well no wonder Amy Chua defended Brett Kavanugh so emphatically

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

And the facts/truth are what, exactly? Do tell.

We will never know. No investigation.

It is the height of idiocy to "investigate" a 35 yr. old claim of groping. I mean, seriously?

Not a surprising attitude from a MAGA. Don’t care about truth, facts, or morals. Got it.

How do you feel about the Justin Fairfax accusations, in which there are plenty of facts?

Deafening silence from the left. Surprise, surprise.

Sorry you were stuck home on a Saturday night.

Sorry, what are you babbling about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

And the facts/truth are what, exactly? Do tell.

We will never know. No investigation.

It is the height of idiocy to "investigate" a 35 yr. old claim of groping. I mean, seriously?

Not a surprising attitude from a MAGA. Don’t care about truth, facts, or morals. Got it.

How do you feel about the Justin Fairfax accusations, in which there are plenty of facts?

Conduct an investigation.

This.

Now enough of the repo attempt to derail this thread.

Amy Chua plumped for Bretty and since that time her daughter has been given a SC clerkship. Now the lawless conservatives might not remember this, but justices are supposed to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest (I say lawless because wasn’t Scalia a hunting friend of Cheney and Thomas’s wife is allowed to lobby issues that are directly being addressed by the court and Thomas should recuse himself but never does, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

And the facts/truth are what, exactly? Do tell.

We will never know. No investigation.

It is the height of idiocy to "investigate" a 35 yr. old claim of groping. I mean, seriously?

Not a surprising attitude from a MAGA. Don’t care about truth, facts, or morals. Got it.

How do you feel about the Justin Fairfax accusations, in which there are plenty of facts?

Conduct an investigation.

This.

Now enough of the repo attempt to derail this thread.

Amy Chua plumped for Bretty and since that time her daughter has been given a SC clerkship. Now the lawless conservatives might not remember this, but justices are supposed to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest (I say lawless because wasn’t Scalia a hunting friend of Cheney and Thomas’s wife is allowed to lobby issues that are directly being addressed by the court and Thomas should recuse himself but never does, etc).

Wasn't Chua selected as a clerk for Kavanaugh before his nomination to SCOTUS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

Facts? Truth?
How about presumption of innocence? Blasey Ford was unable to provide any actual proof of her claims. Zilch.
She had no facts. And, it appeared that her truth was just that - HER truth. Not THE truth.

We will never know since it will never be investigated. So you can’t say if he was “falsely” accused or not. But the MAGAs still will try to tear her down.

Why are the daggers out? Afraid of the truth?

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.

You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

[Anonymous]

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.



You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Those were likely much more intense background checks than most people get. Not only that, but, don't you remember that there was an additional investigation last Fall? The FBI interviewed all of Blasey Ford's "witnesses." None of them remembered anything about the said party. Not even her very good friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.



You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Those were likely much more intense background checks than most people get. Not only that, but, don't you remember that there was an additional investigation last Fall? The FBI interviewed all of Blasey Ford's "witnesses." None of them remembered anything about the said party. Not even her very good friend.

Still wouldn’t have come up in a background check.

It wasn’t a true investigation. Which is what the GOP wants to avoid.

[Anonymous]

It wasn’t a true investigation. Which is what the GOP wants to avoid.

LOL! The FBI interviewed the witnesses. And, what would you like? A time travel investigation? Doubt that would come out the way you would like, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.



You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Those were likely much more intense background checks than most people get. Not only that, but, don't you remember that there was an additional investigation last Fall? The FBI interviewed all of Blasey Ford's "witnesses." None of them remembered anything about the said party. Not even her very good friend.

Still wouldn’t have come up in a background check.

It wasn’t a true investigation. Which is what the GOP wants to avoid.

The GOP was not going to fall for the delay tactic that the left was employing with their continued investigations when there was no EVIDENCE. None.
Similar to the whole Russia investigation. Lasted two years yet we know the premise of the investigation was a ruse concocted by the DNC and Hillary campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It wasn’t a true investigation. Which is what the GOP wants to avoid.

LOL! The FBI interviewed the witnesses. And, what would you like? A time travel investigation? Doubt that would come out the way you would like, either.

The FBI did not interview Mark Judge, who was named by Ford as being in the room during the attack. A legit investigation would include interviewing someone named as an eyewitness rather than accepting at face value the statement he/his lawyer submitted to the judiciary committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

And the facts/truth are what, exactly? Do tell.

We will never know. No investigation.

It is the height of idiocy to "investigate" a 35 yr. old claim of groping. I mean, seriously?

Not a surprising attitude from a MAGA. Don’t care about truth, facts, or morals. Got it.

How do you feel about the Justin Fairfax accusations, in which there are plenty of facts?

Conduct an investigation.

This.

Now enough of the repo attempt to derail this thread.

Amy Chua plumped for Bretty and since that time her daughter has been given a SC clerkship. Now the lawless conservatives might not remember this, but justices are supposed to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest (I say lawless because wasn’t Scalia a hunting friend of Cheney and Thomas’s wife is allowed to lobby issues that are directly being addressed by the court and Thomas should recuse himself but never does, etc).

Wasn't Chua selected as a clerk for Kavanaugh before his nomination to SCOTUS?

Yep. But those pesky facts are such a nuisance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

Facts? Truth?
How about presumption of innocence? Blasey Ford was unable to provide any actual proof of her claims. Zilch.
She had no facts. And, it appeared that her truth was just that - HER truth. Not THE truth.

We will never know since it will never be investigated. So you can’t say if he was “falsely” accused or not. But the MAGAs still will try to tear her down.

Why are the daggers out? Afraid of the truth?

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.

You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Speaking of clueless - please do share how yet another FBI investigation would "uncover" this ALLEGED incident? I'm genuinely curious. Since no one has voluntarily come forward to corroborate Ford's testimony, then exactly what would you suggest the FBI do to "uncover" a vague, 35 year old, alleged incident? Do you realize how utterly crazy you sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.



You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Those were likely much more intense background checks than most people get. Not only that, but, don't you remember that there was an additional investigation last Fall? The FBI interviewed all of Blasey Ford's "witnesses." None of them remembered anything about the said party. Not even her very good friend.

+1
It's like they want some magical witness to materialize out of thin air. Absurd people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It wasn’t a true investigation. Which is what the GOP wants to avoid.

LOL! The FBI interviewed the witnesses. And, what would you like? A time travel investigation? Doubt that would come out the way you would like, either.

Exactly. How does one investigate a decades old "incident" that may or may not have occurred, when no one listed as a witness remembers said incident and the accuser isn't even clear on when or where it happened? What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It wasn’t a true investigation. Which is what the GOP wants to avoid.

LOL! The FBI interviewed the witnesses. And, what would you like? A time travel investigation? Doubt that would come out the way you would like, either.

Exactly. How does one investigate a decades old "incident" that may or may not have occurred, when no one listed as a witness remembers said incident and the accuser isn't even clear on when or where it happened? What a joke.

Mark Judge was named as a witness, the third person in the room at the time of the attack, yet the FBI did not interview him. So, at a minimum, they could have interviewed the only person that Ford alleged was in the room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

Facts? Truth?
How about presumption of innocence? Blasey Ford was unable to provide any actual proof of her claims. Zilch.
She had no facts. And, it appeared that her truth was just that - HER truth. Not THE truth.

We will never know since it will never be investigated. So you can’t say if he was “falsely” accused or not. But the MAGAs still will try to tear her down.

Why are the daggers out? Afraid of the truth?

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.

You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Speaking of clueless - please do share how yet another FBI investigation would "uncover" this ALLEGED incident? I'm genuinely curious. Since no one has voluntarily come forward to corroborate Ford's testimony, then exactly what would you suggest the FBI do to "uncover" a vague, 35 year old, alleged incident? Do you realize how utterly crazy you sound?

The incident has already been reported so no need to “uncover” it, bonehead. It only would have only come out during a background check if BK added CBF to his list of interviewees. Don’t think he did. And if there were other incidents I’m sure his buddies wouldn’t have brought them up. Look at the hilarious way they handled the yearbook. Lying POSs.

The FBI could seek out people to interview - not just sit around waiting for someone to come forward. Look at other evidence (calendar).

Funny how you and the PPs are so quick to decide there is nothing there. Quite telling.