Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion is this is a Dem nothing burger and always has been. And I'm a Dem. He's a great scholar and there is no proof.

I'm sorry to see the USA go down this path. I worry for America.

+1

I, too, worry for America

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defends-conversation-with-ukraine-leader-11568993176?fbclid=IwAR2yLZXQuRxkmSoQ20puL1ZnQc9pvyRWSsKcJOJnzQuWseTsoH7mTPd1kOc

And unlike you, I actually AM a Democrat

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talking off the record is different from saying the reporters have to affirmatively say that he did not speak to them.

You can say he declined to speak on the record, and that is literally true. You cannot say he declined to speak at all and still be telling the truth.

How do we know that the two reporters are telling the truth. They haven't exactly been forthright throughout this process.

How do we know Brett is. He hasn’t exactly been forthright for over a decade.

What on earth are you still babbling about?

Brett’s long history is perjury. Makes him a very unreliable witness.

Justice Kavanaugh to you, my dear.
And he has no such history. His history, both on the bench and off the bench, is quite admirable and impeccable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talking off the record is different from saying the reporters have to affirmatively say that he did not speak to them.

You can say he declined to speak on the record, and that is literally true. You cannot say he declined to speak at all and still be telling the truth.

How do we know that the two reporters are telling the truth. They haven't exactly been forthright throughout this process.

How do we know Brett is. He hasn’t exactly been forthright for over a decade.

What on earth are you still babbling about?

Brett’s long history is perjury. Makes him a very unreliable witness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talking off the record is different from saying the reporters have to affirmatively say that he did not speak to them.

You can say he declined to speak on the record, and that is literally true. You cannot say he declined to speak at all and still be telling the truth.

How do we know that the two reporters are telling the truth. They haven't exactly been forthright throughout this process.

How do we know Brett is. He hasn’t exactly been forthright for over a decade.

What on earth are you still babbling about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kavanaugh allegations are Russian collusion 2.0 . The fakest of the fake news.

This. I find it hilariously sad that liberals constantly insist Republicans lie, when it fact, liberals are experts in the art of planting fake stories and insisting they’re true - and that anyone who questions them is “morally bankrupt”. That’s exactly the phrase I would use to describe them.

Do you have any examples, because I haven't seen any on this thread?

I find it hilarious that conservatives use to care about the deficit and national security and personal integrity. Look how much they have...grown...in the last 3 years.

Any examples of what? Liberals lying? This entire thread is a prime example. You can’t stand that Kavanaugh is a SCJ, so you’ll stoop as low as needed to take him down, even if that requires peddling lies and unproven allegations/rumors. It’s disgusting.

If you want to talk liars, look no further than Brett! https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d82da62e4b0849d47233e56 Oh, Mr Dishonorable promised to be interviewed by the authors so long as they would write that he didn’t.

This man is such a skeezy slime bucket.

From your own link:

“The woman at the center of Stier’s account declined to be interviewed by the Times reporters, and her friends say she doesn’t recall that incident, according to the Times.”

That’s really all we need to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion is this is a Dem nothing burger and always has been. And I'm a Dem. He's a great scholar and there is no proof.

I'm sorry to see the USA go down this path. I worry for America.

+1

Anonymous wrote:My opinion is this is a Dem nothing burger and always has been. And I'm a Dem. He's a great scholar and there is no proof.

I'm sorry to see the USA go down this path. I worry for America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kavanaugh allegations are Russian collusion 2.0 . The fakest of the fake news.

This. I find it hilariously sad that liberals constantly insist Republicans lie, when it fact, liberals are experts in the art of planting fake stories and insisting they’re true - and that anyone who questions them is “morally bankrupt”. That’s exactly the phrase I would use to describe them.

Do you have any examples, because I haven't seen any on this thread?

I find it hilarious that conservatives use to care about the deficit and national security and personal integrity. Look how much they have...grown...in the last 3 years.

Any examples of what? Liberals lying? This entire thread is a prime example. You can’t stand that Kavanaugh is a SCJ, so you’ll stoop as low as needed to take him down, even if that requires peddling lies and unproven allegations/rumors. It’s disgusting.

If you want to talk liars, look no further than Brett! https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d82da62e4b0849d47233e56 Oh, Mr Dishonorable promised to be interviewed by the authors so long as they would write that he didn’t.

This man is such a skeezy slime bucket.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talking off the record is different from saying the reporters have to affirmatively say that he did not speak to them.

You can say he declined to speak on the record, and that is literally true. You cannot say he declined to speak at all and still be telling the truth.

How do we know that the two reporters are telling the truth. They haven't exactly been forthright throughout this process.

How do we know Brett is. He hasn’t exactly been forthright for over a decade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talking off the record is different from saying the reporters have to affirmatively say that he did not speak to them.

You can say he declined to speak on the record, and that is literally true. You cannot say he declined to speak at all and still be telling the truth.

How do we know that the two reporters are telling the truth. They haven't exactly been forthright throughout this process.

That is a separate inquiry. You've clearly made up your mind. Have a good day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talking off the record is different from saying the reporters have to affirmatively say that he did not speak to them.

You can say he declined to speak on the record, and that is literally true. You cannot say he declined to speak at all and still be telling the truth.

How do we know that the two reporters are telling the truth. They haven't exactly been forthright throughout this process.[/quote]


And, they even kind of walked back that statement. And, people also talk to reporters on background which is even a step back from "off the record." And, FWIW, if you are "off the record," how do you attribute statements to an individual.

These reporters are a runaway train.

First, one of them acted like she didn't write the tweet--which she later admitted, but assumed it would be edited or something?
Then, they didn't omit the key piece of information from the op-ed? Which is pretty questionable.
Next, Kavanaugh had told them he would speak to them and backed out because he wanted them to "lie." Now, that is itself a "lie."
They failed to mention that Stier worked for Clintons and that his wife failed to get the federal judgeship because the Obama appointment "expired" when Trump was elected.


And, they believe Ramirez because of their "gut feelings." Really? Reporters?