Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the BK Fan Girls still chittering on and on? Doesn’t take much to get you all worked up, huh?

And they are still going. Such a frenzy!

It’s delicious when you’ve been proven wrong yet all you can do is double down and tsk-tsk. So telling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here’s an editorial from the WSJ. Very grateful there is still one news source with journalistic integrity.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-assault-on-the-supreme-court-11568674522

Oooooh, shocker that the former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush, now working for Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper, loves his Brett Kavanaugh.

It must really sting that the most respected news source in the country has publicly slammed the NYT (and others) for this sham of a “story” against Kavanaugh. Ouch, huh?!

Right wing bias.

Nope. Centrist to right-of-center, which these days is refreshing as hell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the BK Fan Girls still chittering on and on? Doesn’t take much to get you all worked up, huh?

And they are still going. Such a frenzy!

It’s delicious when you’ve been proven wrong yet all you can do is double down and tsk-tsk. So telling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here’s an editorial from the WSJ. Very grateful there is still one news source with journalistic integrity.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-assault-on-the-supreme-court-11568674522

Oooooh, shocker that the former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush, now working for Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper, loves his Brett Kavanaugh.

It must really sting that the most respected news source in the country has publicly slammed the NYT (and others) for this sham of a “story” against Kavanaugh. Ouch, huh?!

Right wing bias.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the BK Fan Girls still chittering on and on? Doesn’t take much to get you all worked up, huh?

And they are still going. Such a frenzy!

Anonymous wrote:DCUM never disappoints. Everyone everywhere is looking at this as a blatant hit job. But not liberal DCUMers. Nope, they’re still out with their guns ablazing. They had them at the ready for the last year. Just needed the slightest bit of ammo and they’re back at it, no matter how asinine and empty the allegations are. Thank God this forum is anonymous, right? Let that shit go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here’s an editorial from the WSJ. Very grateful there is still one news source with journalistic integrity.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-assault-on-the-supreme-court-11568674522

Oooooh, shocker that the former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush, now working for Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper, loves his Brett Kavanaugh.

It must really sting that the most respected news source in the country has publicly slammed the NYT (and others) for this sham of a “story” against Kavanaugh. Ouch, huh?!

Anonymous wrote:Are the BK Fan Girls still chittering on and on? Doesn’t take much to get you all worked up, huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here’s an editorial from the WSJ. Very grateful there is still one news source with journalistic integrity.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-assault-on-the-supreme-court-11568674522

Oooooh, shocker that the former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush, now working for Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper, loves his Brett Kavanaugh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let's look at how this investigation went.

The FBI contacts Ramirez. She tells the investigators what she remembers happening, admits that she had been drinking, and confesses that she was not 100% sure it was him but after working with her attorneys for 6 days, she is more confident. She then provides names of people who can corroborate. They contact some of her so-called witnesses, but none of them can corroborate her story. Some were not even at the so-called party.

Should they have continued contacting, oh, I don't know, anyone listed in the yearbook until the list is exhausted? Or, do investigators, after meeting with the so-called victim and the people SHE says can verify her story, realize that there is no story there to verify?

Ramirez seemed a bit reluctant to tell her story.......

This from the Senate investigation report:

In a September 23, 2018, story published in the New Yorker, Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale at the same time as Justice Kavanaugh, alleged that he “exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”39 Almost immediately after its publication, the New York Times posted a story that said its staff had interviewed several dozen people but could find no one to corroborate Ramirez’s account or anyone with firsthand knowledge of the alleged event.40 The Times also reported that Ramirez, in effort to refresh her recollection, “contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”41

Hours after the New Yorker published the story, the Committee contacted Ramirez’s attorney. According to the article, Ramirez had investigated her claims and the Committee asked for any evidence—including statements from witnesses—that she had gathered to support her allegations. Through her attorney, she refused each of the Committee’s seven requests for such material.42 The Committee also asked her to either speak to Committee investigators or to provide a written statement directly to the Committee, to which she also refused. Ultimately, her attorneys agreed only to contact the FBI to demand that she be included in the supplemental background investigation. The FBI reportedly interviewed Ramirez on Sunday, September 30, 2018.43
Despite the refusal of Ramirez’s legal team to assist the Committee in its investigation, Committee investigators attempted to investigate her claims to the greatest extent possible, and interviewed seven witnesses regarding the allegation. They included Justice Kavanaugh’s former roommate at Yale, James Roche, several of his college classmates, and classmates and friends associated with Ramirez. Committee investigators also reviewed documents submitted by several former Yale classmates. The Committee also reviewed public statements from three other Yale classmates but found them immaterial because the speakers had no knowledge of the event. Finally, Committee investigators interviewed Justice Kavanaugh in a transcribed phone call on September 25. He unequivocally denied that the alleged incident ever took place.

Why stop at the yearbook? FBI should interview anyone who thinks they have information about the case and follow every lead. No investigation can be too thorough! I am sure they could finish up in a decade or so.

Anonymous wrote:Are the partisan BK haters and liars still chittering on and on? Doesn’t take much to get you all worked up, huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let's look at how this investigation went.

The FBI contacts Ramirez. She tells the investigators what she remembers happening, admits that she had been drinking, and confesses that she was not 100% sure it was him but after working with her attorneys for 6 days, she is more confident. She then provides names of people who can corroborate. They contact some of her so-called witnesses, but none of them can corroborate her story. Some were not even at the so-called party.

Should they have continued contacting, oh, I don't know, anyone listed in the yearbook until the list is exhausted? Or, do investigators, after meeting with the so-called victim and the people SHE says can verify her story, realize that there is no story there to verify?

Ramirez seemed a bit reluctant to tell her story.......

This from the Senate investigation report:

In a September 23, 2018, story published in the New Yorker, Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale at the same time as Justice Kavanaugh, alleged that he “exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”39 Almost immediately after its publication, the New York Times posted a story that said its staff had interviewed several dozen people but could find no one to corroborate Ramirez’s account or anyone with firsthand knowledge of the alleged event.40 The Times also reported that Ramirez, in effort to refresh her recollection, “contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”41

Hours after the New Yorker published the story, the Committee contacted Ramirez’s attorney. According to the article, Ramirez had investigated her claims and the Committee asked for any evidence—including statements from witnesses—that she had gathered to support her allegations. Through her attorney, she refused each of the Committee’s seven requests for such material.42 The Committee also asked her to either speak to Committee investigators or to provide a written statement directly to the Committee, to which she also refused. Ultimately, her attorneys agreed only to contact the FBI to demand that she be included in the supplemental background investigation. The FBI reportedly interviewed Ramirez on Sunday, September 30, 2018.43
Despite the refusal of Ramirez’s legal team to assist the Committee in its investigation, Committee investigators attempted to investigate her claims to the greatest extent possible, and interviewed seven witnesses regarding the allegation. They included Justice Kavanaugh’s former roommate at Yale, James Roche, several of his college classmates, and classmates and friends associated with Ramirez. Committee investigators also reviewed documents submitted by several former Yale classmates. The Committee also reviewed public statements from three other Yale classmates but found them immaterial because the speakers had no knowledge of the event. Finally, Committee investigators interviewed Justice Kavanaugh in a transcribed phone call on September 25. He unequivocally denied that the alleged incident ever took place.

Anonymous wrote:DCUM never disappoints. Everyone everywhere is looking at this as a blatant hit job. But not liberal DCUMers. Nope, they’re still out with their guns ablazing. They had them at the ready for the last year. Just needed the slightest bit of ammo and they’re back at it, no matter how asinine and empty the allegations are. Thank God this forum is anonymous, right? Let that shit go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

You will not be rewarded in heaven for your tireless efforts to smear the reputation of a good person based on vague, decades old allegations from high school, Karen. You should be ashamed, but clearly you’re incapable of feeling shame.

Praise be

'

Kavanaugh is not a good person regardless of the sexual assault allegations. God is not waiting to welcome Brett.

No God-fearing person would support Trump, the GOP or Kavanaugh.