new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations

[Anonymous]

The FBI investigation was a sham.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation_n_5bb58157e4b0876eda9afeff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See above about the liberal mind lying to itself. Exhibit A is the testimony of Blasie-Ford. Good luck finding any reasonable non-partisan woman that thinks that wasn’t a gigantic lie.

Follow that up with lack of recollection of all the others that gets published as fact, by liberal rags hell bent on taking people down for political reasons having nothing to do with “what is right.”

It’s basically liberal derangement syndrome. And, that syndrome is going to cause republicans to continue getting elected, including in 2020.

It’s this kind of thinking that is shedding women from the GOP like a heavy period. Do. you. know. how. many. women. have. been. assaulted. You don’t. I keep posting. That we know you don’t believe women, and I’m not doing it for rhetorical flourish. You guys literally seem not to understand how flipping commonplace sexual assault is (to say nothing of the low grade violence and comments that remind us that the specter of sexual assault is always there. Strangers. Family. Acquaintances. Pastors. Classmates. Teachers. Letter carriers. Whether women are old or pre-pubertal or fat or hot or dressed like a nun or wearing a paper gown or anything else. Violent rape, coercive rape, assaults where the woman fights back and escapes so that a rape isn’t completed but she’s still traumatized, gang rape....

But of course you don’t believe us. You laugh at it. You mock the victim. You try to poke holes where other women keep telling you there aren’t any, where experts tell you there aren’t any, that that’s how the brain processes trauma and the story checks out, you minimize, you insult, you blame the victim, you doubt the victim, you try to tarnish the victim’s past.... it is so. flucking. common. You don’t clucking believe isn’t because you’re convinced sexual assault is rare as a category 5 hurricane. It’s not, dude. It’s just a rainy day. And it rains clucking all the time.

Don’t even respond. I can’t take the misogynistic drivel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like it's groundhog day.

Do you Trumpsters REALLY believe that ANY of these women would subject themselves and their families to death threats just for the heck of it? Just for fun? Just for a book deal?

Seems like a book deal is the only reason someone would ever deign to work for this corrupt "administration" or what's left of it.

I am sure you also think that all of the accusations of sexual misconduct and porn star payoffs against your dear leader are all fiction as well.

You REALLY think as Kav said at his hearing that he was "A VICTIM OF REVENGE" on behalf of the Clintons?

At least Monica WANTED to give the BJ - she CONSENTED. She was a grown woman.

Yet your ilk went after Bill like nothing I have ever seen in my lifetime. Do you think Kav knew he was off base by that line regarding the Clintons? The way he went after Klobuchar? The way he was practically crying about PJ, Squee and Tobin and whomever the f else? And BEER!

Tin foil hats - please remove them now, Trumpsters. Also please stop repeating yourselves on this thread. It's tiresome.

Keep on swinging those d$cks as one PP said. That's what you excel at. Swinging those d$cks.

Dobroi Nochi!

The reporters said themselves that CBF didn’t know the half of what would come from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So did we find out who paid Kavanaugh's debts before confirmation?

Nope. And we never will.

Ah, one false narrative blown out of the water, so you have to fall back on the other. Too funny (and predictable).

By all means, enlighten us. Who paid his debts?

So, Trumpkins, who paid his debts?

Why don’t you tell us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FBI investigation was a sham.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation_n_5bb58157e4b0876eda9afeff

This is BS.

1.
@senjudiciary
staff proactively contacted Ms. Ramirez' lawyers soon after the New Yorker story broke.
https://nyti.ms/30g2Nbr

2. Despite 7 attempts by staff, Ms. Ramirez' lawyers declined to provide documentary evidence referenced in the article/witness accounts to support the claims. They also declined invitations for Ms. Ramirez to speak with committee investigators or to provide a written statement.

3. Nonetheless, our investigators spoke to and reviewed material from several Yale classmates of Ms. Ramirez and Justice Kavanaugh in order to assess the claim. You can read the committee’s 414-page investigative summary here:
http://bit.ly/30nwLKG

4. The committee's review found no verifiable evidence to support the claims. The
@nytimes
' own reporting at the time noted that it couldn't find anyone with firsthand knowledge & that Ms. Ramirez told friends she couldn’t be sure Kavanaugh was involved:

https://nyti.ms/2puvYrc



5. Ultimately, Ms. Ramirez’ team agreed only to contact the FBI with the claims. She was reportedly interviewed by the FBI during its supplemental background investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another little tidbit omitted from this horrible NYTImes hit piece......

Placed at the *very* end of the book is a stunning detail, per
@MZHemingway
: "’It just didn't make any sense,’ lifelong friend Leland Keyser told NYT reporters about Ford's allegations, adding ‘I don't have any confidence in the story.’”

Wow... when is the NYT going to address that statement? Incredible.

[Anonymous]

Dems keep losing credibility day after day...thank you NYT!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another little tidbit omitted from this horrible NYTImes hit piece......

Placed at the *very* end of the book is a stunning detail, per
@MZHemingway
: "’It just didn't make any sense,’ lifelong friend Leland Keyser told NYT reporters about Ford's allegations, adding ‘I don't have any confidence in the story.’”

Wow... when is the NYT going to address that statement? Incredible.

They won't. It's buried in the book. It will be ignored by most of the media.
And, the fact that Leland was pressured to change her statement by friends of CBF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, this is interesting. The reporters' book isn't out yet, but here is some information excerpted from it as relates to Leland Keyser, the only girlfriend that was at the party where the alleged assault took place:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/15/new-book-christine-blasey-fords-friend-leland-keyser-doesnt-believe/

The authors also acknowledge what had previously been reported in “Justice on Trial,” about the efforts of mutual friends to get her to change her testimony to be more supportive of Blasey Ford. The reporters say that some of Blasey Ford’s friends “had grown frustrated with Keyser. Her comments about the alleged Kavanaugh incident had been too limited, some of them felt, and did not help their friend’s case. Surely, given what a close friend Keyser had been, she could say more to substantiate Ford’s testimony and general veracity, even if she could not corroborate Ford’s more specific memories.”

A group text was formed in which friends such as Cheryl Amitay and Lulu Gonella discussed how to get her to say something more helpful to the cause. An unnamed man on the text suggested that they defame her as an addict. Keyser has been in recovery for some time, as her friends know and as has previously been reported.

Amitay answered, “Leland is a major stumbling block.” While asserting she didn’t want her to make anything up out of whole cloth, she offered ideas for things that could sound supportive of Ford’s story, such as that she’d been in similar situations with Blasey Ford that summer.

“I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn’t comply,” Keyser told the reporters, a stunning admission of the pressure to which she was subjected to by Blasey Ford’s allies.

As previously reported in “Justice on Trial,” Keyser continues to think about the story in which she was supposed to have played a part. She has both “logistical and character-driven” problems with it. Focusing on one of the angles that many women had trouble believing, she says, “It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she’s going to get home.”

And then, just before the book ends, the reporters drop a bombshell:

We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy. “I don’t have any confidence in the story.”

Unreal. I have such respect for Keyser not caving and lying, simply to support her “friend”. That takes courage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Those who don't want to see a conservative-leaning justice on the Supreme Court will make up shady accusations, if they think needed to prevent that person being seated.

Whatever. I'm sure you were perfectly fine with the treatment of Merrick Garland.

I don't recall any shady accusations against Merrick Garland. Please enlighten me.

Right, because HE WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED. He was 100% "prevented from being seated".

So apparently, you think Garland was “owed” the seat. And yet you all keep saying no one is “owed” a SCJ seat. Which is it?

[Anonymous]

“While acknowledging the outpouring of support from some of the world’s wealthiest and powerful people in Silicon Valley, accolades from corporate media, participation in far-left political causes, and nearly a million dollars raised in GoFundMe accounts, the authors say the only reason to come forward with an uncorroborated 35-year-old account of sexual misconduct would be because she believed it to be true.”

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/15/new-book-christine-blasey-fords-friend-leland-keyser-doesnt-believe/#.XX71VO13a5g.twitter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Brett Kavanaugh's firm Kirkland Ellis represented Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in Russia.

Coincidence?

Desperation is such an ugly thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Face it guys: It's over.

(Hearing this in Larry David's voice)

Yup. It's over. Nice run while we had it. What we'd get? 243 years?

Hopefully whatever comes next is able to fight corruption better than the system we had.

For the love of God, stay down. For your own good, Man/Woman! You lost the election perhaps due the very same piss poor judgment you are exhibiting here. I don't know, I'm just guessing here.

2018 would like a word

Oh please, 2018 was a symphony of "there is no crisis at the border" which literally resulted in a crisis at the border! You are not fit to run and in this environment, THAT is saying something.

+ a billion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Those who don't want to see a conservative-leaning justice on the Supreme Court will make up shady accusations, if they think needed to prevent that person being seated.

Whatever. I'm sure you were perfectly fine with the treatment of Merrick Garland.

I don't recall any shady accusations against Merrick Garland. Please enlighten me.

Right, because HE WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED. He was 100% "prevented from being seated".

So apparently, you think Garland was “owed” the seat. And yet you all keep saying no one is “owed” a SCJ seat. Which is it?

He was owed the consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dems keep losing credibility day after day...thank you NYT!

LOL. You want to talk about "credibility"?