new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Omg. Npr just BLOWS.

[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?

[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.

You’re confusing background checks for investigations.

[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?

[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.

You’re confusing background checks for investigations.

It's called a background INVESTIGATION. And, the FBI conducted yet another investigation after these bogus allegations were leveled. So did the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Result: NADA
Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

[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.

You’re confusing background checks for investigations.

It's called a background INVESTIGATION. And, the FBI conducted yet another investigation after these bogus allegations were leveled. So did the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Result: NADA
Move on.

Is an investigation complete if the FBI does not contact someone referred by a US senator? Is it complete if they did not return the calls of any of the Yale alum who contacted them about Kavanaugh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

[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.

You’re confusing background checks for investigations.

It's called a background INVESTIGATION. And, the FBI conducted yet another investigation after these bogus allegations were leveled. So did the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Result: NADA
Move on.

LOL. Guess you aren’t familiar with “background investigations”. NONE of this would come up.

[Anonymous]

LOL. Guess you aren’t familiar with “background investigations”. NONE of this would come up.

Correct. They were performed before the Dems were out to get him at any cost. If these events had been accurate, it is likely they would have been noted from a classmate. As for Ford, maybe not. Mostly because it likely never happened and it is unlikely they would have gone back to freshman year of high school. You might ask yourself why?

But, a federal judge who has to be approved by Congress would get more than a cursory investigation like you get for a Secret clearance. It is more than visiting your neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone care what K did in college?

Do any of you want to be judged by some random indiscretion from your high school or college days? I feel like I was a completely different person back then.

Thank you. I fully agree.

People like you are the problem, because you are either repulsive people who did bad things and now want a pass or you are enablers of bad people who do bad things and give them a pass. Sexual assault, in whatever form, is not a random indiscretion.

PP here and I agree - provided there actually WAS sexual assault. That has not been proven in any way, shape, or form. I’m not into smearing someone because of an unsubstantiated allegation from their high school years. But you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone care what K did in college?

Do any of you want to be judged by some random indiscretion from your high school or college days? I feel like I was a completely different person back then.

Thank you. I fully agree.

People like you are the problem, because you are either repulsive people who did bad things and now want a pass or you are enablers of bad people who do bad things and give them a pass. Sexual assault, in whatever form, is not a random indiscretion.

Liking beer does not make one a sexual assaulter.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Omg. Npr just BLOWS.

Yep

What a shame

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone care what K did in college?

Do any of you want to be judged by some random indiscretion from your high school or college days? I feel like I was a completely different person back then.

Thank you. I fully agree.

People like you are the problem, because you are either repulsive people who did bad things and now want a pass or you are enablers of bad people who do bad things and give them a pass. Sexual assault, in whatever form, is not a random indiscretion.

Agree. And, even more important, false accusations demean the reality. And, it appears that is what has happened here. There is no evidence that Kavanaugh was a sexual assaulter. There is plenty of evidence that people are accusing him falsely.

+ a million

[Anonymous]

You will be rewarded in heaven for your work defending Bart O'Beer on an anonymous message board, Becky I, II, and II'

Under his eye

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

[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.

You’re confusing background checks for investigations.

It's called a background INVESTIGATION. And, the FBI conducted yet another investigation after these bogus allegations were leveled. So did the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Result: NADA
Move on.

You’re so confused and you don’t even know it.

You don’t know how a background check differs from the FBI crawling up your a$$.

You refuse to acknowledge that the White House prevented the FBI from fully investigating, so it wasn’t worth anything.

So your claimed “results” of “nada” are meaningless. Congrats. The GOP has sullied yet another institution.

[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.

Applause. I couldn’t agree more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone care what K did in college?

Do any of you want to be judged by some random indiscretion from your high school or college days? I feel like I was a completely different person back then.

Thank you. I fully agree.

People like you are the problem, because you are either repulsive people who did bad things and now want a pass or you are enablers of bad people who do bad things and give them a pass. Sexual assault, in whatever form, is not a random indiscretion.

Agree. And, even more important, false accusations demean the reality. And, it appears that is what has happened here. There is no evidence that Kavanaugh was a sexual assaulter. There is plenty of evidence that people are accusing him falsely.

+ a million

+ two million

[Anonymous]

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

But you’re not a misogynist at all.