╌>

Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  cms5  •  7 years ago  •  257 comments

Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford
The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations. 

The revelation was included in a late-night news release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the committee. The release includes a day-by-day view of the committee's investigative work over the last two weeks since allegations surfaced targeting Kavanaugh. 

Ford was the first to step forward with allegations and claimed Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982. Since then a number of accusations have piled on, including that of a physical assault and several other sexual encounters. 

Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied all the allegations lodged against him. 

The committee has interviewed two men who came forward about the disputed assault at a summer house party. Both told the committee they, not Kavanaugh, "had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint," the release states.

The previously unknown interviews could add a new layer to the evolving saga on the eve of a possible explosive hearing between Kavanaugh and Ford, though it's unknown whether the men's claims are being taken seriously. 

One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday. 

Committee staff spoke to a second man over the phone Wednesday who also said he believed he, not Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Ford. "He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter" to staff, the release states. 

Both men were not named. USA TODAY was not able to independently vet the claims.

The committee has said it is investigating all claims made in the Kavanaugh saga, attempting to "make sure no stone was left unturned." 

In this regard, the committee has also questioned Kavanaugh about a series of anonymous allegations, including a physical assault on a woman in the 1990s. 

The release also outlines a number of others the committee has interviewed, including friends of Kavanaugh and those who know the women who have lodged accusations against him. 



Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
cms5
Freshman Silent
1  seeder  cms5    7 years ago

This certainly throws a twist into the memory mixer.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  cms5 @1    7 years ago
This certainly throws a twist into the memory mixer.

Only if you're going to fall for this idiotic last-ditch stunt.  It's either gullibility in the extreme or something much less savory.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1    7 years ago

One idiotic stunt deserves another. The gullible must love company if the left believes these women allegations are true.

If the two men had more details like when, where, and how she fled home they have her story beat.  Of course she would have to believe details to refute their claim.  Details she can't come up with. 

I am not for Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court; but what the left are doing now is just plain wrong.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
1.1.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    7 years ago
I am not for Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court; but what the left are doing now is just plain wrong.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Oh, gawd..  thank you for another comically ridiculous comment.  You must have a million of 'em. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
4  Cerenkov    7 years ago

Vote to confirm now

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
4.1  lib50  replied to  Cerenkov @4    7 years ago

There is no way that man will be a member of SCOTUS. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  lib50 @4.1    7 years ago
There is no way that man will be a member of SCOTUS. 

And if he is confirmed? The GOP will lose the house and the senate in November. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
4.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  lib50 @4.1    7 years ago

They  also said that Trump would never be president .

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
4.1.4  lib50  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.3    7 years ago

True, but look at how he got there (Putin help) and how many close associates are now in or facing jail.  At some point it will all catch up with him, and one day it will with Kavanaugh, and he will pay his price,  and doubt he'd stay on SCOTUS if they manage to ram him through.  Women for the most part will not be happy if they force a vote.  A bunch of angry old white men defending a belligerent, angry and uncooperative white guy, none of whom will allow other witnesses or open up the FBI investigation to deal specifically with these allegations.  When Kavanaugh was testifying it was easy to see him as a mean drunk. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.3    7 years ago
They  also said that Trump would never be president .

They also said that man would never travel faster than the speed of sound. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5  Dulay    7 years ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Graham dismisses two men who claim Ford may have mistaken Kavanaugh for them

"One’s crazy as a loon. I don’t believe the other one. I’m not going to play this game," Graham said on "CBS This Morning."
“You don’t believe either of these men who said they attacked Dr. Ford?” anchor Norah O'Donnell asked.
"Yes, I don’t believe that," Graham responded.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Silent
5.1  lady in black  replied to  Dulay @5    7 years ago

Desperate deporables that's all.  They should be fined!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    7 years ago
Don't they have as much corroborating evidence as Ford does that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her?

Wells since they are anonymous, that impossible to make a personal judgement, yet it sounds like Graham has looked into it and he thinks they are full of shit. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.3    7 years ago
And a lot of people think Ford is full of shit.

You know what they say about opinions and assholes. 

What was your point again?

READ MORE CAREFULLY.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.5    7 years ago
It simply doesn't make sense.

Obtuse. 

I simply don't care that much about your posts, especially when they appear so pointless.

So the fact that they are anonymous and that a Senator on the Judicial Committee, who desperately wants Kavanaugh on the court, says they are lying is 'pointless'. Got ya. 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Silent
5.1.7  lady in black  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    7 years ago

Graham found them NOT CREDIBLE.....

You call Ford a liar because she is a WOMAN and think these 2 jerkwads are being truthful because they are MEN.....that's rich.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  lady in black @5.1.7    7 years ago

That's pretty ironic coming from a woman, isn't it?

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Silent
5.1.9  lady in black  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.8    7 years ago

Yes, surprisingly so because honestly I thought texan was a guy. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  lady in black @5.1.9    7 years ago

?

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.11  Skrekk  replied to  lady in black @5.1.9    7 years ago
I thought texan was a guy. 

Ditto.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
5.1.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    7 years ago
Don't they have as much corroborating evidence as Ford does that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her?

No.  I know you couldn't possibly be  that gullible.  So it has to be desperation.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.14    7 years ago
They are not anonymous.

Really? So what are their names? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.18    7 years ago

Names? Link to documents? 

They didn't 'testify' to ANYONE...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.20    7 years ago
Now we are getting somewhere.

Obviously not since you have yet to cite their names or post a link to the supporting documents. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.24  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.22    7 years ago
This is the best that anyone can deliver. SOME on the Senate Judiciary committee obviously UNDERSTAND what confidential actually means.

What proof do you have that those two men requested confidentiality? 

The Senate Judiciary Committee interviewed two men who said they: Committee staff have first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint. He submitted a written statement earlier in the day.

Committee staff have a second interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in the summer of 1982 that is the basis of her allegation. He described his recollection of their interaction in some detail.

Committee staff receives a more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had an encounter with Dr. Ford.

Committee investigative staff spoke via phone with another man who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had an encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of her allegation. He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter.

That is over a three day period...

Now HERE is the kicker...

Grassley referred the guy who contacted Whitehouse with a FALSE allegation about Kavanaugh.

But when individuals provide fabricated allegations to the Committee, diverting Committee resources 
during time-sensitive investigations, it materially impedes our work. Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to Congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct Committee investigations.

Grassley decries that making false allegations against Kavanaugh wasted their time and resources. But NOT A PEEP about the 'two men' that Graham called 'Crazy as a loon'. Where is Grassley's outrage about their wasting the time and resources of the committee with false allegations trying to attack the credibility of Ford with their BS 'mistaken identity' claims? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.23    7 years ago
Do you know who resides at 2716 Live Oak Avenue in Waco, Texas?

WTF are you talking about? 

BTW, I could find out if you want to pay the county registration fee. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.27  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.25    7 years ago
Where is your proof that the didn't?

You are the one that made the assertion...

In the other situation, they were speaking about THEMSELVES.

Nope, they were talking about Ford mistakenly identifying Kavanaugh. 

READ Grassley's letter. He sites that his FALSE allegation is a violation of federal law. They ALSO made FALSE allegations. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.30  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.28    7 years ago

If there was a shred of evidence supporting their BULLSHIT, Graham would be screaming it from the mountain tops instead of calling them 'Crazy as loons'.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
5.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.29    7 years ago

PAY ATTENTION.

a·non·y·mous
[əˈnänəməs]

ADJECTIVE
(of a person) not identified by name ; of unknown name .

English is fundamental...

BTFW, jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.2  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @5    7 years ago

Graham was just interviewed live on TV.  He just doesn't believe anyone other than the nominee. 

He's been fidgeting and be a wee bit disruptive during the hearings, telegraphing his impatience and intolerance of the same, especially during the last hour..

As my bride often says " one can literally hear his eye rolls clear across a crowded room".

( she's most often talking about me lol )

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  Split Personality @5.2    7 years ago

Spartacus......AGAIN..... "feels hers and all of Americas pain" on this.  He's putting on the record....Pro Ford personal letters. The same tactic the Democrats used during the Obamascare procedure.

Just another tear jerking movie ……. "I feel your pain 3".

Obama had the 2.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
5.2.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Split Personality @5.2    7 years ago

Who would have thought all these macho men would have such a histrionic streak in them.  They should have put fainting couches in the hearing room.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6  Tacos!    7 years ago

Why would you voluntarily come forward and confess to a thing like this?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
6.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Tacos! @6    7 years ago
Why would you voluntarily come forward and confess to a thing like this?

Desperate lying republican scumbags will do anything to derail Dr. Ford's testimony.  Besides, it's a risk-free gambit.  No harm, other than ridicule, will come to them as long as this lie isn't made under oath (and you can be sure it will not be made under oath).

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
6.1.1  Spikegary  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1    7 years ago
Desperate lying democrat scumbags will do anything to derail Judge Kavanaugh's nomnation, because TRUMP!
There, corrected that for you.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
6.1.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    7 years ago
And no harm to Ford when her story falls apart

Right--death threats and being forced to go into hiding by scumsucking pigs who who are on your side on this issue is "no harm."  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
6.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.4    7 years ago

Thousands of people are in JAIL right now without one corroborating witness testifying against them...

BTFW, if a woman is raped in the forest and no one witnesses it, did it happen? /s

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
6.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.6    7 years ago
And if a woman is raped in the forest without eyewitnesses, there will be DNA evidence.

Which will sit in a police evidence locker to decay for decades...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
6.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.8    7 years ago

512

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
6.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6    7 years ago
Why would you voluntarily come forward and confess to a thing like this?

When they turn themselves into Maryland LEO's, I've take it into consideration. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
6.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.1    7 years ago

I'll leave that to Avenatti's client...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
6.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.1    7 years ago

BTW, the Maryland statute of limitations is passed for attempted rape. 

 
 
 
cms5
Freshman Silent
6.2.5  seeder  cms5  replied to  Dulay @6.2.4    7 years ago
Maryland Statutes of Limitations for Sexual Assault Limitation : No statute of limitations.
DNA Exception : No.

Maryland has no statute of limitations for Sexual Assault

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
6.2.6  Dulay  replied to  cms5 @6.2.5    7 years ago

READING is fundamental.

Criminal sexual conduct in the 1st degree: (1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if he or she engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following circumstances exists
 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.2.4    7 years ago

I have heard somewhere that the SOL does not apply to victims who were minors. I'm too lazy to check, but I invite others to look into it.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
6.2.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dulay @6.2.2    7 years ago

Does that guy ever scare the shit out of trumpsters and for good reason.  He's got Scumbag in his sights for bribery to keep her quiet and he's already taken down Scumbag's personal attorney in the process.  There are still shoes waiting drop on all of this steaming pile of corruption.   

 
 
 
DRHunk
Freshman Silent
7  DRHunk    7 years ago

This sounds a little....hmmm...fishy....why would two people admit to sexually assaulting someone if their names were never mentioned, and how were they found and how did you get not one but both to admit to it.  I do not know or communicate with anyone i knew in 1980, much less am i willing to admit to a crime i may have committed with them....this is seriously, blunt in your face, smoke and mirrors. Its quite sad.

 
 
 
cms5
Freshman Silent
8  seeder  cms5    7 years ago

I find it interesting that accusers are believed as soon as they tell their stories...and this report about two men claiming to be responsible for the assault on Dr. Ford are to be summarily dismissed.

Their statements are with the committee...are they corroborated or will they testify? That is an unknown - for the additional accusers and these two.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Guide
8.1  Dulay  replied to  cms5 @8    7 years ago
I find it interesting that accusers are believed as soon as they tell their stories...and this report about two men claiming to be responsible for the assault on Dr. Ford are to be summarily dismissed. Their statements are with the committee...are they corroborated or will they testify? That is an unknown - for the additional accusers and these two.

They aren't being 'summarily dismissed', Graham characterized one of them as a 'crazy loon', which infers that he at least looked into them and made an educated judgment on their lack of credibility. 

I find it interesting that you seem to think that their testimony is relevant. What say you about Mark Judge being subpoenaed? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Participates
8.1.1  Raven Wing   replied to  Dulay @8.1    7 years ago

It would seem that Lindsey Graham is trying to make a name for himself like John McCain since McCain died. However, his actions in that meeting today are certainly are far from how McCain would have acted, and still got his point across. 

For years Graham was McCain's 'Water Boy', and I guess now he feels that he can make a name for himself. But, that name looks more like it will be mud no matter how much he cozies up to Trump now.

I will say one thing for him though. He does know how to put on a great show. And the one that he put on for Kavanaugh today in that meeting should get a Noble Peace Prize. However, I am sure that won't be able to happen until Trump gets his.   

Just my own opinion.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
8.1.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Raven Wing @8.1.1    7 years ago
Just my own opinion.

As you mentioned, his "performance" at the hearing on Thu put an end to any doubt that  Little Lord Lindsey was anything but a political stooge for "president" Scumbag.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
10  MrFrost    7 years ago

Follow the money, I wonder how much these two idiots were paid to make the claim. Pretty convenient that these two just happened to surface at the right time, in the right place. And where is Judge? Why is the GOP hiding him from testifying? Weird. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Participates
10.1  Raven Wing   replied to  MrFrost @10    7 years ago
Follow the money, I wonder how much these two idiots were paid to make the claim

Indeed it would be interesting to know how much those two guys were paid to suddenly come up and say they were the two perps not Kavanaugh. It must have been a bunch to get them to shame not only themselves, but, their own family, and taint their reputations at their own place of work for who knows who long. To say nothing of the legal prosecution they could also face due to the offense. Any why did they wait this long to come forward? Seems money does talk loud and clear when the amount seems worth it. 

Just the save the a$$ of a pervert so that the GOP could have their own man in the SCOTUS? After all, it would be their first one. However, I don't think the FBI will buy it. No matter how much Trump, Kavanaugh and the GOP try to cover it up. 

Even if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's really hard to make people who are not blinded by party loyalty to believe it is a duck and not a shark.

Just my own opinion. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
10.1.2  Split Personality  replied to    7 years ago

2 Go Fund me sites raised over $500,000 this afternoon. 

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Quiet
10.1.3  Skrekk  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.2    7 years ago

Ford has done the entire country a great service.    Hopefully she'll get some small measure of justice from Kavanaugh's defeat, a bit more when he's removed from the DC COA.

What she did took balls.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
10.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.3    7 years ago
Hopefully she'll get some small measure of justice

She'll get some large measure of cash, that's for sure.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Participates
10.1.5  Raven Wing   replied to    7 years ago
Who is paying Ford's bills do you even care?

Yes. And... Yes.

Next.....

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Participates
10.1.6  Raven Wing   replied to  Jack_TX @10.1.4    7 years ago
She'll get some large measure of cash, that's for sure.

And the two fools willing to take the fall for the guys who won't remember who they are in a month won't?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
10.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Jack_TX @10.1.4    7 years ago

Moved twice and in hiding? Private security and two DC lawyers who ordered an FBI level lie detector test?

That money is already earmarked or gone.

Dollars to donuts the lawyers set up the Go Fund Me sites....to cover their own asses.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
10.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Raven Wing @10.1.6    7 years ago
And the two fools willing to take the fall for the guys who won't remember who they are in a month won't?

Not like she will, no.  She'll be the darling of the leftist media.  She'll be on The View, Rachel Maddow, Ellen Degeneres, Seth Meyers.  There will be lecture fees...a book deal...  Oh yeah.  She's set for life.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
10.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.7    7 years ago
That money is already earmarked or gone.

Not a chance.  She'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Quiet
10.1.10  Skrekk  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.7    7 years ago
Dollars to donuts the lawyers set up the Go Fund Me sites....to cover their own asses.

Actually they're both doing it pro bono, although certainly the security an additional housing costs and other expenses would come out of that fund.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
10.1.14  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to    7 years ago
Who is paying Ford's bills do you even care?

Oooo, a new smear tactic:  Baseless insinuation that she's being secretly financed to bring these charges. Predictable and, of course, scummy as usual. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
10.1.15  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.2    7 years ago
2 Go Fund me sites raised over $500,000 this afternoon. 

Good for her.  Kavanaugh's backed by billionaires like the Koch bros.  so she'll need the money.  Nice that it's right out in the open like this and not hidden.  Another testimony to her honesty.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
10.1.16  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.3    7 years ago
What she did took balls.

Yeah, Kavanaugh's.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
11  Sean Treacy    7 years ago

It's amazing to see what the betting markets have done since Kavanaugh began his opening statement. 

They gave him a 37% percent chance before his statement  to 66% chance as of close of questioning.

Insanely well done. 

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Quiet
11.1  Skrekk  replied to  Sean Treacy @11    7 years ago

I can see why even his friends say that he's a mean drunk.    Definitely not SCOTUS material.     Not federal judge material either.

180927-brett-kavanaugh-speaking-ew-325p_

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
11.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Skrekk @11.1    7 years ago

All things being equal...

Ford appears to be genuine.

Kavanaugh appears to be genuine.

I wish he had admitted to a bit more teenage foolishness and I

wish that he had remained calm in the face of these stresses.

His emotional outburst(s), tears, choking, voice cracking and especially his remarks about the "Clinton conspiracy" to bring him down, were not encouraging.

Should he be confirmed, I now fear he might lose his objectivity in certain cases to get back at the Clintons, liberals, progressives and Democrats.

I don't believe he helped his reputation today with anyone sitting on the fence.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.1    7 years ago
I don't believe he helped his reputation today with anyone sitting on the fence.

I agree.  He did very little to engender either or both of them.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Quiet
11.1.4  Skrekk  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.1    7 years ago
Should he be confirmed, I now fear he might lose his objectivity in certain cases to get back at the Clintons, liberals, progressives and Democrats.

Agreed.   He's obviously carrying a lot of partisan baggage.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
11.1.5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Skrekk @11.1    7 years ago

He was such an ass at times, I wondered what was in that water glass that seemed to be glued to his hand.

Was anyone else annoyed by his Scut 'I just got my ass kicked' Farkus nose sniffle?

original

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.1    7 years ago
Kavanaugh appears to be genuine.

Genuine what?

You either believe Blasey Ford, or you don't. She 100% id'd him. There is no case of mistaken identity. If you believe her , he should not be confirmed. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
11.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Jack_TX @11.1.3    7 years ago

post football game....( great offensive displays = poor defense)

Several pundits on different channels likened this to WWI (tribal) trench warfare and the trenches just got deeper and reinforced.

I attended an all boy private Catholic/Jesuit HS & college in the 60's and can bear (bare?) witness to everything that Kavanaugh has been accused of doing,

participating in,

or not reporting.

That said, most of us matured, turned off the nonsense and became what most would agree are good contributing citizens.

But almost none of us are being nominated to the Supreme Court of the land.

Gorsuch went to the same schools and also apprenticed with Kennedy.  No charges, no rumors, no accusations, false or otherwise against Gorsuch.

No  questions about how much do you REALLY like beer Mr. Kavanaugh.

No excuses like, "I've always had  a "queasy stomach".

Mr. President, go get me another Gorsuch...PLEASE.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
11.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Skrekk @11.1    7 years ago

He is likely pissed that his elitist ass is even being questioned. 

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Quiet
11.1.9  Skrekk  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.7    7 years ago

Good commentary tonight by Michelle Goldberg:

Kavanaugh’s apoplectic, ultra-partisan opening statement should alone disqualify him. Certainly, if he’s innocent of any violence against Blasey — or if, more likely, he doesn’t remember it — his anger is understandable. But there’s no way a man who rails against Democrats for seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” can even feign impartiality. “You sowed the wind for decades to come,” he told Democratic senators. Soon he may be in a position to seek his own retribution on the Supreme Court.

But thanks to the Republican majority in the Senate, Kavanaugh didn’t have to be convincing to Democrats. His performance was for the conservative base, to whom he now appears as a martyr to the vicious left, a paragon of a man brought low by the inquisitorial forces of #MeToo. What seemed to the left like a tantrum over thwarted entitlement was, to the right, a moving display of indignation. “That was simply tremendous — appropriately angry, personal, wrenching, detailed, persuasive,”   tweeted Rich Lowry , editor of National Review. “He helped himself immensely.”

In her opening statement,  Blasey described why she’d been reluctant   to go public with her story. “I believed that if I came forward, my voice would be drowned out by a chorus” of Kavanaugh’s powerful supporters, she said. She may have been correct. By the time the hearing ended, the right seemed more committed to Kavanaugh than ever, and his confirmation appeared inevitable. “Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him,”  tweeted President Trump . He did indeed.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
11.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @11.1.5    7 years ago

What I think bothered me most was what I imagine was his dry mouth,

and after each teary rasp, he took another sip of water and ran his tongue over the insides of his cheeks in what I can only say

reminded me of an old sight gag about oral sex. ( also from high school)

/

Mr. President, your nominees are not automatically approved.

Get us a better nominee.

Because replays of this are on the internet forever now

and we only want the best of the best

and the blandest.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.7    7 years ago

My point was that I don't think anybody is on that fence you described.  I think a grand total of zero minds were changed today.

We did manage to take "he said/she said" and completely turn it on its ear.  
We made it "she said/he said".......
 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
11.1.12  Studiusbagus  replied to  Jack_TX @11.1.11    7 years ago
.  I think a grand total of zero minds were changed today.

We'll see about that in Nov.

May not have cemented in the panel but I believe you'll see some sort of ratings study soon as to how many female voters watched this.

I don't think this is going to bode well for the Republicans whether they vote him in or not.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
11.1.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @11.1.11    7 years ago
My point was that I don't think anybody is on that fence you described.

Why do so may N joy that fence...

could it be the cold steel posts so many slip off onto as the Truth is again danced around.

She was Far more believable than ole Krazy Kav, he's not right.

Who pulls their outstretched hand back from a man who is attempting to reach some sort of peace with the death of his teenage daughter, which occurred, at of all places, school.

.

I got bad vibes the first set of interviews, he cemented his shoes yesterday.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.1.18  Jack_TX  replied to  Studiusbagus @11.1.12    7 years ago
We'll see about that in Nov.

They weren't changed.

May not have cemented in the panel but I believe you'll see some sort of ratings study soon as to how many female voters watched this. I don't think this is going to bode well for the Republicans whether they vote him in or not.

It's a midterm election with a colossally polarizing president.  Midterms almost never go well for the president's party anyway.  It won't be another 2010, but they'll lose some seats.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.13    7 years ago
Why do so may N joy that fence... could it be the cold steel posts so many slip off onto as the Truth is again danced around.

What?  

She was Far more believable than ole Krazy Kav, he's not right.

She could have told you she was molested in the Gryffindor Common Room and you'd have thought she was more credible than Kavanaugh.  

I got bad vibes the first set of interviews, he cemented his shoes yesterday.

Because you were supporting him two weeks ago.  Riiiiiight.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Senior Quiet
11.1.20  Colour Me Free  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11.1.13    7 years ago
Who pulls their outstretched hand back from a man who is attempting to reach some sort of peace with the death of his teenage daughter, which occurred, at of all places, school.

Hey ig..

Ya know that whole out stretched hand being pulled, was an exaggeration of events, a false memory or lie whichever term one things best describes the fathers claim..

I am thinking the father thought that Kavanaugh extended a hand and then pulled it back when he mentioned the death of his daughter in an attempted introduction of himself to Kavanaugh .. because his emotions were running high, video shows that it did not take place as recalled …. the claim vanished from the media quickly..

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Quiet
11.1.21  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.17    7 years ago
And to think, she could have come forward with her tales of woe sometime, anytime, in the last 35 years, but chose instead to Only come out when it was certain Kavanaugh would be confirmed, and by doing so avoided the very "circus" she decries.

You seem to be doing your part as a conservative by slut-shaming, denigrating, discrediting and retaliating against a sexual assault victim whom even Kavanaugh says he believes was assaulted.   No wonder most rape victims never report the rape.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
11.1.22  Studiusbagus  replied to  Jack_TX @11.1.18    7 years ago
They weren'tchanged.

Are we talking about the same people?

I'm speaking of voters.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
11.1.23  Jack_TX  replied to  Studiusbagus @11.1.22    7 years ago
Are we talking about the same people? I'm speaking of voters.

Yep.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Quiet
11.1.26  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.25    7 years ago
35 years is a very long time, and I find it curious that she ONLY came forward at this point.

That's because you're a right winger who obviously knows nothing about the psychology of sexual assault victims.

Maybe you should ask your buddy Kavanaugh why he says that he believes Ford was sexually assaulted?    Why did the GOP-controlled judiciary committee state that her claims were credible?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
11.1.28  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Split Personality @11.1.1    7 years ago
His emotional outburst(s), tears, choking, voice cracking and especially his remarks about the "Clinton conspiracy" to bring him down, were not encouraging.

Wow, that's a gem of understatement, that is. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
11.1.29  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.27    7 years ago
What does that have to do with her accusations, accusations NOT corroborated by anyone, about Kavanaugh?

Well, that goes an order of magnitude more for Kavanaugh's claims not to mention all the lies: 

He was drinking legally (he likes beer, he still does, don't you?) at the time

"Boof" means fart

"Devil's triangle" is a drinking game

Being a "Renate Alumnius[sic]" was a way of indicating how much they liked and respected her*

He never passed out, he just "fell asleep." 

*upon now learning this was in Kavanaugh's yearbook, Ms. Renate Schroeder Dolphin responded:  “The insinuation is  horrible, hurtful and simply untrue, ” 

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
12  lennylynx    7 years ago

-Ford wants an investigation; Kavvy boy does not.

-Ford took a lie detector test; Kavvy boy will never do the same.

-Ford comes across as totally believable; Kavvy boy comes across as a liar.

-Ford has no reason to lie; Kavvy boy has every reason.

This happened, and Ford is 100% certain of who attacked her.  This was a traumatic event that she will never forget.  I believe her, and so do the Republicans for that matter, they simply don't care that it happened.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
12.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  lennylynx @12    7 years ago

They're attempting to Dodge Ford

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
12.1.1  lennylynx  replied to  igknorantzrulz @12.1    7 years ago

But they're going to put their Chevy in the levee.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
12.1.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  lennylynx @12.1.1    7 years ago

They knew about all these women anyway.

That's why they tried as fast as Mercury to get the confirmation before the Fiat lady sang.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
12.3  Jack_TX  replied to  lennylynx @12    7 years ago
-Ford wants an investigation; Kavvy boy does not.

Of course.  Ford is emotional.  Kavanaugh knows an investigation is going to spend weeks to bring us right back where we are today.

-Ford took a lie detector test; Kavvy boy will never do the same.

Because they're ridiculously unreliable.

-Ford comes across as totally believable; Kavvy boy comes across as a liar.

Because your personal bias colors your decision.  Let's face it, there is very little she could have said up there you wouldn't have believed.

-Ford has no reason to lie; Kavvy boy has every reason.

The longer this goes on, the wealthier she'll become.  She will be the darling of the liberal talk circuit, and a book deal is probably already in the works.

This happened, and Ford is 100% certain of who attacked her.  This was a traumatic event that she will never forget.

She can't remember 90% of that event.  She can't remember where she was, when it was, and all the people she says were there have no idea what she's talking about.  Do you see how you're only believing the parts of this you wanted to believe?

  I believe her, and so do the Republicans for that matter, they simply don't care that it happened.

They believe she's emotional.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
12.3.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  Jack_TX @12.3    7 years ago
Because they're ridiculously unreliable.

C'mon, 70% accuracy is not ridiculously unreliable. They certainly aren't a "sure thing" but...the CIA, FBI, NSA and a bunch of other secret alphabet agencies use them regularly in recruiting. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
12.3.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  Jack_TX @12.3    7 years ago
Ford is emotional

Ford wasn't the one that lost her cool and started babbling conspiracy theories about the Clintons.

He pretty much showed his "Republican side" in this when judges are supposed to be neutral.

I don't doubt we'd see that from the bench as well.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
12.3.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.3.1    7 years ago
C'mon, 70% accuracy is not ridiculously unreliable. They certainly aren't a "sure thing" but...the CIA, FBI, NSA and a bunch of other secret alphabet agencies use them regularly in recruiting.

Would you accept 70% reliability for a radar gun?  An EKG machine?  Your car? 

Would it be acceptable if your lawn mower cut 70% of the grass you rolled it over?  Would you call your oven reliable if it heated to the correct temperature 70% of the time?

Would you consider an HIV test "reliable" if it was accurate 70% of the time?

Ridiculously unreliable.  

Government agencies may still use them.  They still do a lot of things like it's 1960.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
12.3.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.3.2    7 years ago
Ford wasn't the one that lost her cool and started babbling conspiracy theories about the Clintons.

No, and that was certainly unimpressive.  She is the one, however, who has let her "feelings" of one form or another keep her from reporting this alleged incident for 36 years.  

He pretty much showed his "Republican side" in this when judges are supposed to be neutral.

If a group of people brought out some woman you don't ever even remember meeting who said you tried to rape her, I imagine your neutrality would explode in a mushroom cloud.

I don't doubt we'd see that from the bench as well.

There isn't any history of him being biased from the bench.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
12.3.5    replied to  Studiusbagus @12.3.1    7 years ago
regularly in recruiting

E.A   Yes IMHO so that they know who needs to be trained to evade them!

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
12.3.6  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @12.3    7 years ago
They believe she's emotional.  

Are you fricken kidding me?  Next to Kavanaugh's uncontrolled outbursts, she sounded like an intelligent woman telling the truth during the hardest time of her life.  He sounded hysterical and crazy, which are words I believe I've heard you use to describe women.  He was over the top, more in lines of 'the best defense is a good offense' rather than 'how could this be happening'.   Feels like 'how dare you make me accountable for my past, I'm not supposed to pay the price for my bad behavior just because women are fed up - now let me on the court for decades so I have power over women and show them!

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
12.3.8  Studiusbagus  replied to  Jack_TX @12.3.3    7 years ago
Government agencies may still use them.  They still do a lot of things like it's 1960.

1960's or not, our own government sees fit to use them for high security screening. Last I checked he is a government employee.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
12.3.9  Studiusbagus  replied to  Jack_TX @12.3.4    7 years ago
There isn't any history of him being biased from the bench.

His outburst and convenient use of an absurd conspiracy theory gives pause.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
12.3.10  Studiusbagus  replied to  Jack_TX @12.3.4    7 years ago
I imagine your neutrality would explode in a mushroom cloud.

Highly unlikely. But that's just me. If it were me and I was sure it was bullshit I'd invite the investigation, And when they were done, I'd personally nail them to their own cross.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
12.3.11  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @12.3.6    7 years ago
Are you fricken kidding me?

No.  But I can if it will make you "feel" better.  I have a joke about Jesus and Moses playing golf if it would help.

  Next to Kavanaugh's uncontrolled outbursts, she sounded like an intelligent woman telling the truth during the hardest time of her life.

And Hugh Laurie spent years sounding like an American doctor.  Stop focusing on what people say, start watching what they DO.

She IS emotional.  There really isn't any reasonable argument against that.  Look at her actions:

  • She failed to tell anyone of the alleged incident when it occurred.
  • She does not remember the date or location of the alleged assault.
  • She has failed to make this information public for the last 36 years.
  • She revealed this information to a therapist, supposedly identifying her assailant as a federal judge...and yet STILL refused to come forward.
  • She requested anonymity when she finally did come forward.

Why?  The answer on every single point is "her emotions".

  He sounded hysterical and crazy, 

I found his remarks unimpressive.  But I suspect had he been more reserved you would have called him "cold hearted", "uncaring", and all sorts of other names.

which are words I believe I've heard you use to describe women.
Cite me.  
  He was over the top, more in lines of 'the best defense is a good offense' rather than 'how could this be happening'. 

Again, I was unimpressed.

  Feels like 'how dare you make me accountable for my past, I'm not supposed to pay the price for my bad behavior just because women are fed up - now let me on the court for decades so I have power over women and show them!

"Feels".  So more emotion.

Do you even notice how it never even enters your mind that she may be wrong?  You have decided he is guilty, and absolutely nothing is ever going to shake you from that.  If she recanted her story, you wouldn't believe her.  He is a straight, white, Republican, male, Trump appointee.  He is everything you despise, conveniently packaged and labeled so you don't have to think about it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
12.3.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.3.9    7 years ago
His outburst and convenient use of an absurd conspiracy theory gives pause.

It was certainly not his finest hour, and I don't think he did himself any favors.

I doubt it matters, though.  That testimony changed exactly as many minds as the FBI investigation will....zero.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
12.3.13  It Is ME  replied to  Jack_TX @12.3.12    7 years ago

Clarence Thomas had an FU moment in front of the committee too.

When one is "Accused" of something, one has a tendency to get a bit pissed off.

Hell....Lindsey Graham had an FU moment....and he's on the committee. Look at the vile stuff about Graham coming out from the left, because of what he did. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Thank Goodness the "Left" is tolerant. I'd hate to see what the "Left" does when they are mad. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

All three were justified in what and how they said it.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
12.3.14  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jack_TX @12.3    7 years ago
          Ford is emotional. 

While KavaLies showed the world an hysterical breakdown.  This is exactly the kind of performance a liar would hope to pull off.  He dodged or lied about any question of substance.  

What's the atmosphere like in Opposite World? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
12.3.15  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jack_TX @12.3.12    7 years ago
That testimony changed exactly as many minds as the FBI investigation will....zero.

We're well aware that facts play no part for supporters of that POS.  And we may very well get some facts from these interviews that were not revealed to reporters who did interviews compared to skilled investigators who now have calendars and timelines to work with.  And, boy howdy, is Mark Judge ever hiding a bunch of shit and he's agreed to cooperate with the FBI investigators.  You may be right that it will not amount to much.  But you may also be quite wrong.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
12.3.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @12.3.15    7 years ago
We're well aware that facts play no part for supporters of that POS.

And you pretend they matter to you?  

  And we may very well get some facts from these interviews that were not revealed to reporters who did interviews compared to skilled investigators who now have calendars and timelines to work with.  And, boy howdy, is Mark Judge ever hiding a bunch of shit and he's agreed to cooperate with the FBI investigators.  You may be right that it will not amount to much.  But you may also be quite wrong.  

If we were talking about 3 years ago, or even 10 years ago, there might be some hope they would uncover something.  But 36 years ago?  Not a chance.  We're talking about the 1980s.  No internet, no GPS, cell phones were built into your car. A "laptop" computer weighed 40 pounds and was the size of a suitcase.  Those of us who were sober don't remember what we did in 1982, Mark Judge isn't going to remember there was a 1982.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
13  igknorantzrulz    7 years ago

N good ole boyz will be drinkin Whiskey and Getting HIGH

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
13.1  lib50  replied to  igknorantzrulz @13    7 years ago

Singing this will be the day my nomination dies. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
13.1.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  lib50 @13.1    7 years ago
Singing this will be the day my nomination dies.

oh snap... I remember that song.  one of my favorites.

obama wrote that song the day  the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from him.

ahhhh the memories... priceless :)

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
13.1.2  lib50  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @13.1.1    7 years ago

So quitcherbitchen about Kavanaugh's problems. The gop loves this stuff, just not when it happens to them.  Karma's a bitch.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
13.1.3  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  lib50 @13.1.2    7 years ago

me bitch? LOL

Kavanaugh will be confirmed no worries.

have you not figured out your party will sell out your agenda just for a few days off?

cheers :)

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
13.1.4  lennylynx  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @13.1.3    7 years ago
"Kavanaugh will be confirmed..."

I hope you're right about that 8ball, I really do.  I hope the Republican party puts this piece of shit on the Supreme Court.  I'm thinking the piece of shit will get rejected, but if he makes it through we can celebrate together!

Cheers!! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
13.1.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @13.1.3    7 years ago

Is there any republican BS you don't swallow whole and call "yummy!!!"?

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
13.1.6  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  lennylynx @13.1.4    7 years ago
Cheers!! :)

that's the spirit I like to see

Cheers back atcha :)

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
13.1.7  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @13.1.5    7 years ago
Is there any republican BS you don't swallow whole and call "yummy!!!"?

not a republican, nothing said by either side in politics today changes my mind about anything

my ideology was carved in stone before most of todays "liberals were even born.

 I am an old school democrat who bailed when progressives showed up.

I am one of the originals..... I walked away several decades before we had hashtags

#walkaway

 

 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Expert
14  Sparty On    7 years ago

Like a couple folks here i got the distinct impression that Prof Ford is a little MCBW ..... what's she gonna do to get in another one of these rock and roll songs .....

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
15  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    7 years ago

I'm going to go out on a limb here (and I'll take my lumps if it's wrong).  I think there's a 3 in 4 chance Kavanaugh will "withdraw"* his name before the FBI report comes back.  Here's why I think that:  First he knows he did it.  Second, all it will take is just one of the various people to verify one of Dr. Ford's recollections (or even a couple of them to independently support separate parts of it) to sink him.  On top of that it seems that Ramirez and Swetnick are also to be interviewed and if either one of those claims (particularly Swetnick's, who claims there were witnesses and that the incident is much fresher) gets any kind of corroborative support Kavanaugh's toast.  The odds are heavily against there being nothing out there.  

*actually it will probably be forced on him by Scumbag and McConnell and he'll couch it in the usual bogus selfless terms that he's doing it to spare his family any more of this REALLY UNFAIR!!! process. 

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
15.1  lennylynx  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @15    7 years ago

Can't argue with that logic.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
15.2  bugsy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @15    7 years ago

I'm going to have to disagree here. Kavanaugh will not withdraw, neither will Trump replace him. Most, if not all of those that were named as "witnesses" before the investigation have come out, yet again, saying what Dr Ford describes, with them being present, is not accurate. None of them are going to flip, even her best friend has come out again vehemently denying she even knows who Kavanaugh is.

As far as the other two accusations, Ramirez claims Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party, and she admits she was falling over drunk at the time. Even democrats say the New Yorker article was simply a badly written piece and full of unsubstantiated holes. The Swetnick thing is nothing more than a friend of a daughter told a friend who told her story. The FBI will more than likely ignore this one, especially since the creepy porn lawyer is representing her.

Kavanaugh will not be on the court for the first part of October, but will be shortly after.

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
16  lennylynx    7 years ago

He sure lies a lot about his drinking.  First he barely drank, now he says he drank a lot but never blacked out. (yeah right!)  The crown jewel is the lie about the drinking age.  Who would lie about something so easy to check?  And no one even asked him about the legal drinking age, he didn't have to tell that lie at all.  He simply blurted out a lie that painted just a slightly better picture of his drinking, knowing full well how easily it would be disproved.  It was stupid.  It was downright Trumpian.

 
 

Who is online


bccrane
Greg Jones
squiggy
GregTx


49 visitors