Just another flop for the smear campaign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, Mollie Hemmingway pointed out this significant omission in the NYTimes story in her tweet early yesterday.
She had been given an advance copy of the upcoming book by the NYTimes reporters to review. That is how she knew about the omission.

But, some posters here questioned Hemmingway's credibility and journalistic integrity.
Glad to know she was vindicated.

Her book on the confirmation process is a must read.

Agreed. It was excellent. And, concerning at the same time. I feel sorry for the next SCOTUS nominated by a Republican. Hope that person has very thick skin and an extremely supportive family and cadre of friends.

Or...the next nominee isn't shady. Like Gorsuch (or Garland).

Won't matter. When the Democrats have vowed to oppose ANY nomination, you know there will be issues. I remember the ready-made signs made by the organized groups opposed to any nominee. They had all their bases covered.
And, sure enough, at the 11th hour, out comes the sexual assault allegations.
Remember what Chuck Schumer said......
“I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have....The stakes are simply too high for anything less.”

And that quote, in a nutshell, explains what's been said and done by Democrats, ever since Kavanaugh was nominated.

And your source for that sign.... probably a Federalist nutbag who wanted to make gullible Repos believe that there was some coordinated machine that would oppose any Repo candid- or wait! That’s exactly what it is!

PP here. I was referring to Schumer's words.

Well, well, the NYT messed up yet again. Apparently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A serious investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh would require speaking with a broad array of possible witnesses to the Kavanaugh-Ramirez incident. The FBI has not conducted that investigation."

- this from Kavanaugh's roommate from college. He has never been interviewed.

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

No investigation needed. We are in the Age of Trump. Truth, ethics, and laws, ethics are passé.

Read the article and tell me about the truth and ethics of this political science professor.

Why? They don't matter anymore. Isn't that what the amoral scum wanted? Isn't that why you put Trump in the White House?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A serious investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh would require speaking with a broad array of possible witnesses to the Kavanaugh-Ramirez incident. The FBI has not conducted that investigation."

- this from Kavanaugh's roommate from college. He has never been interviewed.

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

No investigation needed. We are in the Age of Trump. Truth, ethics, and laws, ethics are passé.

Read the article and tell me about the truth and ethics of this political science professor.

Anonymous wrote:"A serious investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh would require speaking with a broad array of possible witnesses to the Kavanaugh-Ramirez incident. The FBI has not conducted that investigation."

- this from Kavanaugh's roommate from college. He has never been interviewed.

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

First off, Scheuerman was not Kavanaugh's roommate but lived in the same dorm at Yale. Second, he readily admits that he did not move in Kavanuagh's social circles and did not attend the party where the alleged groping occurred. He simply compiled a list of names from his yearbook who he "thought" might be at the party. He wanted to provide this list of names to the FBI. I suspect the FBI receives many similar "kinda think I know something" calls and does not return them. I wonder if Scheuerman was one of the "sources" for the NYT reporters' book? Sounds like he is like the Holton Arms girl who said that everyone at school was talking about "what happened" to Christine Blasey until the FBI interviewed her. Maybe they learned their lesson from that brilliant witness.

Anonymous wrote:"A serious investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh would require speaking with a broad array of possible witnesses to the Kavanaugh-Ramirez incident. The FBI has not conducted that investigation."

- this from Kavanaugh's roommate from college. He has never been interviewed.

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

No investigation needed. We are in the Age of Trump. Truth, ethics, and laws, ethics are passé.

"A serious investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh would require speaking with a broad array of possible witnesses to the Kavanaugh-Ramirez incident. The FBI has not conducted that investigation."

- this from Kavanaugh's roommate from college. He has never been interviewed.

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

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about Merrick Garland? Get over it. Win the presidency and nominate your own justice. Nobody is owed a spot on SCOTUS. Dems think they are owed so much and demand it. Yeah, no.

Yes, certainly BK wasn't owed a spot and somehow the GOP thought he was and pushed him in without any qualms.

p.s. Garland was nominated by the POTUS.

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".

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.

If trump had nominated him, he’d be getting this treatment.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/09/16/nolte-new-york-times-forced-to-admit-kavanaugh-victim-doesnt-remember-assault

Who cares about Merrick Garland? Get over it. Win the presidency and nominate your own justice. Nobody is owed a spot on SCOTUS. Dems think they are owed so much and demand it. Yeah, no.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, Mollie Hemmingway pointed out this significant omission in the NYTimes story in her tweet early yesterday.
She had been given an advance copy of the upcoming book by the NYTimes reporters to review. That is how she knew about the omission.

But, some posters here questioned Hemmingway's credibility and journalistic integrity.
Glad to know she was vindicated.

Her book on the confirmation process is a must read.

Agreed. It was excellent. And, concerning at the same time. I feel sorry for the next SCOTUS nominated by a Republican. Hope that person has very thick skin and an extremely supportive family and cadre of friends.

Or...the next nominee isn't shady. Like Gorsuch (or Garland).

Won't matter. When the Democrats have vowed to oppose ANY nomination, you know there will be issues. I remember the ready-made signs made by the organized groups opposed to any nominee. They had all their bases covered.
And, sure enough, at the 11th hour, out comes the sexual assault allegations.
Remember what Chuck Schumer said......
“I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have....The stakes are simply too high for anything less.”

And that quote, in a nutshell, explains what's been said and done by Democrats, ever since Kavanaugh was nominated.

And your source for that sign.... probably a Federalist nutbag who wanted to make gullible Repos believe that there was some coordinated machine that would oppose any Repo candid- or wait! That’s exactly what it is!

We don't actually need an image to know that Democrats would opposed ANY candidate. They said it. In their own words.
Some of their tweets are listed here: https://thinkprogress.org/dems-respond-kennedy-retirement-6f900e7f355d/

+1

Not news

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, Mollie Hemmingway pointed out this significant omission in the NYTimes story in her tweet early yesterday.
She had been given an advance copy of the upcoming book by the NYTimes reporters to review. That is how she knew about the omission.

But, some posters here questioned Hemmingway's credibility and journalistic integrity.
Glad to know she was vindicated.

Her book on the confirmation process is a must read.

Agreed. It was excellent. And, concerning at the same time. I feel sorry for the next SCOTUS nominated by a Republican. Hope that person has very thick skin and an extremely supportive family and cadre of friends.

Or...the next nominee isn't shady. Like Gorsuch (or Garland).

Won't matter. When the Democrats have vowed to oppose ANY nomination, you know there will be issues. I remember the ready-made signs made by the organized groups opposed to any nominee. They had all their bases covered.
And, sure enough, at the 11th hour, out comes the sexual assault allegations.
Remember what Chuck Schumer said......
“I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have....The stakes are simply too high for anything less.”

And that quote, in a nutshell, explains what's been said and done by Democrats, ever since Kavanaugh was nominated.

And your source for that sign.... probably a Federalist nutbag who wanted to make gullible Repos believe that there was some coordinated machine that would oppose any Repo candid- or wait! That’s exactly what it is!

We don't actually need an image to know that Democrats would opposed ANY candidate. They said it. In their own words.
Some of their tweets are listed here: https://thinkprogress.org/dems-respond-kennedy-retirement-6f900e7f355d/