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

Anonymous
Anyone who does not see that Kavanaugh is the representation of the entitled pos prep student is clearly not from this area. This type of behavior is so quintessentially prep.

For all the butthurt republicans seeking evidence, this isn’t a trial. Hence why the dems are seeking an investigation. Y’all him as your nominee.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:To all those whining about nasty liberals making a fuss over Kavanaugh, how did Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch sail through their confirmations? And lest we forget, the GOP doesn't need a single Democratic vote to see this through.


+1 If the GOP wants to approve Kavanaugh they could do it. They know that it won't play well with (what's left of) their female supporters if they don't give all the accusers a chance to be heard (and they should have referred this to the FBI in the first place because all those Senators are going to look like jerks questioning the alleged victims).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Wow! Farrow says Ramirez came forward because Senate Democrats came looking?

Any other source for this?

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ronan-farrow-new-kavanaugh-accuser-came-forward-because-democrats-came-looking/


And why the heck didn't the Republicans go looking before they nominated BK? Why? What a mess.


Because the FBI did go looking.

These stories were developed AFTER he was nominated. Except for Ford telling her husband after she saw Kavanaugh was on Romney's short list for SC.

There is no corroboration to either story. Read the New Yorker story carefully:
1. Took the woman six days with her lawyer to work out her "memories.'
2. Only corroborating witness, is only relying on hearsay and wishes to remain nameless.
3. People who were supposedly at this party, according to Ramirez, deny its veracity. They don't even recall Kavanaugh being at the party.

That right wing rag, NYT, would not run the story because there were too many gaps in it.

Even Farrow said in an interview, that Ramirez came forward because the Dems were looking.

But, hey, if your politics outweigh your sense of decency and justice, I guess it doesn't matter.


You're leaving out that Yale classmates were emailing each other about the Ramirez incident and whether it would come out, and that it was one of them who tipped off the New Yorker. Not surprising that the other drunk instigators do not choose to remember anything, but it was known to quite a few people.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Wow! Farrow says Ramirez came forward because Senate Democrats came looking?

Any other source for this?

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ronan-farrow-new-kavanaugh-accuser-came-forward-because-democrats-came-looking/


And why the heck didn't the Republicans go looking before they nominated BK? Why? What a mess.


Because the FBI did go looking.

These stories were developed AFTER he was nominated. Except for Ford telling her husband after she saw Kavanaugh was on Romney's short list for SC.

There is no corroboration to either story. Read the New Yorker story carefully:
1. Took the woman six days with her lawyer to work out her "memories.'
2. Only corroborating witness, is only relying on hearsay and wishes to remain nameless.
3. People who were supposedly at this party, according to Ramirez, deny its veracity. They don't even recall Kavanaugh being at the party.

That right wing rag, NYT, would not run the story because there were too many gaps in it.

Even Farrow said in an interview, that Ramirez came forward because the Dems were looking.

But, hey, if your politics outweigh your sense of decency and justice, I guess it doesn't matter.


Curiously enough, Jane Meyer said on the Today Show this morning that the story emerged after Farrow and Meyer approached her. Seems as if these two need to line up their stories.
Anonymous
*deserve him as your nominee
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Wow! Farrow says Ramirez came forward because Senate Democrats came looking?

Any other source for this?

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ronan-farrow-new-kavanaugh-accuser-came-forward-because-democrats-came-looking/


And why the heck didn't the Republicans go looking before they nominated BK? Why? What a mess.


Because the FBI did go looking.

These stories were developed AFTER he was nominated. Except for Ford telling her husband after she saw Kavanaugh was on Romney's short list for SC.

There is no corroboration to either story. Read the New Yorker story carefully:
1. Took the woman six days with her lawyer to work out her "memories.'
2. Only corroborating witness, is only relying on hearsay and wishes to remain nameless.
3. People who were supposedly at this party, according to Ramirez, deny its veracity. They don't even recall Kavanaugh being at the party.

That right wing rag, NYT, would not run the story because there were too many gaps in it.

Even Farrow said in an interview, that Ramirez came forward because the Dems were looking.

But, hey, if your politics outweigh your sense of decency and justice, I guess it doesn't matter.


You're leaving out that Yale classmates were emailing each other about the Ramirez incident and whether it would come out, and that it was one of them who tipped off the New Yorker. Not surprising that the other drunk instigators do not choose to remember anything, but it was known to quite a few people.


I am curious who may have started that email chain. Ramirez?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Anyone who does not see that Kavanaugh is the representation of the entitled pos prep student is clearly not from this area. This type of behavior is so quintessentially prep.

For all the butthurt republicans seeking evidence, this isn’t a trial. Hence why the dems are seeking an investigation. Y’all him as your nominee.


You are right. This isn’t a trial. Anyone presenting a court with the evidence from any one of these allegations would be told to take a walk.
Anonymous
Should Kavanaugh be confirmed, very likely despite the dirty tricks, he may view any Democrat legal issue with bias against it. Kavanaugh is not going to forget this incident which will make it harder for Democrats to state any legal case in his eyes that does not have 100% evidence on their side. Even if there is just 1% doubt against a Democrat issue, Kavanaugh could, out of revenge, rule against the case.

As for Roe vs Wade, this will never be overturned. Why? The Republicans make too much money telling their voters, "Oooh, those slutty Democrat women want to kill their babies and yours too to control overpopulation. Vote for us and we'll put a stop to it!"

The Democrats do the same for their voters: "Oh, those nasty NASTY Republicans want to tell you what to do with YOUR body, Vote for us and we will stop them and we will make sure they keep their hands off your body!"

The Democrats make millions in fund raising dollars and so do the Republicans on this issue. It's a literal "Goose laying the golden egg"
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:K is in a bind (of his own making). He should have withdrawn for the "blah blah, my family blah blah, good of the country" reasons last week - probably about when his buddy Whelan was pushing the evil twin theory. But he waited . . . and now things are looking infinitely creepier, and if he withdraws at this point folks will definitely/universally (always and forevermore) think there is (significant) substance to the (many and varied - I'm looking at you Avenetti! - allegations.

Which means he'll probably double down and go for broke. Going to be a crazy week!


At this point, an investigation into the allegations should land him in jail, not just broke. That's why he's stupid.

Why won't Ford's best friends go under oath to support her?


Because she didn't tell anyone at the time so they can't really. I understand - I went through something similar and didn't tell my best friend or anyone else. It was embarrassing and humiliating and I didn't want to talk about it.


And because the senate republicans won't allow any witnesses for either side.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is interesting.

Stacy Washington is reporting that her FB posts are being dug up (internet is forever folks) and In March of 2017, Christine Blasey Ford posted on Facebook that someone needed to come forward an accuse Gorsuch of rape to derail his SCOTUS nomination. She further said such accusations should continue until Trump nominates Merrick Garland



This appears to be fake news. Unless you have better sourcing, Stacy Washington's Twitter feed simply shows her retweeting a meme from other person who appears to have deleted the original tweet. The meme doesn't even show a Facebook post, but simply makes the claim.


Give it time.


This is easy enough to settle. She is scheduled to testify on Thursday. Question from Senators: “There was a claim on Twitter that before you scrubbed your social media, you made a post on FB that someone needed to come forward and make accusations to accuse a SCOTUS nominee of misconduct to derail the nomination. Did you make any FB posts alluding to taking action to derail a SCOTUS nominee?” Follow up: “What type of political posts have you made on FB?”


Any Senator who asked that question based on an obvious hoax should be forced to resign.


Sure. But, what Kamala Harris did during the hearings is “brave.”


Harris nailed him. He could not answer a simple question about whether he had discussed the Mueller investigation with his buddy at Kasowitz, Benson & Torres. It was a simple question that he turned into a bigger deal by refusing to answer and pretending that he had never heard the name Kasowitz in his life.

The Stacy Washington thing is an obvious hoax. You probably believe pizzagate also.
Anonymous
Looks like the results of the polygraphs and the questions asked, and other material, has been requested before the testimony on Thursday.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-23%20Grassley%20to%20Ford's%20Attorneys%20-%20Evidence%20Request.pdf
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Should Kavanaugh be confirmed, very likely despite the dirty tricks, he may view any Democrat legal issue with bias against it. Kavanaugh is not going to forget this incident which will make it harder for Democrats to state any legal case in his eyes that does not have 100% evidence on their side. Even if there is just 1% doubt against a Democrat issue, Kavanaugh could, out of revenge, rule against the case.

As for Roe vs Wade, this will never be overturned. Why? The Republicans make too much money telling their voters, "Oooh, those slutty Democrat women want to kill their babies and yours too to control overpopulation. Vote for us and we'll put a stop to it!"

The Democrats do the same for their voters: "Oh, those nasty NASTY Republicans want to tell you what to do with YOUR body, Vote for us and we will stop them and we will make sure they keep their hands off your body!"

The Democrats make millions in fund raising dollars and so do the Republicans on this issue. It's a literal "Goose laying the golden egg"


+1

A pox on both their houses!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Wow! Farrow says Ramirez came forward because Senate Democrats came looking?

Any other source for this?

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ronan-farrow-new-kavanaugh-accuser-came-forward-because-democrats-came-looking/


And why the heck didn't the Republicans go looking before they nominated BK? Why? What a mess.


Because the FBI did go looking.

These stories were developed AFTER he was nominated. Except for Ford telling her husband after she saw Kavanaugh was on Romney's short list for SC.

There is no corroboration to either story. Read the New Yorker story carefully:
1. Took the woman six days with her lawyer to work out her "memories.'
2. Only corroborating witness, is only relying on hearsay and wishes to remain nameless.
3. People who were supposedly at this party, according to Ramirez, deny its veracity. They don't even recall Kavanaugh being at the party.

That right wing rag, NYT, would not run the story because there were too many gaps in it.

Even Farrow said in an interview, that Ramirez came forward because the Dems were looking.

But, hey, if your politics outweigh your sense of decency and justice, I guess it doesn't matter.


You're leaving out that Yale classmates were emailing each other about the Ramirez incident and whether it would come out, and that it was one of them who tipped off the New Yorker. Not surprising that the other drunk instigators do not choose to remember anything, but it was known to quite a few people.


I am curious who may have started that email chain. Ramirez?


Read the article. No, not Ramirez.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:K is in a bind (of his own making). He should have withdrawn for the "blah blah, my family blah blah, good of the country" reasons last week - probably about when his buddy Whelan was pushing the evil twin theory. But he waited . . . and now things are looking infinitely creepier, and if he withdraws at this point folks will definitely/universally (always and forevermore) think there is (significant) substance to the (many and varied - I'm looking at you Avenetti! - allegations.

Which means he'll probably double down and go for broke. Going to be a crazy week!


Or he should have said, "In my student days I drank too much on occasion and sometimes was boorish with women. Although I have no memory of the particular allegations [or don't remember them the same way], it is clear that these women have carried a terrible burden, and I am profoundly sorry. I am a different man today, and a father with daughters. "

Then he could survive it.


BS. Liberals wanted to take him or anyone Trump nominated to replace Kennedy down at all costs., But keep repeating this so you all feel better while you happily spread rumors and gossip to destroy a man and his family.


No, Gorsuch went through without issue. Maybe the problem is the nominee and his sordid past.


More BS. Gorsuch was confirmed and passed the Senate because he replaced Scalia so Gorsuch’s appointment wasn’t a threat to maintaining the status quo on the court. Kavanaugh’s appointment would tip the court to a more conservative leaning and that is why Dems are playing so dirty.


So you are saying that if Gorsuch had been alleged to have had sexusal misconduct issues, it wouldn't have mattered? BS.

I don't know about you, but I prefer my Supreme Court Justices haven't trained a drunk co-ed in high school.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Should Kavanaugh be confirmed, very likely despite the dirty tricks, he may view any Democrat legal issue with bias against it. Kavanaugh is not going to forget this incident which will make it harder for Democrats to state any legal case in his eyes that does not have 100% evidence on their side. Even if there is just 1% doubt against a Democrat issue, Kavanaugh could, out of revenge, rule against the case.

As for Roe vs Wade, this will never be overturned. Why? The Republicans make too much money telling their voters, "Oooh, those slutty Democrat women want to kill their babies and yours too to control overpopulation. Vote for us and we'll put a stop to it!"

The Democrats do the same for their voters: "Oh, those nasty NASTY Republicans want to tell you what to do with YOUR body, Vote for us and we will stop them and we will make sure they keep their hands off your body!"

The Democrats make millions in fund raising dollars and so do the Republicans on this issue. It's a literal "Goose laying the golden egg"


What is that phrase? Damning with faint praise. Or, if you really think that, then you think he'd be a terrible Supreme Court justice.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: