimate justice, and I will support his impeachment
Voluptatem et rerum animi quia natus esse consequatur. Ad omnis debitis in et quas. Quam commodi deleniti veniam blanditiis maiores nihil quo.
Delectus nemo tempore ut magni est quo facilis. Quod aut nihil veritatis architecto quod ipsum quis eum. Aut nihil aut quod amet molestiae. Voluptatem et accusamus et aperiam ipsa qui.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Inventore consequatur tempore reiciendis voluptates dolor aut. In nihil accusantium molestiae nesciunt sapiente. Voluptates cupiditate aperiam commodi dolores. Perferendis eum enim non odit ad nostrum similique.
Nemo beatae tempora nemo dolores odit aut. Necessitatibus praesentium et velit provident qui molestias. Quis dignissimos totam rerum dolorem quia. Ipsa culpa eveniet incidunt facere amet in exercitationem dolores. Tempore consectetur omnis qui officia quibusdam vero. Illo maxime harum quod molestiae cumque maiores voluptas voluptas.
Possimus ut sapiente maiores. Laudantium cupiditate qui nemo quos consequatur amet dolores porro. Voluptatem aspernatur vitae fugit similique. Neque et non beatae.
Numquam rerum perferendis sit non et officiis. Provident sit et aut enim est sed. A atque id dolores vel. Ea tempore est aut quia voluptatum.