new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maine Senator Susan Collins voted to confirm him. trump pick.

And we used to be able to admire the Supreme Court. We didn’t always agree with them but we admired them. The Republicans changed all that. There is nothing left of our once great country to admire.

Would you take a look at what this sad creature posted. Poor thing.

The good news is the poster can now admire our great country again! Hoorah!

No, that's too hard. It would require her getting over her Bethesda Guilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see how many so-called "journalists" who commented on the original NYTimes piece return to correct their statements due to the correction to the story.

Ramirez doesn’t even remember the incident? More farce from the democrat media complex. Kav is my hero. Stood up to the pitchforks and torches and STILL brought on an all female staff.
The guys a hero and mentor.

Vive le Kav!!!

Vive!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a real person with a family. With young daughters. I think it's just gross how people talk about him on DCUM.

I totally agree. Especially based on absolutely ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims and nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

Unbelievable!!

Wow. This makes the NYT look awful.

The NYT *is* awful. I was impressed to see that today’s WSJ didn’t stoop down to their level. No coverage at all of the recent idiotic claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a real person with a family. With young daughters. I think it's just gross how people talk about him on DCUM.

And I think a man with his checkered past and drinking problem should have thought of his family before accepting the nomination.

“Checkered past”? “Drinking problem”? Oh, you mean his spotless career, mentoring and hiring of more female and minority clerks than ANY OTHER SCJ, ever, and praise from RBG?

Do you people even hear yourselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

In other words, she doesn’t want her life to be ruined by relentless harpies like you people. I can’t blame her.

Really. Show us an example of a ruined life? All the liars thus far have lived their lives just fine. Making up things and coming forward hasn’t hurt anybody except the accused.

That’s ok. The ruined lives along the way are all fine. Means justifies the end to the liberal mind. A mind that manages to lie itself in some weird loop. Liberalism is a mental disease devoid of logic and facts. This board shows that in spades.

Aside from the death threats and dragging her name through the mud that CBF endured, what could she possibly be afraid of? Amirite?

Lying is a terrible thing. Might want to read about why she constructed that door.

I really hope you don't have any daughters. If so, I feel sorry for them. You'll take the man's side of any story they come home with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a real person with a family. With young daughters. I think it's just gross how people talk about him on DCUM.

Too bad he didn’t much care for how other people’s young daughters were treated. No ill words or actions should be directed to his children. At the same time, he is morally and ethically bankrupt and doesn’t belong in the SC.

You mean all the female law students he’s mentored throughout the years? Or the girls he’s coached? Yes, I can see how a vague, unsubstantiated 30+ year old allegation from high school would negate all of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

In other words, she doesn’t want her life to be ruined by relentless harpies like you people. I can’t blame her.

Really. Show us an example of a ruined life? All the liars thus far have lived their lives just fine. Making up things and coming forward hasn’t hurt anybody except the accused.

That’s ok. The ruined lives along the way are all fine. Means justifies the end to the liberal mind. A mind that manages to lie itself in some weird loop. Liberalism is a mental disease devoid of logic and facts. This board shows that in spades.

Aside from the death threats and dragging her name through the mud that CBF endured, what could she possibly be afraid of? Amirite?

Lying is a terrible thing. Might want to read about why she constructed that door.

I really hope you don't have any daughters. If so, I feel sorry for them. You'll take the man's side of any story they come home with.

If your son is accused by someone who no one can corroborate, or by someone who isn't sure it was him, will you take your son's side of the story? Or the accuser's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

In other words, she doesn’t want her life to be ruined by relentless harpies like you people. I can’t blame her.

Really. Show us an example of a ruined life? All the liars thus far have lived their lives just fine. Making up things and coming forward hasn’t hurt anybody except the accused.

That’s ok. The ruined lives along the way are all fine. Means justifies the end to the liberal mind. A mind that manages to lie itself in some weird loop. Liberalism is a mental disease devoid of logic and facts. This board shows that in spades.

Aside from the death threats and dragging her name through the mud that CBF endured, what could she possibly be afraid of? Amirite?

Lying is a terrible thing. Might want to read about why she constructed that door.

I really hope you don't have any daughters. If so, I feel sorry for them. You'll take the man's side of any story they come home with.

If your son is accused by someone who no one can corroborate, or by someone who isn't sure it was him, will you take your son's side of the story? Or the accuser's?

You tell me first whether you'll believe your daughters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a real person with a family. With young daughters. I think it's just gross how people talk about him on DCUM.

Too bad he didn’t much care for how other people’s young daughters were treated. No ill words or actions should be directed to his children. At the same time, he is morally and ethically bankrupt and doesn’t belong in the SC.

You mean all the female law students he’s mentored throughout the years? Or the girls he’s coached? Yes, I can see how a vague, unsubstantiated 30+ year old allegation from high school would negate all of that.

Not just one, bucko. A pattern of behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

In other words, she doesn’t want her life to be ruined by relentless harpies like you people. I can’t blame her.

Really. Show us an example of a ruined life? All the liars thus far have lived their lives just fine. Making up things and coming forward hasn’t hurt anybody except the accused.

That’s ok. The ruined lives along the way are all fine. Means justifies the end to the liberal mind. A mind that manages to lie itself in some weird loop. Liberalism is a mental disease devoid of logic and facts. This board shows that in spades.

Aside from the death threats and dragging her name through the mud that CBF endured, what could she possibly be afraid of? Amirite?

Lying is a terrible thing. Might want to read about why she constructed that door.

I really hope you don't have any daughters. If so, I feel sorry for them. You'll take the man's side of any story they come home with.

DP.
TBH - her story was void of details, inconsistent in the few "details" she had (was it 3 or 4 people with her?), and her responses to some of the questions under oath were questionable - like the whole door story. She claims that she needed another way out of a building, but it seems it may have been a 2nd entrance for renting.... against zoning laws.....

FEINSTEIN: “I see. And do you have that second front door?”

FORD: “Yes.”

FEINSTEIN: “It…”

FORD: “It — it now is a place to host Google interns. Because we live near Google, so we get to have — other students can live there.”

Now that she mentions it, the additional remodeling in effect added a self-contained unit to the house, with its own entrance, perfect for “hosting” or even possibly renting, in violation of the local zoning. Perhaps a professional office might be a perfect use, if an illegal one. And in the tight Palo Alto real estate market, there are a lot of games played for some serious income.

And that may answer another strange anomaly. Because since 1993, and through some listings even today, there was another tenant at what is now the Ford property. It is listed as this person’s residence from 1993 to July 2007, a week or so after she sold the house to the Fords.

Her name is Dr. Sylvia Randall, and she listed this address for her California licensed practice of psychotherapy, including couples psychotherapy, until her move to Oregon in 2007.

Currently she only practices in that state, where she also pursues her new career as a talented artist as well.

But many existing directories still have Dr. Randall’s address listed at what is now the Ford residence.

Which raises other questions. Why has Christine Ford never said a word about Dr. Randall? And why has she been evasive about the transcripts of her crucial 2012 therapy session, which she can’t seem to recall much about either? Did she provide them to the Washington Post, or did she just provide the therapist’s summary? Who was the psychologist?

In a phone call, I asked Dr. Randall if she had sold her house to the Fords. She asked back how I had found out. I asked if she was the couples therapist who treated the Fords. She would not answer yes or no, replying, “I am a couples therapist.”

So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford’s terrors or was documenting her terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances? And if the second door allowed access and egress for the tenant of a second housing unit, rather than for the primary resident, how did the door’s existence ameliorate Ford’s professed claustrophobia?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/records_raise_questions_about_fords_double-door_story__138225.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swinging dicks at a frat party 30 years ago? I literally could not care less.

+1

That's fine. But, that says a lot about you. None of it good.

You do recognize your narrative has been undermined resembling the separation of the San Andreas fault, right? That says a lot about you. None of it good. This is the point where you say, "Well, that was embarrassing."

+100
They won’t though. They’ll just keep doubling down because they refuse to admit they were wrong. Pathetic people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maine Senator Susan Collins voted to confirm him. trump pick.

And we used to be able to admire the Supreme Court. We didn’t always agree with them but we admired them. The Republicans changed all that. There is nothing left of our once great country to admire.

Would you take a look at what this sad creature posted. Poor thing.

The good news is the poster can now admire our great country again! Hoorah!

No, that's too hard. It would require her getting over her Bethesda Guilt.

I'm the pp and I resemble that comment! Psst. There are Republicans in Bethesda and Potomac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

In other words, she doesn’t want her life to be ruined by relentless harpies like you people. I can’t blame her.

Really. Show us an example of a ruined life? All the liars thus far have lived their lives just fine. Making up things and coming forward hasn’t hurt anybody except the accused.

That’s ok. The ruined lives along the way are all fine. Means justifies the end to the liberal mind. A mind that manages to lie itself in some weird loop. Liberalism is a mental disease devoid of logic and facts. This board shows that in spades.

Aside from the death threats and dragging her name through the mud that CBF endured, what could she possibly be afraid of? Amirite?

Lying is a terrible thing. Might want to read about why she constructed that door.

I really hope you don't have any daughters. If so, I feel sorry for them. You'll take the man's side of any story they come home with.

DP.
TBH - her story was void of details, inconsistent in the few "details" she had (was it 3 or 4 people with her?), and her responses to some of the questions under oath were questionable - like the whole door story. She claims that she needed another way out of a building, but it seems it may have been a 2nd entrance for renting.... against zoning laws.....

FEINSTEIN: “I see. And do you have that second front door?”

FORD: “Yes.”

FEINSTEIN: “It…”

FORD: “It — it now is a place to host Google interns. Because we live near Google, so we get to have — other students can live there.”

Now that she mentions it, the additional remodeling in effect added a self-contained unit to the house, with its own entrance, perfect for “hosting” or even possibly renting, in violation of the local zoning. Perhaps a professional office might be a perfect use, if an illegal one. And in the tight Palo Alto real estate market, there are a lot of games played for some serious income.

And that may answer another strange anomaly. Because since 1993, and through some listings even today, there was another tenant at what is now the Ford property. It is listed as this person’s residence from 1993 to July 2007, a week or so after she sold the house to the Fords.

Her name is Dr. Sylvia Randall, and she listed this address for her California licensed practice of psychotherapy, including couples psychotherapy, until her move to Oregon in 2007.

Currently she only practices in that state, where she also pursues her new career as a talented artist as well.

But many existing directories still have Dr. Randall’s address listed at what is now the Ford residence.

Which raises other questions. Why has Christine Ford never said a word about Dr. Randall? And why has she been evasive about the transcripts of her crucial 2012 therapy session, which she can’t seem to recall much about either? Did she provide them to the Washington Post, or did she just provide the therapist’s summary? Who was the psychologist?

In a phone call, I asked Dr. Randall if she had sold her house to the Fords. She asked back how I had found out. I asked if she was the couples therapist who treated the Fords. She would not answer yes or no, replying, “I am a couples therapist.”

So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford’s terrors or was documenting her terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances? And if the second door allowed access and egress for the tenant of a second housing unit, rather than for the primary resident, how did the door’s existence ameliorate Ford’s professed claustrophobia?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/records_raise_questions_about_fords_double-door_story__138225.html

In other words, you would believe a guy over your own daughters. Nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

In other words, she doesn’t want her life to be ruined by relentless harpies like you people. I can’t blame her.

Really. Show us an example of a ruined life? All the liars thus far have lived their lives just fine. Making up things and coming forward hasn’t hurt anybody except the accused.

That’s ok. The ruined lives along the way are all fine. Means justifies the end to the liberal mind. A mind that manages to lie itself in some weird loop. Liberalism is a mental disease devoid of logic and facts. This board shows that in spades.

Aside from the death threats and dragging her name through the mud that CBF endured, what could she possibly be afraid of? Amirite?

Lying is a terrible thing. Might want to read about why she constructed that door.

I really hope you don't have any daughters. If so, I feel sorry for them. You'll take the man's side of any story they come home with.

If your son is accused by someone who no one can corroborate, or by someone who isn't sure it was him, will you take your son's side of the story? Or the accuser's?

You tell me first whether you'll believe your daughters.

If my daughter said "I'm sure it was him". I'd believe her. If my daughter said "I'm not sure it was him", or "I don't remember anything about that", I would certainly not go public and accuse someone.