new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Running around a party with your pants down is exposing yourself. People get arrested for this.

Kavanaugh apologists are bottom feeders.

Agree. Making up stories like this is worse. Again, there is no corroboration. This all started with the Ramirez story. Even she couldn't be sure it was Kavanaugh until after she spent six days talking to her lawyer. No one else could corroborate it. The only people who said it happened were not there when it happened. Kind of weak accusation.

[i]Does it not bother you that false accusations could take you down?

[b]

No, it bothers me that there was not a real investigation with an expansive scope so a bare majority of an institution that represents a minority of the country could push someone onto the Court for a lifetime appointment. To say nothing of his sniveling, pathetic, partisan rant, shady finances, and apparent perjury, which are all reasons to not confirm him INDEPENDENTLY of the allegations.

Not getting a SCOTUS appointment is not "being taken down." If he had shown any humility while maintaining his innocence, people might feel a lot differently about him. But no he is a saint and we are all Clinton apologists. This will make the GOP lose the Senate ultimately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many Dems live in the land of paranoia and conspiracy theories.

Hopefully you will recover by 2024 and we can have some serious discourse then.

Wow. The projection here is hilarious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Running around a party with your pants down is exposing yourself. People get arrested for this.

Kavanaugh apologists are bottom feeders.

Agree. Making up stories like this is worse. Again, there is no corroboration. This all started with the Ramirez story. Even she couldn't be sure it was Kavanaugh until after she spent six days talking to her lawyer. No one else could corroborate it. The only people who said it happened were not there when it happened. Kind of weak accusation.

[i]Does it not bother you that false accusations could take you down?

[b]

No, it bothers me that there was not a real investigation with an expansive scope so a bare majority of an institution that represents a minority of the country could push someone onto the Court for a lifetime appointment. To say nothing of his sniveling, pathetic, partisan rant, shady finances, and apparent perjury, which are all reasons to not confirm him INDEPENDENTLY of the allegations.

Not getting a SCOTUS appointment is not "being taken down." If he had shown any humility while maintaining his innocence, people might feel a lot differently about him. But no he is a saint and we are all Clinton apologists. This will make the GOP lose the Senate ultimately.

This. On the nose.

His appointment has stained the institution.

[Anonymous]

Why did she and her mother send her little sister to Yale if it was such a toxic place with sexual assault creeps running rampant? This narrative would have more clout if her sister ended up at Stanford, Harvard or Princeton because Yale’s ethos was so retrograde or whatever.

[Anonymous]

FAKE NEWS! haha dumb new york times, always calling wolf no one believes them anymore even for real news.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/media/new-york-times-kavanaugh/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Running around a party with your pants down is exposing yourself. People get arrested for this.

Kavanaugh apologists are bottom feeders.

Agree. Making up stories like this is worse. Again, there is no corroboration. This all started with the Ramirez story. Even she couldn't be sure it was Kavanaugh until after she spent six days talking to her lawyer. No one else could corroborate it. The only people who said it happened were not there when it happened. Kind of weak accusation.

[i]Does it not bother you that false accusations could take you down?

No, it bothers me that there was not a real investigation with an expansive scope so a bare majority of an institution that represents a minority of the country could push someone onto the Court for a lifetime appointment. [b] To say nothing of his sniveling, pathetic, partisan rant, shady finances, and apparent perjury, which are all reasons to not confirm him INDEPENDENTLY of the allegations.

Not getting a SCOTUS appointment is not "being taken down." If he had shown any humility while maintaining his innocence, people might feel a lot differently about him. But no he is a saint and we are all Clinton apologists. This will make the GOP lose the Senate ultimately.

This is total crap.
And, your bolded statement is full of lies.
You expect a man - who has been falsely accused of sexual assault and gang rape - to show "humility?" Please. He was justifiably outraged by the well-funded and well-organized groups opposed to his nomination. We are not forgetting the endless interruptions to the hearings by people hired (yes, hired) to come and sit in seats and make a scene. We are not forgetting the hysterical women acting like this was an end to women's rights. What an f'ing joke.
And, we will NEVER forget the false allegations thrown at him in the 11th hour because things just weren't going your way. He didn't withdraw. Trump didn't withdraw his name. So, pull the sexual harassment card.... I used to think Dianne Feinstein was reasonable. I lost all respect for her that day. And, I continue to lose respect for Democrats who continue to push these false stories.
The Dem. candidates who have called for his impeachment have all disqualified themselves. I can pretty much guarantee that not one off them will get the nomination.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Running around a party with your pants down is exposing yourself. People get arrested for this.

Kavanaugh apologists are bottom feeders.

Agree. Making up stories like this is worse. Again, there is no corroboration. This all started with the Ramirez story. Even she couldn't be sure it was Kavanaugh until after she spent six days talking to her lawyer. No one else could corroborate it. The only people who said it happened were not there when it happened. Kind of weak accusation.

[i]Does it not bother you that false accusations could take you down?

No, it bothers me that there was not a real investigation with an expansive scope so a bare majority of an institution that represents a minority of the country could push someone onto the Court for a lifetime appointment. [b] To say nothing of his sniveling, pathetic, partisan rant, shady finances, and apparent perjury, which are all reasons to not confirm him INDEPENDENTLY of the allegations.

Not getting a SCOTUS appointment is not "being taken down." If he had shown any humility while maintaining his innocence, people might feel a lot differently about him. But no he is a saint and we are all Clinton apologists. This will make the GOP lose the Senate ultimately.

This is total crap.
And, your bolded statement is full of lies.
You expect a man - who has been falsely accused of sexual assault and gang rape - to show "humility?" Please. He was justifiably outraged by the well-funded and well-organized groups opposed to his nomination. We are not forgetting the endless interruptions to the hearings by people hired (yes, hired) to come and sit in seats and make a scene. We are not forgetting the hysterical women acting like this was an end to women's rights. What an f'ing joke.
And, we will NEVER forget the false allegations thrown at him in the 11th hour because things just weren't going your way. He didn't withdraw. Trump didn't withdraw his name. So, pull the sexual harassment card.... I used to think Dianne Feinstein was reasonable. I lost all respect for her that day. And, I continue to lose respect for Democrats who continue to push these false stories.
The Dem. candidates who have called for his impeachment have all disqualified themselves. I can pretty much guarantee that not one off them will get the nomination.

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.

Yes, he should have maintained composure in that professional setting. He is welcome to freak out at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Running around a party with your pants down is exposing yourself. People get arrested for this.

Kavanaugh apologists are bottom feeders.

Agree. Making up stories like this is worse. Again, there is no corroboration. This all started with the Ramirez story. Even she couldn't be sure it was Kavanaugh until after she spent six days talking to her lawyer. No one else could corroborate it. The only people who said it happened were not there when it happened. Kind of weak accusation.

[i]Does it not bother you that false accusations could take you down?

No, it bothers me that there was not a real investigation with an expansive scope so a bare majority of an institution that represents a minority of the country could push someone onto the Court for a lifetime appointment. [b] To say nothing of his sniveling, pathetic, partisan rant, shady finances, and apparent perjury, which are all reasons to not confirm him INDEPENDENTLY of the allegations.

Not getting a SCOTUS appointment is not "being taken down." If he had shown any humility while maintaining his innocence, people might feel a lot differently about him. But no he is a saint and we are all Clinton apologists. This will make the GOP lose the Senate ultimately.

This is total crap.
And, your bolded statement is full of lies.
You expect a man - who has been falsely accused of sexual assault and gang rape - to show "humility?" Please. He was justifiably outraged by the well-funded and well-organized groups opposed to his nomination. We are not forgetting the endless interruptions to the hearings by people hired (yes, hired) to come and sit in seats and make a scene. We are not forgetting the hysterical women acting like this was an end to women's rights. What an f'ing joke.
And, we will NEVER forget the false allegations thrown at him in the 11th hour because things just weren't going your way. He didn't withdraw. Trump didn't withdraw his name. So, pull the sexual harassment card.... I used to think Dianne Feinstein was reasonable. I lost all respect for her that day. And, I continue to lose respect for Democrats who continue to push these false stories.
The Dem. candidates who have called for his impeachment have all disqualified themselves. I can pretty much guarantee that not one off them will get the nomination.

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.

Like I trust anything ancient Grassley says. I want the FBI, which used to be independent, to start from scratch. Does it make you feel better to refer to sexual assault victims as "hysterical women"? Very telling.

Whatever, dude/dudette, the Trump base is shrinking and the Dem base is growing.

[Anonymous]

BK was the only hysterical person in the room. Get the guy a tampon!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Running around a party with your pants down is exposing yourself. People get arrested for this.

Kavanaugh apologists are bottom feeders.

Agree. Making up stories like this is worse. Again, there is no corroboration. This all started with the Ramirez story. Even she couldn't be sure it was Kavanaugh until after she spent six days talking to her lawyer. No one else could corroborate it. The only people who said it happened were not there when it happened. Kind of weak accusation.

[i]Does it not bother you that false accusations could take you down?

No, it bothers me that there was not a real investigation with an expansive scope so a bare majority of an institution that represents a minority of the country could push someone onto the Court for a lifetime appointment. [b] To say nothing of his sniveling, pathetic, partisan rant, shady finances, and apparent perjury, which are all reasons to not confirm him INDEPENDENTLY of the allegations.

Not getting a SCOTUS appointment is not "being taken down." If he had shown any humility while maintaining his innocence, people might feel a lot differently about him. But no he is a saint and we are all Clinton apologists. This will make the GOP lose the Senate ultimately.

This is total crap.
And, your bolded statement is full of lies.
You expect a man - who has been falsely accused of sexual assault and gang rape - to show "humility?" Please. He was justifiably outraged by the well-funded and well-organized groups opposed to his nomination. We are not forgetting the endless interruptions to the hearings by people hired (yes, hired) to come and sit in seats and make a scene. We are not forgetting the hysterical women acting like this was an end to women's rights. What an f'ing joke.
And, we will NEVER forget the false allegations thrown at him in the 11th hour because things just weren't going your way. He didn't withdraw. Trump didn't withdraw his name. So, pull the sexual harassment card.... I used to think Dianne Feinstein was reasonable. I lost all respect for her that day. And, I continue to lose respect for Democrats who continue to push these false stories.
The Dem. candidates who have called for his impeachment have all disqualified themselves. I can pretty much guarantee that not one off them will get the nomination.

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.

Like I trust anything ancient Grassley says. I want the FBI, which used to be independent, to start from scratch. Does it make you feel better to refer to sexual assault victims as "hysterical women"? Very telling.

Whatever, dude/dudette, the Trump base is shrinking and the Dem base is growing.

Read the docs at the links he posted, Einstein.
Start from scratch? You are insane.
And, they were not "sexual assault victims." They were pawns funded by powerful groups..

"This is well-organized and scripted. This isn't chaos," Wong said outside the hearing rooms. "It's exercising your constitutional rights."
The group has been organizing around these Supreme Court hearings for about a month, she estimated.
Planned Parenthood and their Planned Parenthood Action Fund also organized members from around the country -- flying in "storytellers" from states as far as Alaska and North Dakota, according to Dana Singiser, vice president for public policy and government affairs at Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
Singiser told CNN that their efforts to raise awareness around the Supreme Court vacancy have been underway since the day that Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement over the summer.
"We were ready to go and hit the ground running to make sure that everyone understood what was at stake with this particular seat being the deciding seat for us, for so many things that people care about from Roe v. Wade to environmental issues to campaign finance across the board," she said in an interview outside the hearing room.
Those efforts include sitting in the hearing room, participating in a nightly vigil outside the Capitol's office buildings, writing letters to senators and setting up constituent meetings. In particular, Singiser mentioned that Planned Parenthood is focused on activism like phone calls and letter writing to Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, two potential swing votes on the Kavanaugh appointment who are both supportive of abortion rights.
For her part, Wong was arrested Monday along with Women's March co-founders Linda Sarsour and Bob Bland. She recounted what she yelled from the back of the room: "I said, for any senator who votes yes on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh there will be a political price to pay. That to me is an explicit demand and a promise."
Wong said that the Women's March has 300 people committed to "actions" during the week -- and that most of their members knowingly signed up for action that could get them arrested. The Women's March group drew from their 1.5 million member email list to spread the word, drawing a variety of women from around the country who Wong says have traveled to participate.
Wong described their members as "young professionals" with careers ranging from teachers and nurses to real estate agents.
The Women's March also has the financial backing to support members -- they fundraise off their email list and have sent six fundraising emails in the last two days that have raised more than six figures, according to Wong. The group lends financial support for travel, accommodation, legal training and bail. The arrests Monday resulted in a $35 to $50 bail, which the group paid for.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/kavanaugh-hearing-protests/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it turns out that Robin Pogrebin, one of the authors of this new book, was a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale.
She failed to disclose that. Seems like another little detail that would be important.

These two are looking more and more like hacks.

Why is that relevant by itself? I mean, we already know what the secret handshake at Yale involves.

It's relevant - it also means that this author, Pogrebin, was also classmates with Max Stier.
Seems this should have been disclosed - you know, transparency. Something the NYTimes knows little about evidently.

[Anonymous]

This is not complicated. He never should have been appointed for a life time appointment to our highest court. He failed the job interview all by himself. Any other job interviewer would have passed on him. There were many better options than him. But he did say Roe vs Wade "settled law" so I guess that's a plus!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it turns out that Robin Pogrebin, one of the authors of this new book, was a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale.
She failed to disclose that. Seems like another little detail that would be important.

These two are looking more and more like hacks.

Why is that relevant by itself? I mean, we already know what the secret handshake at Yale involves.

It's relevant - it also means that this author, Pogrebin, was also classmates with Max Stier.
Seems this should have been disclosed - you know, transparency. Something the NYTimes knows little about evidently.

The writers now say that their draft included the fact that the supposed victim didn't corroborate the supposed incident, but that some NYT editor deleted that.

You have to love the NYT. Awesome, responsible jornalism at its best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it turns out that Robin Pogrebin, one of the authors of this new book, was a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale.
She failed to disclose that. Seems like another little detail that would be important.

These two are looking more and more like hacks.

Why is that relevant by itself? I mean, we already know what the secret handshake at Yale involves.

It's relevant - it also means that this author, Pogrebin, was also classmates with Max Stier.
Seems this should have been disclosed - you know, transparency. Something the NYTimes knows little about evidently.

The writers now say that their draft included the fact that the supposed victim didn't corroborate the supposed incident, but that some NYT editor deleted that.

You have to love the NYT. Awesome, responsible jornalism at its best.

LOL. Evidently, the authors were also on NPR yesterday and the fact that this "victim" denies knowing anything about the incident NEVER CAME UP. In an hour-long interview.
#JournalismIsDeadAtTheNYTimes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Running around a party with your pants down is exposing yourself. People get arrested for this.

Kavanaugh apologists are bottom feeders.

Agree. Making up stories like this is worse. Again, there is no corroboration. This all started with the Ramirez story. Even she couldn't be sure it was Kavanaugh until after she spent six days talking to her lawyer. No one else could corroborate it. The only people who said it happened were not there when it happened. Kind of weak accusation.

[i]Does it not bother you that false accusations could take you down?

[b]

No, it bothers me that there was not a real investigation with an expansive scope so a bare majority of an institution that represents a minority of the country could push someone onto the Court for a lifetime appointment. To say nothing of his sniveling, pathetic, partisan rant, shady finances, and apparent perjury, which are all reasons to not confirm him INDEPENDENTLY of the allegations.

Not getting a SCOTUS appointment is not "being taken down." If he had shown any humility while maintaining his innocence, people might feel a lot differently about him. But no he is a saint and we are all Clinton apologists. This will make the GOP lose the Senate ultimately.

He’s been investigated six times. He’s clean. Keep trying to get him though. It’s very entertaining to watch the hysteria blow up in your faces.