Kavanaugh vote postponed. Judiciary Committee hearing on Sexual Assault complain Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

So in your mind, women (and men) who defend the accuser’s right to be heard and not summarily dismissed and/or savaged and discredited equates to people who are jealous and hate men?

Okie dokie.

NOPE. Not what I said. I'm saying that I don't think the accused should be "savaged and discredited" either. And, yes, there have been a lot of DCUM posts on Kavanaugh threads that describe men--and Kavanaugh, in particular-- in an incredibly vile and negative way.

This may be news to you, but putting aside the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh has consistently treated women as second class citizens in his opinions. Most women don’t appreciate that. Shocking, I know.

PP here. A person's reputation, which can vary depending on the political, religious, cultural, etc. perspective of others, shouldn't be the determining factor re turning an accusation into a conviction by public opinion.

He is not getting convicted of anything. His suitability for a lifetime appointment to one of the most important jobs in the country is being determined. Character and perception counts. But even if he is found unworthy, he still has his current prestigious lifetime appointment and his girls' basketball team. Not a bad consolation prize for what could have been a life-changing mistake for him.

If he didn't do anything, why should he have to settle for a consolation prize at all? And also - you really think the parents of his basketball players are going to let him coach anymore? Pretty sure that ship has sailed, thanks to all of this.

Being Chief Justice of the DC Circuit is a consolation prize? And the other dozen conservative justices on the list — they are worthless? Because they don’t have debt, high school blackout drunk episodes (according to Mark Judge and the Prep yearbook) and potential assault histories?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

MRA! MRA! MAGA!

How many victims will it take for you to believe, pp?

PP here. I"m female and not a Trump supporter; but I think it's wrong to accuse, condemn, and "convict" anyone of crimes as serious as attempted rape and suffocation (i.e., murder) based on one person's uncorroborated accusation after 30+ years.

Her accusation is corroborated. There are notes from her therapist on 2012, not to mention the polygraph. She also has a successful and very credible professional and personal track record. But it takes 50 women to corroborate accusations against one man, right?

No, it's not. All you say above is stuff her lawyer claimed. You have no idea if she took a polygraph, let alone passed it. You have no idea if there are notes. You are being TOLD those things, but you have not SEEN PROOF of those things.

Pretty sure that the WP reporter was given proof of all of this. It’s called fact-checking, something you may be unfamiliar with because it isn’t practiced by Fox or Breitbart.

Like NYT fact-checked the story about Nikki Hayley and the drapes? That kind of fact-checking?

+1
And let's not forget Rolling Stone's stellar job fact-checking the UVA non-story.

And didn't the NYT writer get a Pulitzer only to be exposed as a fake? Yep, great fact-checking there too.

Why speculate? Email the Post and ask what they saw.

Same poster, I assume you support the democrats request for an FBI investigation of the allegation because of your strong held belief in gathering all the evidence, right?

They had the right to ask. They were shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys. The hyperbole on this thread is absurd. He isn't being "convicted," "indicted," or "stoned to death." At most, he's just not getting a particularly prestigious job. Spare your tears.

At most, his reputation is deliberately being destroyed, and his wife is being humiliated in the process, because liberals don't want him to have a job.

In addition, Democrats are making double-damn sure that Trump has a really hard time finding ANY Supreme Court nominee unless THEY pre-approve, because those candidates will know that liberal Democrats will make stuff up to trash them and destroy them.

It is politics he has been willingly engaging for years. Womp womp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

MRA! MRA! MAGA!

How many victims will it take for you to believe, pp?

PP here. I"m female and not a Trump supporter; but I think it's wrong to accuse, condemn, and "convict" anyone of crimes as serious as attempted rape and suffocation (i.e., murder) based on one person's uncorroborated accusation after 30+ years.

Her accusation is corroborated. There are notes from her therapist on 2012, not to mention the polygraph. She also has a successful and very credible professional and personal track record. But it takes 50 women to corroborate accusations against one man, right?

No, it's not. All you say above is stuff her lawyer claimed. You have no idea if she took a polygraph, let alone passed it. You have no idea if there are notes. You are being TOLD those things, but you have not SEEN PROOF of those things.

Pretty sure that the WP reporter was given proof of all of this. It’s called fact-checking, something you may be unfamiliar with because it isn’t practiced by Fox or Breitbart.

Like NYT fact-checked the story about Nikki Hayley and the drapes? That kind of fact-checking?

She did receive the $50,000 drapes, did she not? The State department spokesman claimed that the purchase wasn’t put in the proper context, not that the transaction did not occur. I don’t think any “proof” was offered by the State Department either. Perhaps you should get on that too.

"She" did not receive $50,000 drapes. They had been ordered, approved, and paid for by the Obama administration - long before Nikki Haley was even appointed as U.N. Ambassador. Facts matter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/new-york-times-backtracks-on-a-tale-about-some-expensive-curtains/2018/09/14/57b53eda-b850-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.a9489e0e2614
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

Or that the public pressure/GOP-Dem pressure behind closed doors is more than it seems.

Or that they don't give a shit and know that no matter what comes out in any hearing, Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

I don't think that's right. If that was the case they would have pushed through the vote. This took them by surprise. I think some combination of Sasse, Corker, Flake, Murkowski and Collins threatened defection without a hearing and all red state Democrats said no yes without a hearing.

They're counting on her not being credible because this is really stupid if they have any intention of confirming K. A public testimony of this assault will only make it more difficult to confirm him. Watching a woman publicly verbally describe an assault will be worse than reading it.

I think they picked Monday because they think that's enough time to dig up dirt but honestly the Republicans are stupid. If they wanted to seal this up before midterms they should have either forced a vote this week or cut K loose and go for another nominee.

Republicans CAN’T cut K loose. Trump nominated him. Only Trump can pull the nomination. And TRump always, always, always, always fights back no matter what. They have to vote him down (pissed Trump base) or vote him forward (pissed women). It is lose-lose. Mitch McTurtle didn’t want K to begin with. Right now, he would do anything in his power to make him go away.

I think that there are quite a few R Senators who hope more women come forward and this nomination becomes untenable. Because they are cowards and don’t want to have to vote.

PP, you do not even have the most basic idea how government works. No one can make Trump withdraw Kavanaugh, but no one can make the Senate give him a vote.

McConnell wants, more than anything, to keep the Senate in Republican hands. If he senses that confirming Kavanaugh in the face of these allegations will turn off voters, he will simply not schedule a vote.

Without a vote, Kavanaugh would withdraw himself in order to regain some semblance of normal life.

Kavanaugh will never again have any semblance of a normal life; nor will his family. This allegation - whether true or false - has instantly turned him into a pariah.

Many high profile types recently ousted by MeToo allegations are slowly creeping back into the spotlight. Even if Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed, he will likely retain his current position, feel a little local heat, then be back to normal.

Sorry, but if this accusation is false, he will never again be "back to normal." I imagine his daughters are already being mocked and bullied, by having a "rapist" as a dad - as I'm sure many parents in this area are telling their kids. He's a marked man. At this point, doesn't matter if he did it or not - most of you have already decided he's guilty. It's sickening.

She has presented a pretty convincing narrative which includes naming people present who were actually his friends at the time. Plus, no one would make up a rape story and add an extra witness, who is friends with the alleged assailant, to the room.

I’m sorry you are having difficulty accepting this, but people are believing him to be guilty because that is what the known facts support.

Did she name someone other than Mark Judge as having been there? It's not so much that I'm having "difficulty" believing this; it's much more that NONE of us knows the truth and an otherwise innocent man has no way of defending himself. The accusation is out there and you believe it. In your mind, he's guilty. I truly hope nothing similar ever happens to your loved ones.

According to the Washington Post articles, she identified two other boys who were at the party, but not in the room.

So what? Let's say I wanted to tell people that Joe from my high school attempted to rape me. I could easily identify two of Joe's friends and claim they were there. That doesn't mean it's a truthful statement.

Did you tell a licensed physician about it a decade ago? Did you take a polygraph?

Aside from her and her lawyer's word, do you have proof of this?

Do you really think these things don’t exist? Because if that’s your position, you’re just a crazy partisan.

I don't know if they exist. I want to see proof that they exist and I would like to see her take another polygraph administered by a neutral party.

I agree. The FBI ought to be conducting interviews of Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge, and anyone else Ford recollects was at the party. The FBI ought to conduct polygraphs as well.

The White House could ask for this, but they aren't. Why not?

Because the FBI already decided there wasn't enough to go on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

MRA! MRA! MAGA!

How many victims will it take for you to believe, pp?

PP here. I"m female and not a Trump supporter; but I think it's wrong to accuse, condemn, and "convict" anyone of crimes as serious as attempted rape and suffocation (i.e., murder) based on one person's uncorroborated accusation after 30+ years.

Her accusation is corroborated. There are notes from her therapist on 2012, not to mention the polygraph. She also has a successful and very credible professional and personal track record. But it takes 50 women to corroborate accusations against one man, right?

No, it's not. All you say above is stuff her lawyer claimed. You have no idea if she took a polygraph, let alone passed it. You have no idea if there are notes. You are being TOLD those things, but you have not SEEN PROOF of those things.

Pretty sure that the WP reporter was given proof of all of this. It’s called fact-checking, something you may be unfamiliar with because it isn’t practiced by Fox or Breitbart.

Like NYT fact-checked the story about Nikki Hayley and the drapes? That kind of fact-checking?

+1
And let's not forget Rolling Stone's stellar job fact-checking the UVA non-story.

And didn't the NYT writer get a Pulitzer only to be exposed as a fake? Yep, great fact-checking there too.

Why speculate? Email the Post and ask what they saw.

Same poster, I assume you support the democrats request for an FBI investigation of the allegation because of your strong held belief in gathering all the evidence, right?

Bumping for response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 17 year old Kavanaugh was only a mere precursor to the college Kavanaugh and the 30-something Kavanaugh

https://twitter.com/7im/status/1041772063705321472

This is HILARIOUS!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys. The hyperbole on this thread is absurd. He isn't being "convicted," "indicted," or "stoned to death." At most, he's just not getting a particularly prestigious job. Spare your tears.

At most, his reputation is deliberately being destroyed, and his wife is being humiliated in the process, because liberals don't want him to have a job.

In addition, Democrats are making double-damn sure that Trump has a really hard time finding ANY Supreme Court nominee unless THEY pre-approve, because those candidates will know that liberal Democrats will make stuff up to trash them and destroy them.

Your little word tantrum is cute.

Can I use that phrase in response to all the liberal whining and teeth gnashing that goes on here? I think I will, thanks!
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

MRA! MRA! MAGA!

How many victims will it take for you to believe, pp?

PP here. I"m female and not a Trump supporter; but I think it's wrong to accuse, condemn, and "convict" anyone of crimes as serious as attempted rape and suffocation (i.e., murder) based on one person's uncorroborated accusation after 30+ years.

Her accusation is corroborated. There are notes from her therapist on 2012, not to mention the polygraph. She also has a successful and very credible professional and personal track record. But it takes 50 women to corroborate accusations against one man, right?

No, it's not. All you say above is stuff her lawyer claimed. You have no idea if she took a polygraph, let alone passed it. You have no idea if there are notes. You are being TOLD those things, but you have not SEEN PROOF of those things.

Pretty sure that the WP reporter was given proof of all of this. It’s called fact-checking, something you may be unfamiliar with because it isn’t practiced by Fox or Breitbart.

Like NYT fact-checked the story about Nikki Hayley and the drapes? That kind of fact-checking?

+1
And let's not forget Rolling Stone's stellar job fact-checking the UVA non-story.

And didn't the NYT writer get a Pulitzer only to be exposed as a fake? Yep, great fact-checking there too.

Why speculate? Email the Post and ask what they saw.

Same poster, I assume you support the democrats request for an FBI investigation of the allegation because of your strong held belief in gathering all the evidence, right?

Bumping for response.

It was already answered, dummy. I stated that the dems had the right to ask and did and were shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

Or that the public pressure/GOP-Dem pressure behind closed doors is more than it seems.

Or that they don't give a shit and know that no matter what comes out in any hearing, Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

I don't think that's right. If that was the case they would have pushed through the vote. This took them by surprise. I think some combination of Sasse, Corker, Flake, Murkowski and Collins threatened defection without a hearing and all red state Democrats said no yes without a hearing.

They're counting on her not being credible because this is really stupid if they have any intention of confirming K. A public testimony of this assault will only make it more difficult to confirm him. Watching a woman publicly verbally describe an assault will be worse than reading it.

I think they picked Monday because they think that's enough time to dig up dirt but honestly the Republicans are stupid. If they wanted to seal this up before midterms they should have either forced a vote this week or cut K loose and go for another nominee.

Republicans CAN’T cut K loose. Trump nominated him. Only Trump can pull the nomination. And TRump always, always, always, always fights back no matter what. They have to vote him down (pissed Trump base) or vote him forward (pissed women). It is lose-lose. Mitch McTurtle didn’t want K to begin with. Right now, he would do anything in his power to make him go away.

I think that there are quite a few R Senators who hope more women come forward and this nomination becomes untenable. Because they are cowards and don’t want to have to vote.

PP, you do not even have the most basic idea how government works. No one can make Trump withdraw Kavanaugh, but no one can make the Senate give him a vote.

McConnell wants, more than anything, to keep the Senate in Republican hands. If he senses that confirming Kavanaugh in the face of these allegations will turn off voters, he will simply not schedule a vote.

Without a vote, Kavanaugh would withdraw himself in order to regain some semblance of normal life.

Kavanaugh will never again have any semblance of a normal life; nor will his family. This allegation - whether true or false - has instantly turned him into a pariah.

Many high profile types recently ousted by MeToo allegations are slowly creeping back into the spotlight. Even if Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed, he will likely retain his current position, feel a little local heat, then be back to normal.

Sorry, but if this accusation is false, he will never again be "back to normal." I imagine his daughters are already being mocked and bullied, by having a "rapist" as a dad - as I'm sure many parents in this area are telling their kids. He's a marked man. At this point, doesn't matter if he did it or not - most of you have already decided he's guilty. It's sickening.

She has presented a pretty convincing narrative which includes naming people present who were actually his friends at the time. Plus, no one would make up a rape story and add an extra witness, who is friends with the alleged assailant, to the room.

I’m sorry you are having difficulty accepting this, but people are believing him to be guilty because that is what the known facts support.

Did she name someone other than Mark Judge as having been there? It's not so much that I'm having "difficulty" believing this; it's much more that NONE of us knows the truth and an otherwise innocent man has no way of defending himself. The accusation is out there and you believe it. In your mind, he's guilty. I truly hope nothing similar ever happens to your loved ones.

According to the Washington Post articles, she identified two other boys who were at the party, but not in the room.

So what? Let's say I wanted to tell people that Joe from my high school attempted to rape me. I could easily identify two of Joe's friends and claim they were there. That doesn't mean it's a truthful statement.

Did you tell a licensed physician about it a decade ago? Did you take a polygraph?

Aside from her and her lawyer's word, do you have proof of this?

Do you really think these things don’t exist? Because if that’s your position, you’re just a crazy partisan.

I don't know if they exist. I want to see proof that they exist and I would like to see her take another polygraph administered by a neutral party.

I agree. The FBI ought to be conducting interviews of Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge, and anyone else Ford recollects was at the party. The FBI ought to conduct polygraphs as well.

The White House could ask for this, but they aren't. Why not?

Because the FBI already decided there wasn't enough to go on.

No they did not. They said they would reopen the investigation if requested by the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

So in your mind, women (and men) who defend the accuser’s right to be heard and not summarily dismissed and/or savaged and discredited equates to people who are jealous and hate men?

Okie dokie.

NOPE. Not what I said. I'm saying that I don't think the accused should be "savaged and discredited" either. And, yes, there have been a lot of DCUM posts on Kavanaugh threads that describe men--and Kavanaugh, in particular-- in an incredibly vile and negative way.

This may be news to you, but putting aside the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh has consistently treated women as second class citizens in his opinions. Most women don’t appreciate that. Shocking, I know.

PP here. A person's reputation, which can vary depending on the political, religious, cultural, etc. perspective of others, shouldn't be the determining factor re turning an accusation into a conviction by public opinion.

EXACTLY. "I don't like him / his politics, so he MUST be guilty!!" That's what so many of these posters are saying. Totally biased and having nothing to do with the actual allegation.

No one is saying that at all. It is the conservative posters who are trying to make this political.

You must be joking. I've helpfully bolded the above for your perusal. You're welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

MRA! MRA! MAGA!

How many victims will it take for you to believe, pp?

PP here. I"m female and not a Trump supporter; but I think it's wrong to accuse, condemn, and "convict" anyone of crimes as serious as attempted rape and suffocation (i.e., murder) based on one person's uncorroborated accusation after 30+ years.

Her accusation is corroborated. There are notes from her therapist on 2012, not to mention the polygraph. She also has a successful and very credible professional and personal track record. But it takes 50 women to corroborate accusations against one man, right?

No, it's not. All you say above is stuff her lawyer claimed. You have no idea if she took a polygraph, let alone passed it. You have no idea if there are notes. You are being TOLD those things, but you have not SEEN PROOF of those things.

Pretty sure that the WP reporter was given proof of all of this. It’s called fact-checking, something you may be unfamiliar with because it isn’t practiced by Fox or Breitbart.

Like NYT fact-checked the story about Nikki Hayley and the drapes? That kind of fact-checking?

+1
And let's not forget Rolling Stone's stellar job fact-checking the UVA non-story.

And didn't the NYT writer get a Pulitzer only to be exposed as a fake? Yep, great fact-checking there too.

Why speculate? Email the Post and ask what they saw.

Same poster, I assume you support the democrats request for an FBI investigation of the allegation because of your strong held belief in gathering all the evidence, right?

Bumping for response.

It was already answered, dummy. I stated that the dems had the right to ask and did and were shut down.

Thanks, proved my point that you don’t give two shits about evidence. Good night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly don’t understand the glee some PPs are showing in attacking Dr. Ford. It’s disturbing.

What about the glee some PPs are showing in attacking Judge Kavanaugh? Is that disturbing to you too?

You should read his work on Clinton. A total attack dog.

Seriously, karma can really be a bitch.

Turns out it was prurient projection on Brett’s part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly don’t understand the glee some PPs are showing in attacking Dr. Ford. It’s disturbing.

What about the glee some PPs are showing in attacking Judge Kavanaugh? Is that disturbing to you too?

You should read his work on Clinton. A total attack dog.

Seriously, karma can really be a bitch.

Turns out it was prurient projection on Brett’s part.

This is so painfully true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn't even tell his name to the therapist.

This story just does not ring true.

Would you believe it if there were pics? No, I didn't think so. Because you think women are dirt.

Also why you're so eager to confirm a man hell-bent on repealing women's reproductive rights.

You saw the Franken photos and still don't believe it.

Last time I checked, Franken was sent home for being a naughty boy. Why isn't Brett being held to the same standar? Jim Jordon? Donald Trump?

Because, GOP.

After a huge HUGE liberal pushback and denial of actual physical evidence. Show me the photos of the incident and I'll hold Brett to the same standard.

yeah right. you all excuse all sorts of shitty behavior when they are a party appartchik. just "locker room talk" right bro?

DP. And let me guess - you were a huge defender of Bill Clinton's $hitty behavior, right? Or are you not old enough to remember that?

Dp, but I was a Clinton voter. I thought he should have resigned when the Lewinsky allegations came out, and not dragged the country through the impeachment mess. And I told people that at the time. If he had, we might have never wound up with the disaster that was the Bush administration.

Sure, but there was plenty of evidence in that case, wasn't there? He was guilty. What, exactly, is the evidence in this case?

We’ve been through it repeatedly sweetie. Just became you don’t want to accept it doesn’t make it disappear.

Oh, sweetie. One person's fuzzy, 35 year old recollections are not considered "evidence." Sorry!