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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If only the federal government had a bureau or something with professional investigators who could gather information about this claim. Seems like it would result in more reliable information than this letter writing campaign from people's lawyers that will be evaluated under an ad hoc stew of procedural rules being made up on the fly.

Instead, best case scenario for Kavanaugh now is that he gets confirmed as Justice* Rapey McDrinksalot.

Lol after Christine Blasey “I had a secret party in my own head that nobody attended but me and no one not even my lifelong friend will confirm she attended but nevertheless I was sexually assaulted and I don’t remember the year, the address, how I got there, or got home” Ford finishes her liar’s circus, only idiots like you will care...but BK will be on the SC.

[Anonymous]

K and buddies know the incident happened and proved it by trying to throw another poorer buddy (Squee) under a bus by implying it May have been his house his party or even him. Anything to get the heat off Kreepy Kav.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:K and buddies know the incident happened and proved it by trying to throw another poorer buddy (Squee) under a bus by implying it May have been his house his party or even him. Anything to get the heat off Kreepy Kav.

Just a quick question.
Why is it perfectly acceptable to refer to Judge Kavanuagh with snarky little names but not the accused?
I don’t think either of them should have derogatory names attributed to them.

[Anonymous]

Crunch crunch crunch....

Sounds of Dr Ford’s “friend” throwing her under the bus...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only the federal government had a bureau or something with professional investigators who could gather information about this claim. Seems like it would result in more reliable information than this letter writing campaign from people's lawyers that will be evaluated under an ad hoc stew of procedural rules being made up on the fly.

Instead, best case scenario for Kavanaugh now is that he gets confirmed as Justice* Rapey McDrinksalot.

If the individuals repeated verbatim to the bureau what was said in the letters, that would satisfy you?

Presumably the investigators would ask follow up questions and, if other names cropped up, they'd follow those leads. They'd review the therapist notes, ask the therapist about the circumstances surrounding the creation of those notes, get clarity on the four in the room versus two in the room question. They'd ask Kavanaugh questions and follow up questions before letting him know what the other sources had said. Then they'd issue a report for the committee to consider. That would be put in the balance with all of the other pros and cons of Kavanaugh's background. How heavily it weighs depends on what the investigation reveals: if the available evidence suggests that Ford's a delusional liar, then it would add no weight. If the available evidence suggests that Kavanaugh is presently lying about the incident, then it would add considerable weight. And if the evidence points somewhere in the middle, you adjust the weight accordingly.

Personally, I'd oppose Kavanaugh because of his unhealthy and intemperate fixation on Lewinsky's genitals, Clinton's ejaculate, and Vince Foster conspiracy theories; because he lied about receiving hacked Democratic emails; and because of his sketchy and poorly explained financial situation. But, I'm not a Senator -- they all make their own decisions. A professional accounting of this assault allegation should be in the mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K and buddies know the incident happened and proved it by trying to throw another poorer buddy (Squee) under a bus by implying it May have been his house his party or even him. Anything to get the heat off Kreepy Kav.

Just a quick question.
Why is it perfectly acceptable to refer to Judge Kavanuagh with snarky little names but not the accused?
I don’t think either of them should have derogatory names attributed to them.

So Justice* Rapey McDrinksalot is probably beyond the pale? Along with every nickname Trump uses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only the federal government had a bureau or something with professional investigators who could gather information about this claim. Seems like it would result in more reliable information than this letter writing campaign from people's lawyers that will be evaluated under an ad hoc stew of procedural rules being made up on the fly.

Instead, best case scenario for Kavanaugh now is that he gets confirmed as Justice* Rapey McDrinksalot.

If the individuals repeated verbatim to the bureau what was said in the letters, that would satisfy you?

Presumably the investigators would ask follow up questions and, if other names cropped up, they'd follow those leads. They'd review the therapist notes, ask the therapist about the circumstances surrounding the creation of those notes, get clarity on the four in the room versus two in the room question. They'd ask Kavanaugh questions and follow up questions before letting him know what the other sources had said. Then they'd issue a report for the committee to consider. That would be put in the balance with all of the other pros and cons of Kavanaugh's background. How heavily it weighs depends on what the investigation reveals: if the available evidence suggests that Ford's a delusional liar, then it would add no weight. If the available evidence suggests that Kavanaugh is presently lying about the incident, then it would add considerable weight. And if the evidence points somewhere in the middle, you adjust the weight accordingly.

Personally, I'd oppose Kavanaugh because of his unhealthy and intemperate fixation on Lewinsky's genitals, Clinton's ejaculate, and Vince Foster conspiracy theories; because he lied about receiving hacked Democratic emails; and because of his sketchy and poorly explained financial situation. But, I'm not a Senator -- they all make their own decisions. A professional accounting of this assault allegation should be in the mix.

I wish this were a sticky. I have no idea how anyone can disagree with this very reasonable take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crunch crunch crunch....

Sounds of Dr Ford’s “friend” throwing her under the bus...

Don’t worry- Dems will retrieve the corpse and Weekend at Bernie’s it to testify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only the federal government had a bureau or something with professional investigators who could gather information about this claim. Seems like it would result in more reliable information than this letter writing campaign from people's lawyers that will be evaluated under an ad hoc stew of procedural rules being made up on the fly.

Instead, best case scenario for Kavanaugh now is that he gets confirmed as Justice* Rapey McDrinksalot.

If the individuals repeated verbatim to the bureau what was said in the letters, that would satisfy you?

Presumably the investigators would ask follow up questions and, if other names cropped up, they'd follow those leads. They'd review the therapist notes, ask the therapist about the circumstances surrounding the creation of those notes, get clarity on the four in the room versus two in the room question. They'd ask Kavanaugh questions and follow up questions before letting him know what the other sources had said. Then they'd issue a report for the committee to consider. That would be put in the balance with all of the other pros and cons of Kavanaugh's background. How heavily it weighs depends on what the investigation reveals: if the available evidence suggests that Ford's a delusional liar, then it would add no weight. If the available evidence suggests that Kavanaugh is presently lying about the incident, then it would add considerable weight. And if the evidence points somewhere in the middle, you adjust the weight accordingly.

Personally, I'd oppose Kavanaugh because of his unhealthy and intemperate fixation on Lewinsky's genitals, Clinton's ejaculate, and Vince Foster conspiracy theories; because he lied about receiving hacked Democratic emails; and because of his sketchy and poorly explained financial situation. But, I'm not a Senator -- they all make their own decisions. A professional accounting of this assault allegation should be in the mix.

I wish this were a sticky. I have no idea how anyone can disagree with this very reasonable take.

WTF is a “professional accounting” of an assault allegation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K and buddies know the incident happened and proved it by trying to throw another poorer buddy (Squee) under a bus by implying it May have been his house his party or even him. Anything to get the heat off Kreepy Kav.

Just a quick question.
Why is it perfectly acceptable to refer to Judge Kavanuagh with snarky little names but not the accused?
I don’t think either of them should have derogatory names attributed to them.

So Justice* Rapey McDrinksalot is probably beyond the pale? Along with every nickname Trump uses.

The actual (real) nickname the accuser had in high school was far worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only the federal government had a bureau or something with professional investigators who could gather information about this claim. Seems like it would result in more reliable information than this letter writing campaign from people's lawyers that will be evaluated under an ad hoc stew of procedural rules being made up on the fly.

Instead, best case scenario for Kavanaugh now is that he gets confirmed as Justice* Rapey McDrinksalot.

If the individuals repeated verbatim to the bureau what was said in the letters, that would satisfy you?

Presumably the investigators would ask follow up questions and, if other names cropped up, they'd follow those leads. They'd review the therapist notes, ask the therapist about the circumstances surrounding the creation of those notes, get clarity on the four in the room versus two in the room question. They'd ask Kavanaugh questions and follow up questions before letting him know what the other sources had said. Then they'd issue a report for the committee to consider. That would be put in the balance with all of the other pros and cons of Kavanaugh's background. How heavily it weighs depends on what the investigation reveals: if the available evidence suggests that Ford's a delusional liar, then it would add no weight. If the available evidence suggests that Kavanaugh is presently lying about the incident, then it would add considerable weight. And if the evidence points somewhere in the middle, you adjust the weight accordingly.

Personally, I'd oppose Kavanaugh because of his unhealthy and intemperate fixation on Lewinsky's genitals, Clinton's ejaculate, and Vince Foster conspiracy theories; because he lied about receiving hacked Democratic emails; and because of his sketchy and poorly explained financial situation. But, I'm not a Senator -- they all make their own decisions. A professional accounting of this assault allegation should be in the mix.

I wish this were a sticky. I have no idea how anyone can disagree with this very reasonable take.

You never mentioned having the investigators get a statement from Ford or wyestiin her. You mentioned Kavanaugh, but not her. So no, this is partisan claptrap, not sticky worthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only the federal government had a bureau or something with professional investigators who could gather information about this claim. Seems like it would result in more reliable information than this letter writing campaign from people's lawyers that will be evaluated under an ad hoc stew of procedural rules being made up on the fly.

Instead, best case scenario for Kavanaugh now is that he gets confirmed as Justice* Rapey McDrinksalot.

If the individuals repeated verbatim to the bureau what was said in the letters, that would satisfy you?

Presumably the investigators would ask follow up questions and, if other names cropped up, they'd follow those leads. They'd review the therapist notes, ask the therapist about the circumstances surrounding the creation of those notes, get clarity on the four in the room versus two in the room question. They'd ask Kavanaugh questions and follow up questions before letting him know what the other sources had said. Then they'd issue a report for the committee to consider. That would be put in the balance with all of the other pros and cons of Kavanaugh's background. How heavily it weighs depends on what the investigation reveals: if the available evidence suggests that Ford's a delusional liar, then it would add no weight. If the available evidence suggests that Kavanaugh is presently lying about the incident, then it would add considerable weight. And if the evidence points somewhere in the middle, you adjust the weight accordingly.

Personally, I'd oppose Kavanaugh because of his unhealthy and intemperate fixation on Lewinsky's genitals, Clinton's ejaculate, and Vince Foster conspiracy theories; because he lied about receiving hacked Democratic emails; and because of his sketchy and poorly explained financial situation. But, I'm not a Senator -- they all make their own decisions. A professional accounting of this assault allegation should be in the mix.

I wish this were a sticky. I have no idea how anyone can disagree with this very reasonable take.

You never mentioned having the investigators get a statement from Ford or wyestiin her. You mentioned Kavanaugh, but not her. So no, this is partisan claptrap, not sticky worthy.

^ questioning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only the federal government had a bureau or something with professional investigators who could gather information about this claim. Seems like it would result in more reliable information than this letter writing campaign from people's lawyers that will be evaluated under an ad hoc stew of procedural rules being made up on the fly.

Instead, best case scenario for Kavanaugh now is that he gets confirmed as Justice* Rapey McDrinksalot.

If the individuals repeated verbatim to the bureau what was said in the letters, that would satisfy you?

Presumably the investigators would ask follow up questions and, if other names cropped up, they'd follow those leads. They'd review the therapist notes, ask the therapist about the circumstances surrounding the creation of those notes, get clarity on the four in the room versus two in the room question. They'd ask Kavanaugh questions and follow up questions before letting him know what the other sources had said. Then they'd issue a report for the committee to consider. That would be put in the balance with all of the other pros and cons of Kavanaugh's background. How heavily it weighs depends on what the investigation reveals: if the available evidence suggests that Ford's a delusional liar, then it would add no weight. If the available evidence suggests that Kavanaugh is presently lying about the incident, then it would add considerable weight. And if the evidence points somewhere in the middle, you adjust the weight accordingly.

Personally, I'd oppose Kavanaugh because of his unhealthy and intemperate fixation on Lewinsky's genitals, Clinton's ejaculate, and Vince Foster conspiracy theories; because he lied about receiving hacked Democratic emails; and because of his sketchy and poorly explained financial situation. But, I'm not a Senator -- they all make their own decisions. A professional accounting of this assault allegation should be in the mix.

I wish this were a sticky. I have no idea how anyone can disagree with this very reasonable take.

You never mentioned having the investigators get a statement from Ford or wyestiin her. You mentioned Kavanaugh, but not her. So no, this is partisan claptrap, not sticky worthy.

DP. That goes without saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, who is the leaker? Name released?

Someone better speak up and share this info. Surely, they didn't think they could just anonymously throw out a dangerous allegation like that and slink into the night, unwilling to speak about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, who is the leaker? Name released?

Someone better speak up and share this info. Surely, they didn't think they could just anonymously throw out a dangerous allegation like that and slink into the night, unwilling to speak about it.

Do you mean Raj Shah? It's strange how everyone points at him whenever there's a leak. He seems to be the designated fall guy.