Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[...]Do none of you ask yourself why NONE of these issues were ever brought up by anyone during the MULTIPLE background investigations that he has gone through previously, during his professional career? So all of these accusers were perfectly OK with him sitting on the Court of Appeals, but once they thought he was a threat to Roe (which he is not), all of the sudden he is this monster? Please.

Good god, Cletus. We talked this to death when it was brought up a year ago. You don’t know anything about background checks, do you? Here’s how it goes, at least the relevant to your point missing part here: you provide all of your past addresses from x many years prior - dorms, apartments, etc - and a person who knew you at that time and can verify questions they ask.

As Bretty did not provide the names of his victims as a reference, it didn’t come up. Do you understand? If he didn’t bring it up, no one was going to bring it up.

If Dr. Ford were 1/10th as upset with his behavior as she indicated, I feel sure she was keeping up with his career moves.

How does that even make anew to you? You don’t credit the woman with knowing who assaulted her in high school but you do credit her with the ability to read minds and blame her for not speaking out? Do you hear what a stupid pretzel you have yourself twisted into? Take the L, dude.

The ability to read minds is not required for a person with a Ph.D. level of intelligence to follow the public career of a person from the same home town area.

You think every job offer he had has been public?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not falling for this totally bogus story. The authors' sourcing is questionable. Ramirez herself could not remember what happened and wasn't even sure that Kavanaugh was the person that was involved in an incident that she had a hard time remembering.

The "evidence" these two NYTimes reporters have is all hearsay. They state items as "facts" then, in their book, those "facts" will be called into question.

And, the NYTimes earlier tweet is absolutely disgusting. If you think this is anything about "truth," you are being swayed by dishonest media.

This whole story being resurrected reeks of desperation on the part of the left. It is so totally transparent. Right now, Democrats totally disgust me. I hope it has the opposite effect of what is intended here.

We know you don’t believe women. We know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[...]Do none of you ask yourself why NONE of these issues were ever brought up by anyone during the MULTIPLE background investigations that he has gone through previously, during his professional career? So all of these accusers were perfectly OK with him sitting on the Court of Appeals, but once they thought he was a threat to Roe (which he is not), all of the sudden he is this monster? Please.

Good god, Cletus. We talked this to death when it was brought up a year ago. You don’t know anything about background checks, do you? Here’s how it goes, at least the relevant to your point missing part here: you provide all of your past addresses from x many years prior - dorms, apartments, etc - and a person who knew you at that time and can verify questions they ask.

As Bretty did not provide the names of his victims as a reference, it didn’t come up. Do you understand? If he didn’t bring it up, no one was going to bring it up.

If Dr. Ford were 1/10th as upset with his behavior as she indicated, I feel sure she was keeping up with his career moves.

How does that even make anew to you? You don’t credit the woman with knowing who assaulted her in high school but you do credit her with the ability to read minds and blame her for not speaking out? Do you hear what a stupid pretzel you have yourself twisted into? Take the L, dude.

The ability to read minds is not required for a person with a Ph.D. level of intelligence to follow the public career of a person from the same home town area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[...]Do none of you ask yourself why NONE of these issues were ever brought up by anyone during the MULTIPLE background investigations that he has gone through previously, during his professional career? So all of these accusers were perfectly OK with him sitting on the Court of Appeals, but once they thought he was a threat to Roe (which he is not), all of the sudden he is this monster? Please.

Good god, Cletus. We talked this to death when it was brought up a year ago. You don’t know anything about background checks, do you? Here’s how it goes, at least the relevant to your point missing part here: you provide all of your past addresses from x many years prior - dorms, apartments, etc - and a person who knew you at that time and can verify questions they ask.

As Bretty did not provide the names of his victims as a reference, it didn’t come up. Do you understand? If he didn’t bring it up, no one was going to bring it up.

If Dr. Ford were 1/10th as upset with his behavior as she indicated, I feel sure she was keeping up with his career moves.

How does that even make anew to you? You don’t credit the woman with knowing who assaulted her in high school but you do credit her with the ability to read minds and blame her for not speaking out? Do you hear what a stupid pretzel you have yourself twisted into? Take the L, dude.

Anonymous wrote:I am not falling for this totally bogus story. The authors' sourcing is questionable. Ramirez herself could not remember what happened and wasn't even sure that Kavanaugh was the person that was involved in an incident that she had a hard time remembering.

The "evidence" these two NYTimes reporters have is all hearsay. They state items as "facts" then, in their book, those "facts" will be called into question.

And, the NYTimes earlier tweet is absolutely disgusting. If you think this is anything about "truth," you are being swayed by dishonest media.

This whole story being resurrected reeks of desperation on the part of the left. It is so totally transparent. Right now, Democrats totally disgust me. I hope it has the opposite effect of what is intended here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[...]Do none of you ask yourself why NONE of these issues were ever brought up by anyone during the MULTIPLE background investigations that he has gone through previously, during his professional career? So all of these accusers were perfectly OK with him sitting on the Court of Appeals, but once they thought he was a threat to Roe (which he is not), all of the sudden he is this monster? Please.

Good god, Cletus. We talked this to death when it was brought up a year ago. You don’t know anything about background checks, do you? Here’s how it goes, at least the relevant to your point missing part here: you provide all of your past addresses from x many years prior - dorms, apartments, etc - and a person who knew you at that time and can verify questions they ask.

As Bretty did not provide the names of his victims as a reference, it didn’t come up. Do you understand? If he didn’t bring it up, no one was going to bring it up.

If Dr. Ford were 1/10th as upset with his behavior as she indicated, I feel sure she was keeping up with his career moves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These stories will forever circulate. This is why creepy men (or women if any) shouldn’t be SC judges. He is making everyone look bad.

No, this whole story is evidence that we not allow the well-funded and well-organized groups who are opposed to the nominee of a Republican president to derail the nomination of a highly qualified and exemplary candidate.
We have let it happen before. No more. We learned our lesson.

Gorsuch did not have this problem because he was highly qualified and exemplary.

+1.

First, for those of you who don’t read, they are actually discussing two instances of exposing himself to women. Ramirez and Stier. Neither were investigated because the FBI was told not.

Second, do none of you ask yourself why Beer Boy has all these allegations against him and Gorsuch has none? Same president. Same Senate. Similar backgrounds and judicial philosophies. Could it be that Gorsuch can keep it in his pants and Beer Boy can’t?

No, because Gorsuch was simply filling Scalia's seat....thus, no perceived threat to Roe. Any conservative judge nominated to fill Kennedy's swing vote seat, would have gone through the same crap as Kavanaugh did.

Do none of you ask yourself why NONE of these issues were ever brought up by anyone during the MULTIPLE background investigations that he has gone through previously, during his professional career? So all of these accusers were perfectly OK with him sitting on the Court of Appeals, but once they thought he was a threat to Roe (which he is not), all of the sudden he is this monster? Please.

Exactly. And, lest we forget....... these groups, and many prominent Democrats vowed to oppose ANYONE who was filling Kennedy's seat. Long before any nomination was made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[...]Do none of you ask yourself why NONE of these issues were ever brought up by anyone during the MULTIPLE background investigations that he has gone through previously, during his professional career? So all of these accusers were perfectly OK with him sitting on the Court of Appeals, but once they thought he was a threat to Roe (which he is not), all of the sudden he is this monster? Please.

Good god, Cletus. We talked this to death when it was brought up a year ago. You don’t know anything about background checks, do you? Here’s how it goes, at least the relevant to your point missing part here: you provide all of your past addresses from x many years prior - dorms, apartments, etc - and a person who knew you at that time and can verify questions they ask.

As Bretty did not provide the names of his victims as a reference, it didn’t come up. Do you understand? If he didn’t bring it up, no one was going to bring it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These stories will forever circulate. This is why creepy men (or women if any) shouldn’t be SC judges. He is making everyone look bad.

No, this whole story is evidence that we not allow the well-funded and well-organized groups who are opposed to the nominee of a Republican president to derail the nomination of a highly qualified and exemplary candidate.
We have let it happen before. No more. We learned our lesson.

Gorsuch did not have this problem because he was highly qualified and exemplary.

+1.

First, for those of you who don’t read, they are actually discussing two instances of exposing himself to women. Ramirez and Stier. Neither were investigated because the FBI was told not.

Second, do none of you ask yourself why Beer Boy has all these allegations against him and Gorsuch has none? Same president. Same Senate. Similar backgrounds and judicial philosophies. Could it be that Gorsuch can keep it in his pants and Beer Boy can’t?

No, because Gorsuch was simply filling Scalia's seat....thus, no perceived threat to Roe. Any conservative judge nominated to fill Kennedy's swing vote seat, would have gone through the same crap as Kavanaugh did.

Do none of you ask yourself why NONE of these issues were ever brought up by anyone during the MULTIPLE background investigations that he has gone through previously, during his professional career? So all of these accusers were perfectly OK with him sitting on the Court of Appeals, but once they thought he was a threat to Roe (which he is not), all of the sudden he is this monster? Please.

Anonymous wrote:All this about a drunk college kid dropping his pants? Admit it, you all don’t really care that much about this, do you? You just don’t care for his politics and you’ll use any measure to get your way.