Republicans Are Suggesting Kavanaugh Sue His Accusers

Via:  tessylo  •  6 days ago  •  146 comments

Republicans Are Suggesting Kavanaugh Sue His Accusers

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



U.S.

Republicans Are Suggesting Kavanaugh Sue His Accusers



b358fbc0-94ba-11e6-a1f5-2995baec1fef_Ox2 Opheli Garcia Lawler,The Cut Sun, Oct 7 5:51 PM EDT 






efb369db4d77306e925be72aab93c3bb

For many Republicans, confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was a victory. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called it his proudest moment as Senator, President Trump bragged about the win on Twitter, and the hashtag #BeersForBrett leadto smug, unpleasant post filled with pictures of IPAs and coors light. Senator Lindsey Graham even posted this picture:


Another lawyer, L. Lin Wood, told Fox News that he believes Kavanaugh should sue not only Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick, but also news outlets who published the allegations.

“The message should be sent. People knows there needs to be accountability,” said Wood. “I think he has actionable cases [for libel]. I would recommend to him that they have merit.”

The statement echoes the president’s own comments about Kavanaugh’s accusers. On Saturday night, he told Fox News that those who made up “fabrications” should be penalized.

“I think that they should be held liable. You can’t go around and whether it’s making up stories or making false statements about such an important position, you can’t do that,” Trump said to Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro. “You can destroy somebody’s life.”

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not commented on any potential litigation against the women who accused him of sexual assault and misconduct, and the news outlets who published their stories.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    6 days ago

That's right Bart The Rapist O'Kavanaugh, go ahead and sue them to show the world how impartial you are.  

 
 
Cerenkov
1.1  Cerenkov  replied to  Tessylo @1    5 days ago

Ford the Liar should be concerned.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Cerenkov @1.1    5 days ago

She failed to meet the burden of proof but it does not make her a liar.

 
 
bbl-1
1.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.1    5 days ago

Actually, the 'burden of proof' for Ford or Kavanaugh's extensive records, dissents, filings or opinions were not addressed. 

Kavanaugh's hundreds of thousands of documents pertaining to his nearly two decades of being a political operative were never released and not discussed.

 
 
bbl-1
1.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  Cerenkov @1.1    5 days ago

If Grassley believes Ford lied under oath then Grassley must order her arrest and prosecution.  If he does nothing, that means he knows it is better to not delve into this further. 

A real court trial with real witnesses could very easily see Kavanaugh not only being impeached, but also facing charges that--------------would be devastating for him and all who stood by him.  Especially the president, Grassley and the rest of the GOP. 

 
 
epistte
1.1.4  epistte  replied to  Cerenkov @1.1    5 days ago
Ford the Liar should be concerned.

if Kavanaugh would do this then the burden of proof would be on him to prove that they were lying. That legal action would open up a much deeper investigation into his past and I doubt he wants to take a chance at the truth coming forward. Last week's FBI investigation was a partisan sham. 

If it could be proven that he did lie then he gets impeached for lying to the Senate. 

 
 
Tessylo
1.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Cerenkov @1.1    5 days ago

Bart O'Kavanaugh, the liar, should be concerned.  

 
 
WallyW
1.1.6  WallyW  replied to  bbl-1 @1.1.3    5 days ago
A real court trial with real witnesses

Witnesses to what? The reality that a crime ever occurred was never established. Real sex criminals are rarely, if ever, a "one and done". They repeat over and over.

 
 
calbab
1.1.7  calbab  replied to  WallyW @1.1.6    5 days ago

A 'one and done' who says this is the case? After all, he is alleged to have held Ms. Blasey down; exposed his "willy" to Ms. Ramirez, and in his youth been a "belligerent and forgetful drunk." 

People tried to come up out the woodwork as remembrances push up; but, as usual, republicans did not want anyone to stop their surge to a Kavanaugh victory. The country could yet discover the real Brett Kavanaugh of days gone by and the rule/penalty of law is still viable "at home."

Republicans: "Just do it."

 
 
Split Personality
1.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  calbab @1.1.7    5 days ago

320

 
 
Cerenkov
1.1.9  Cerenkov  replied to  bbl-1 @1.1.3    4 days ago

"If Grassley believes Ford lied under oath then Grassley must order her arrest and prosecution."

Not really. That's not how it works.

 
 
bbl-1
1.1.10  bbl-1  replied to  Cerenkov @1.1.9    4 days ago

Why?  And that's not how 'what' works?

Don't have the guts?  Don't have the patriotism?  What is the excuse?

 
 
bbl-1
1.1.11  bbl-1  replied to  WallyW @1.1.6    4 days ago

Real court.  Real witnesses.  What do you not understand?

 
 
Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III
1.2  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III  replied to  Tessylo @1    5 days ago

"Another lawyer, L. Lin Wood, told Fox News that he believes Kavanaugh should sue..."

Only in your mind goes that become Kavanaugh and all Republicans.

 
 
Tessylo
1.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III @1.2    4 days ago

republicans-are-suggesting-kavanaugh-sue-his-accusers

 
 
epistte
2  epistte    5 days ago

This would be a bloodbath because if he did sue them he would have to conclusively prove that they were wrong. I doubt that he wants to dance in that minefield, especially with his sordid past. 

If it could be proven that he did do what they are accusing him of then he lied to the Senate and would be subject to impeachment.

 
 
321steve
2.1  321steve  replied to  epistte @2    5 days ago
I doubt that he wants to dance in that minefield,

Yep NO WAY is this going to be pushed forward anymore. This is probably an attempt by some republicans to throw some crap to justify the less that above board confirmation of a judge America just witnessed.   

Cover their asses as it were.

 

 
 
bbl-1
2.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  321steve @2.1    5 days ago

Not sure.  But it is possible 'this Kavanaugh thing' may have an afterburn in the future for the GOP.

 
 
epistte
2.1.2  epistte  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.1    5 days ago
Not sure.  But it is possible 'this Kavanaugh thing' may have an afterburn in the future for the GOP.

Every one of those senators now has a huge target on their back come time for re-election. Every screw-up by Trump or unpopular SCOTUS decision will make the voters want a piece of their hide.  Trump was so desperate to get Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS because of his opinion of a unitary POTUS that ignores tha Constitution's impeachment provision. The fact that Kavanaugh took part in the Ken Starr partisan circus, but now he wants to put the brakes on Mueller just makes him even more of a hypocrite. 

 
 
321steve
2.1.3  321steve  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.1    5 days ago
Not sure.  But it is possible

From what I've seen in my time on this planet, its the details that really do unravel the best of plans. I believe you are correct, I think from the way this all happened we are likely to see negative repercussions in ways that few if any foresee at this point. Thats life.

Getting others to see that is difficult, especially when a person is in the throws of a seemingly victory.  That's also life.

I try not to get "upset" with reality, it does no good. 

Time seems to be the true test of truth and reality !

 
 
epistte
2.1.4  epistte  replied to  321steve @2.1    5 days ago
Yep NO WAY is this going to be pushed forward anymore. This is probably an attempt by some republicans to throw some crap to justify the less that above board confirmation of a judge America just witnessed.    Cover their asses as it were.

Dr. Ford just became the new Hillary Clinton for conservatives to hate.  The GOP spent years investigating Hillary and couldn't so much as pin an unpaid parking ticket on her for their efforts.  James Okeefe or another slimy political operative will make an edited video about her to toss some red meat to the TEAparty faithful.

 
 
321steve
2.1.5  321steve  replied to  epistte @2.1.4    5 days ago
Dr. Ford just became the new Hillary Clinton for conservatives to hate.

NO WAY is this going to be pushed forward anymore, legally.

That clarify it  ? 

But, You are probably correct and I agree Dr Ford noe Judge Kavanagh isn't likely do be done being drug thru the shit that is washington dc by a long shot. By some on both sides !

Neither cleared their name so yep,  Watch the mud fly...... and fly and fly ....

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  epistte @2.1.4    5 days ago
The GOP spent years investigating Hillary and couldn't so much as pin an unpaid parking ticket on her for their efforts.  James Okeefe or another slimy political operative will make an edited video about her to toss some red meat to the TEAparty faithful.

800

 
 
epistte
2.1.7  epistte  replied to  321steve @2.1.5    5 days ago
NO WAY is this going to be pushed forward anymore, legally.

That clarify it  ? 

But, You are probably correct and I agree Dr Ford isn't likely do be done being drug thru the shit that is washington dc by a long shot. By some on both sides !

FoxNews and the conservative echo chamber will mention her name and write a few stories about her because they know that they have a new woman for the angry old white men to hate because she was a threat to Trump, Kavanaugh and what they see as their rightful place at the top of American society. 

 
 
321steve
2.1.8  321steve  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.6    5 days ago

That s cute. Made me chuckle, thanks 

 
 
bbl-1
2.1.9  bbl-1  replied to  321steve @2.1.5    5 days ago

Kavanaugh could clear everything up immediately if he agreed to a lie detector test.

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  321steve @2.1.8    5 days ago

Welcome. 

 
 
321steve
2.1.11  321steve  replied to  epistte @2.1.7    5 days ago
FoxNews and the conservative echo chamber will mention her name

Yep this is probably far from over, Politicly.  Stuff like this is used over and over by people and politicians promoting or fighting agendas for years. 

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.12  MrFrost  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.9    5 days ago
Kavanaugh could clear everything up immediately if he agreed to a lie detector test.

Won't ever happen because he knows he would fail it. They are 70-90% accurate, (depending on who is administering the "test". The fact that she took one on her own, without being asked, (regardless of the results), proves to me anyway, that she was being truthful. IMHO.

 
 
321steve
2.1.13  321steve  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.9    5 days ago
Kavanaugh could clear everything up immediately

The judge had the opportunity to "clear this up" the second he took the floor at the hearing. If he would have asked for a full investigation of the accusations against him at that time it all would have looked so much better and I dont know that we' be where we are now. 

He didn't. I believe I would have. I have walked from jobs before over principal. This was so important and in my opinion not handled worth a shit by many people. 

sad !

Instead as I see it at this time it's "We got the power, screw you !"  

I just really dont see how that is makin America great.

To each their own. 

 
 
Colour Me Free
2.1.14  Colour Me Free  replied to  321steve @2.1.13    5 days ago

Morning 321 … I am with you on the believing Ford and Kavanaugh, yet I disbelieved them both on some things. as well...

If he would have asked for a full investigation of the accusations against him at that time it all would have looked so much better and I dont know that we' be where we are now. 

Interesting thoughts - had he sat down and asked in his opening statement for a full investigation, it definitely would have improved the optics .. yet would it have changed anyone's minds is the question to be answered - had the Judge consented to a lie detector test and passed, then what?

Kavanaugh was not my choice for the court, (I had hoped he would be blocked) but after the battle that was waged and fought … guess the (R)'s felt confirming him was expected (?) .. still there were other things that I felt should have kept him off the bench - sexual assault/misconduct was not one of them, Senator Feinstein is an intelligent woman .. she knew what she was doing!  Alas it backfired .. making a bigger mess.. in my opinion...

 
 
321steve
2.1.15  321steve  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.14    5 days ago
had he sat down and asked in his opening statement for a full investigation, it definitely would have improved the optics .. yet would it have changed anyone's minds is the question to be answered

Yeah I think more people would be accepting of the end results. I know I would be. 

Personally I doubt I would have taken the position under these conditions. Like I said I have actually given up jobs for principal before. But man do I sleep good !

PLUS: ho knows what a real in depth investigation could reveal. But, when the accuser and the accused aren't even questioned it sure doesn't seem very thorough to many of us.  

IMO: Many people dropped the ball on this one. 

 
 
Colour Me Free
2.1.16  Colour Me Free  replied to  321steve @2.1.15    5 days ago

I can appreciate walking off the job - at some point one has to say enough is a enough, I do not know if I ever proved a point by doing so, but I sleep well also .. : )

I have mixed feelings regarding the FBI not questioning Kavanaugh and Ford - what more did they have to glean after their testimonies .. to do so may have been an opportunity for Ford or Kavanaugh to possible give self improving direction to the investigation .. (?)  

IMO: Many people dropped the ball on this one. 

Agreed!

 
 
Transyferous Rex
2.1.17  Transyferous Rex  replied to  321steve @2.1.15    5 days ago
PLUS: ho knows what a real in depth investigation could reveal. But, when the accuser and the accused aren't even questioned it sure doesn't seem very thorough to many of us.   IMO: Many people dropped the ball on this one. 

Calculated fumble, in my opinion. Had the democrats really wanted an investigation, I think they bring this up in July. I think they interview him specifically on this point. I think they call for an investigation then. What they did is show up at the buffet 30 minutes before it opened, sat in the car until the buffet closed, went in and ordered the buffet, were allowed to get a plate off of the buffet, and then bitched because they couldn't go back for seconds. 

 
 
Dulay
2.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.14    5 days ago
Senator Feinstein is an intelligent woman .. she knew what she was doing!  Alas it backfired .. making a bigger mess.. in my opinion...

Are you playing into the BS conspiracy theory that Feinstein PLANNED all of this? 

 
 
Colour Me Free
2.1.19  Colour Me Free  replied to  Dulay @2.1.18    5 days ago

Not at all... however I do believe there were other options and it could have been handled differently

 
 
Dulay
2.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.19    5 days ago
Not at all...

So then WHAT are you insinuating that Feinstein 'knew she was doing? 

 
 
Tessylo
2.1.21  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.14    4 days ago

Like you like to tell  me 'go hump someone else's leg, thank you'

 
 
Colour Me Free
2.1.22  Colour Me Free  replied to  Dulay @2.1.20    4 days ago
'knew she was doing? 

Feinstein is not ignorant to the process .. she knew that a sexual assault accusation against a Supreme Court nominee could never not be used, especially a nominee NO ONE on the left could ever accept as a Justice … Do not insult your own intelligence or mine Dulay .. by seemingly acting like Feinstein had NO other options but to give the FBI the letter (she had been sitting on) and out Christine Blasey Ford at the last minute … (not saying Feinstein is the leak, but she is as good for having done the deed as anyone else is)

Do you think the outcome would / could have possibly been different if Dr Blasey's accusations were being considered during the hearings? 

I cannot help but believe the pages redacted, and never submitted to committee had to do with enhanced interrogation.... (that was a disqualifier for me from the get go) Kavanaugh's confirmation is not something to be celebrated - by me anyways ….

 
 
Dulay
2.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.22    4 days ago
Do not insult your own intelligence or mine Dulay .. by seemingly acting like Feinstein had NO other options but to give the FBI the letter (she had been sitting on) and out Christine Blasey Ford at the last minute … (not saying Feinstein is the leak, but she is as good for having done the deed as anyone else is)

You just claimed that didn't buy into the conspiracy theory BS. Yet here you are spewing it none the less. 

By falsely stating that Feinstein was 'sitting on' the letter, YOU bolster the BS. 

By falsely stating that Feinstein outed Ford, YOU bolster the BS. 

By falsely claiming that Feinstein 'is as good for having done the deed as anyone else', YOU bolster the BS.

Who is insulting WHOSE intelligence Colour? 

Do you think the outcome would / could have possibly been different if Dr Blasey's accusations were being considered during the hearings?

Judging from the lengths that the GOP went to confirm an obviously compromised nominee, NO. 

I cannot help but believe the pages redacted, and never submitted to committee had to do with enhanced interrogation.... (that was a disqualifier for me from the get go) Kavanaugh's confirmation is not something to be celebrated - by me anyways ….

You'll never know and most conservatives are just fine with that...

 
 
Colour Me Free
2.1.24  Colour Me Free  replied to  Dulay @2.1.23    4 days ago
Who is insulting WHOSE intelligence Colour?

Whatever Dulay … You are insulting your own intelligence .. there is no conspiracy .. what took place is a reality - 'We' all watched it unfold in a media feeding frenzy .. 

I am sorry that Kavanaugh got on the bench!  Yet, I am sure he will do his job interpreting the Constitutionality of law respectfully - he is not my choice, but the sky is not going to fall .. and Roe v Wade will survive (of that I am confident)

You'll never know and most conservatives are just fine with that...

No, I will probably never know til there is a large document release due to a freedom of information request … as to the broad stroke of most conservatives .. I do believe you are incorrect - I know no one that is okay with documents being withheld on either side of the aisle … but I can see on NT that you can use the most conservatives generalization …

Later .. have a great rest of your day....

 
 
Dulay
2.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.24    4 days ago
Whatever Dulay … You are insulting your own intelligence .. there is no conspiracy .. 

Bullshit. YOU sited conspiratorial BS in your post. 

what took place is a reality - 'We' all watched it unfold in a media feeding frenzy ..

Nothing that you posted about Feinstein was based on 'reality'. 

I know no one that is okay with documents being withheld on either side of the aisle …

You have to ignore the FACT that everyone one of the GOP Senators and in the WH actually participated in it. 

but I can see on NT that you can use the most conservatives generalization

Yep, words matter. Most is not all. Glad that you at least recognized that...

 
 
Colour Me Free
2.1.26  Colour Me Free  replied to  Dulay @2.1.25    4 days ago
Bullshit. YOU sited conspiratorial BS in your post. 

Because I believe that Feinstein could have handled things differently - what is conspiratorial about that, are you denying that Feinstein knows how the process works?  .. that someone leaked Ford's name .. what is conspiratorial about saying Feinstein is as good for the deed as anyone .. ?

What is overreacting, freaking out and taking jabs at each other because 'we' think differently going to accomplish... ? the deed is done - sucks, but is reality … have a field day Dulay .. I am out of here!

Have a good one...

 
 
Dulay
2.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.26    4 days ago
Because I believe that Feinstein could have handled things differently - what is conspiratorial about that, are you denying that Feinstein knows how the process works? 

You're back peddling. First it was that she 'sat on' the letter, which infers that she did so for a political purpose. THAT is what is conspiratorial about it...

.. that someone leaked Ford's name .. what is conspiratorial about saying Feinstein is as good for the deed as anyone .. ?

Since Feinstein denied it, she is NOT as good for the deed as anyone. BTFW, Ford's ID was known by the WH before she was outed. 

What is overreacting, freaking out and taking jabs at each other because 'we' think differently going to accomplish...

Thinking 'differently' is one thing. Posting FALSE innuendo is another. I for one prefer FACTS. 

the deed is done - sucks, but is reality …

Chief Justice Roberts referred multiple ethics complaints against Kavanaugh to the 10th Circuit. It seems that Roberts doesn't think that the issue is moot. 

 
 
WallyW
2.2  WallyW  replied to  epistte @2    5 days ago
especially with his sordid past. 

What sordid past? Nothing but good things have been said about him.

 
 
MrFrost
2.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @2.2    5 days ago
Nothing but good things have been said about him.

He's an alcoholic. 

 
 
Tessylo
2.2.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @2.2    5 days ago
'What sordid past? Nothing but good things have been said about him.'

Except for the woman he attempted to rape or was part of a gang rape or the woman he shoved his penis in her face or the woman he slammed up against a wall and grinded on her.  

 
 
1stwarrior
2.2.3  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.2    5 days ago

Wow - when is your book coming out????  Never, in all my years, have I seen so much hyperbole presented as facts as you are SO WILLING to produce.

 
 
Dulay
2.2.4  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.3    5 days ago
Never, in all my years, have I seen so much hyperbole presented as facts as you are SO WILLING to produce.

Then you must have missed Trump's bullshit for the last 4 years+. 

 
 
epistte
2.2.5  epistte  replied to  WallyW @2.2    5 days ago
What sordid past? Nothing but good things have been said about him.

He is a angry alcoholic and if he is accused of sexually assaulting one women there are likely others who haven't come forward. These kind of men don't change.

 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  epistte @2.2.5    5 days ago
He is a angry alcoholic

sounds pperfect

for the highest court in all the land

 
 
MrFrost
3  MrFrost    5 days ago

Brett would be a fool to hit that bee's nest with a stick. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you believe her, (I do), or believe him, (I don't). If there is even a shred of truth to what she said and it is thoroughly investigated? Brett will be out of a job. That old saying, "let sleeping dogs lie" comes to mind. If Brett is half as smart as he thinks he is, he would leave it alone and pray Dr. Ford doesn't hire a P.I. to do a REAL investigation. 

 
 
epistte
3.1  epistte  replied to  MrFrost @3    5 days ago
Brett would be a fool to hit that bee's nest with a stick. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you believe her, (I do), or believe him, (I don't). If there is even a shred of truth to what she said and it is thoroughly investigated? Brett will be out of a job. That old saying, "let sleeping dogs lie" comes to mind. If Brett is half as smart as he thinks he is, he would leave it alone and pray Dr. Ford doesn't hire a P.I. to do a REAL investigation. 

Is Donald Trump dumb enough to consider it if people troll him, or would GOP operatives step in and muzzle him?   Someone might consider doing it on Twitter and see where it goes............

Pelosi and Feinstein were idiots to let this go this simmer so long and only bring it up 2 weeks before the confirmation vote. I would have played this out in the court of public opinion 30 days before because if he has one incident there are likely a few others still buried. These silver spoon kids don't often learn their lesson and change, especially when they have a penchant for alcohol.  Has anyone talked to the friends of Mrs Kavanaugh?

 
 
MrFrost
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  epistte @3.1    5 days ago
Someone might consider doing it on Twitter and see where it goes............

Well, he blocked me, so did Pence..LOL 

Pelosi and Feinstein were idiots to let this go this simmer so long and only bring it up 2 weeks before the confirmation vote.

I agree, but I understand WHY they did too. They were trying to get the vote delayed until after the mid-terms with hopes that after the mid-terms, the dems would hold the house and could block the vote. After what McTurtle did to Garland, I can't say I blame them, it was a political gamble that simply didn't play out. 

I would have played this out in the court of public opinion 30 days before because if he has one incident there are likely a few others still buried.

Very good point. I don't disagree. Obviously Dr. Ford fell in their laps and they had a plan to use her as a means to an end. I DO believe her story, I do, but she did get used as a political football. Dr. Ford has said since this....fiasco, that she doesn't want to see Kavanaugh impeached. That speaks a lot to her story and her character. If she was simply in it for the political side, she would still be screaming about it. 

Almost as bad as this mess was, even worse was trumps gloating and calling it all a, "left wing hoax". With luck, female voters will see that and be even more disgusted than they were before...

Like I said a few days ago, 2 years ago the right was screaming that women would be sexually assaulted in trans bathrooms, now they are saying that if they were assaulted, they wouldn't believe them anyway. 

 
 
321steve
3.1.2  321steve  replied to  epistte @3.1    5 days ago
Pelosi and Feinstein were idiots to let this go this simmer so long and only bring it up 2 weeks before the confirmation vote.

Dr Ford had insisted on her anonymity. WTF was the politicians supposed to do with that ?

"Here congress I have a statement of a sexual allegation from 35 years ago to present for your consideration with no one or nothing to back it up."

Followed by "LOL... LOL... LOL...LOL !!"..."Thanks.. next !"

IMO: Dr .Ford's instance of aninity was (although understandable) IMO:  unrealistic to begin with. That was a problem, that problem mushroomed as many do. 

and here we are. 

 

 
 
epistte
3.1.3  epistte  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    5 days ago
Like I said a few days ago, 2 years ago the right was screaming that women would be sexually assaulted in trans bathrooms, now they are saying that if they were assaulted, they wouldn't believe them anyway. 

Exactly.

The bathroom thing was only a way to attack trans people and play to their bigoted base. Republicans don't give a damn about women's safety, after they are elected.

 
 
321steve
3.2  321steve  replied to  MrFrost @3    5 days ago
or believe him, (I don't).

Thanks for sharing .

I tend to believe both of them.. How ? Because I question HIS memory. I used to drink heavily, I know I dont remember shit that I did. I dont doubt too much that he and millions of others are the same.

He may not think he did, he may not want to believe he did and yet, he may have and really not remember it.

Either that or perhaps he is lying, after all, there is a hell of a lot at stake. 

I also believe now, we will never know. The power that is really did not really care one way or the other. That is apparent from his own past and from how this was all handled. 

 
 
MrFrost
3.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  321steve @3.2    5 days ago
I tend to believe both of them.. How ? Because I question HIS memory. I used to drink heavily, I know I dont remember shit that I did. I dont doubt too much that he and millions of others are the same. He may not think he did, he may not want to believe he did and yet, he may have and really not remember it.

Yep, I have been there. I used to drink a 5th of 151 every day, (and still worked full time). Lost a few friends along the way before I sobered up for things I would swear I never said, but, I did. I agree with you, he may have been hammered and did exactly what she said, and he forgot about it. VERY possible. 

Either that or perhaps he is lying, after all, there is a hell of a lot at stake.

Indeed. A friend of mine is a defense attorney, (he admits he is scum...LOL), and I was talking about this case with him at the time... He told me, "most of the time in a he said she said case, the one with the most to gain/lose is most likely the one that is lying. Kavanaugh had a LOT to gain, she had nothing to gain or really lose. My friend told me, without hesitation that Kavanaugh was lying, (or as you said, forgot). Keep in mind, my friend is a very conservative republican. 

In any case, I am glad it's over. 

 
 
321steve
3.2.2  321steve  replied to  MrFrost @3.2.1    5 days ago
In any case, I am glad it's over. 

I wish it was.

 
 
Tessylo
3.2.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  321steve @3.2    5 days ago

I don't believe that lying sexually assaulting boozy rapist AT ALL. 

To each his own though Steve.  

You can't believe both IMHO.  

 
 
321steve
3.2.4  321steve  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.3    5 days ago
You can't believe both IMHO.  

Why not ?

If kavanagh was so drunk he couldn't remember and says I dont remember doing that.

Is that lying ?

Not in my opinion.

 
 
Sean Treacy
3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @3    5 days ago
he would leave it alone and pray Dr. Ford doesn't hire a P.I. to do a REAL investigation. 

Right. Because of the millions of dollars Democrats spent to stop Kavanuagh. They never thought to hire a "real P.I.".

Kavanuagh's been vetted by the FBI, every elite journalist in the country and opposition research operation of a multi billion dollar political company. Do you really think the neighborhood PI is going to find magical evidence from 35 years ago that professional operations with unlimited budgets missed?

Sure. 

 
 
MrFrost
3.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3    5 days ago
Kavanuagh's been vetted by the FBI,

The FBI is corrupt, trump has said so many times. 

 
 
321steve
3.3.2  321steve  replied to  MrFrost @3.3.1    5 days ago
Kavanuagh's been vetted by the FBI,
The FBI is corrupt, trump has said so many times. 

O the irony !!  LOL 

 
 
WallyW
3.4  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @3    5 days ago
pray Dr. Ford doesn't hire a P.I. to do a REAL investigation.

What would that amount to? Still wouldn't be able to corroborate anything she says.

Karma, not Kavanaugh, will give the lying slut what she deserves.

 
 
321steve
3.4.1  321steve  replied to  WallyW @3.4    5 days ago
Karma, not Kavanaugh, will give the lying slut what she deserves

WOW

Yep karma does see all. and reads it too. 

 
 
MrFrost
3.4.2  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @3.4    5 days ago

[Removed]

 
 
Nowhere Man
5  Nowhere Man    5 days ago

For Kavanaugh to Sue, would be the stupidist thing he could ever do.

He's too smart for that.

The shame of it is, there are a lot of people that think otherwise...

The people who are advising him to sue or advocating for the same, ARE the stupidest people I have ever read, heard or seen....

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nowhere Man @5    5 days ago

You're absolutely right - better to drop it rather than keep it going for years.  Although, in my opinion, I believe that anyone who has called him a rapist, which is a very serious offence, without his being convicted of that crime, has made themselves liable for a successful libel and/or slander action.  ("Libel" if it is published in any way, including over the internet - "Slander" if it just spoken .)

 
 
Nowhere Man
5.1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1    5 days ago

True, but what could he hope to gain?

Also, he would open himself up to a much broader and deeper investigation, wouldn't he?

Not that such would be a risk, but why put yourself through something like that...

They had their shot, let it die, and it will die.

 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1    5 days ago

You don't want me to comment on  your seeds and I don't.  I wish you wouldn't comment on mine Buzz.  Like you said, I would block you if I could.

Get to stepping!

Shoo!

 
 
Spikegary
5.1.3  Spikegary  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.1    5 days ago

I'm sure he will put this crap behind him and move on withhis duties as a sitting Supreme Court Justice. 

I understand the urges to combat the non-stop shit the left keeps throwing, but best to let them wallow in their own shit pile and do the job ne was hired to do.

 
 
Tessylo
5.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Spikegary @5.1.3    5 days ago

'and do the job he was hired to do.'

Yes, a get out of jail free card for Donald Rump once all the shit hits the fan.  

I'm sure Brett Boozy McRapist Kavanaugh will do fine in that role.  

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    5 days ago

Ooops. I didn't notice that it was your seed. I would delete my comment, but NWM has referred to it and I don't want to make him appear to be replying to a ghost.

 
 
321steve
5.2  321steve  replied to  Nowhere Man @5    5 days ago
The people who are advising him to sue or advocating for the same, 
are probably using that as a way of exonerating themselves for perhaps even their own justification of their decision of their own beliefs on what happened. 
I dont think legally anyone will push this any further . Politically though it has a life of its own now.
As we know some people will use any and everything they can to push their agendas. 
 
 
luther28
7  luther28    5 days ago

Republicans Are Suggesting Kavanaugh Sue His Accusers

They may want to rethink that notion. In a civil suit everything would be brought out into the light of day, any un-truths, lies etc., but then that may just get at the truth.

 
 
freepress
8  freepress    5 days ago

Even the ones who have caused the current ongoing investigation regarding Kavanaugh's far more recent misconduct, being conducted by the Judicial board?

 
 
Sean Treacy
9  Sean Treacy    5 days ago

There's no point to a lawsuit. You can't prove a negative from 35 years ago. 

 
 
WallyW
9.1  WallyW  replied to  Sean Treacy @9    5 days ago

The lefties are going to keep this up at least through election day, a little under 4 weeks from now.

 
 
MrFrost
9.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @9.1    5 days ago

Is there some reason why they shouldn't? 

 
 
Cerenkov
9.1.2  Cerenkov  replied to  MrFrost @9.1.1    4 days ago

Not at all! Please continue!

 
 
A. Macarthur
11  A. Macarthur    5 days ago

I hope Kavanaugh does sue … he would then have to testify under oath and penalty of perjury and witnesses would have to do so as well. 

A Subpoena Duces Tecum (meaning 'subpoena for production of evidence') is a court order requiring the person subpoenaed to produce books, documents or other records under his or her control at a specified time/place in a court hearing or a deposition.

Further,

Can The Defense Counsel Ask The Court To Issue A Subpoena To A Witness Who Is Unwilling To Appear In Court But Could Testify Favorably (I.E. Providing An Alibi For The Defendant)

In most cases, there is no need to.  An attorney, as an officer of the court, is empowered to issue subpoenas on his or her own. If a subpoena is in proper form, signed by an attorney, and properly served, the witness is obligated to appear in court (or at the deposition) bringing any documents or things that are requested.  If they have a serious issue with the subpoena, they have to file a motion to quash with the court explaining their objections.  The judge will then decide if the witness has to comply.  If the witness just ignores the subpoena, they can be thrown in jail for contempt.

Go for it Brett!

Who knows … in such a suit … that half-assed FBI "investigation" might be brought to the light-of-day with all imposed impediments revealed to the court … with a motion to proceed in order to establish the plaintiff's inability to satisfy his "burden-of-proof" while thus paving the way for a Kavanaugh impeachment for lying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Appearance of Impropriety while a Federal Judge …

Really, Brett … do it!

 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  A. Macarthur @11    5 days ago
would then have to testify under oath and penalty of perjury and witnesses would have to do so as well. 

The third time going to make a difference? 

nce') is a court order requiring the person subpoenaed to produce books, documents or other records under his or her control at a specified time/place in a court hearing or a

he's produced his calendar relevant to the latest of Ford's changing claims as to when it occurred (the summer of 1982). What evidence of an occurrence at an unknown time and unknown place do you imagine exists? 

Ford, however, would have a lot more to produce. All of her discussions and exchanges with the Democratic party and her friend the FBI agent who was running around pressuring Leyland to change her story would have to be testified to under oath.  

Not to mention she'd have to explain why she lied about going to therapy because she  needed extra doors in her house because of fear of Brett Kavanaugh. She lied when she testifed about that. The extra door was put in years prior to 2012 and it was for a desperate entrance for business that rented space.  Not a good look.

Counsel Ask The Court To Issue A Subpoena To A Witness Who Is Unwilling To Appear In Court

Sure. And her three named witnesses who refuted her claim under oath could so again, under oath.

"investigation" might be brought to the light-of-day with all imposed impediments revealed to the court … with a motion to proceed in order to establish the plaintiff's inability to satisfy his "burden-of-proo

Nice meaningless word salad.

 
 
Tessylo
11.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1    5 days ago

Well that calendar exonerated him.  All the evidence anyone would need!

Case closed!

'Nuff said.

How freaking ludicrous.  

 
 
A. Macarthur
11.1.2  A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1    5 days ago
would then have to testify under oath and penalty of perjury and witnesses would have to do so as well. 

The third time going to make a difference? 

With Democrats permitted only 5 minutes of questioning with no follow-up questions, Sean.

nce') is a court order requiring the person subpoenaed to produce books, documents or other records under his or her control at a specified time/place in a court hearing or a

he's produced his calendar relevant to the latest of Ford's changing claims as to when it occurred (the summer of 1982). What evidence of an occurrence at an unknown time and unknown place do you imagine exists? 

Let's have him answer questions about his calendar entries while under oath … with witnesses named in the entries also under oath and questioned by counsel for the defendants!

Ford, however, would have a lot more to produce. All of her discussions and exchanges with the Democratic party and her friend the FBI agent who was running around pressuring Leyland to change her story would have to be testified to under oath.  

Not to mention she'd have to explain why she lied about going to therapy because she  needed extra doors in her house because of fear of Brett Kavanaugh. She lied when she testifed about that. The extra door was put in years prior to 2012 and it was for a desperate entrance for business that rented space.  Not a good look.

Source? Let's have the testimony from the therapist, husband et al before a jury … not Grassley and company!

Counsel Ask The Court To Issue A Subpoena To A Witness Who Is Unwilling To Appear In Court

Sure. And her three named witnesses who refuted her claim under oath could so again, under oath.

It's a whole different ballgame when one is questioned under oath before the court with questions posed by the defense … 

"investigation" might be brought to the light-of-day with all imposed impediments revealed to the court … with a motion to proceed in order to establish the plaintiff's inability to satisfy his "burden-of-proo

Nice meaningless word salad.
Nice non-rebuttal, ad hominem failure to acknowledge the logical.

 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  A. Macarthur @11.1.2    5 days ago
With Democrats permitted only 5 minutes of questioning with no follow-up questions, Sean.

There was no ban on follow up questions.  Obviously, that was more than enough time as Democrat couldn't bothered to question him under oath prior to the public hearing when there were no cameras.   And then they used most of their time talking about farting and his yearbook rather than exploring her allegations. 

Who can blame them for not asking questions  about the incident though? How many times and different ways can Kavanaugh deny the event happened under oath?  

et's have him answer questions about his calendar entries while under oath … with witnesses named in the entries also under oath and questioned by counsel for the defendants!

Again? So Democrats can embarrass themselves hyperventilating about the July 1 entry again? And then have it backfire so completely that Ford herself had to say, "that's obviously not the day?"  The people listed on the calendar for that  day were already questioned by the FBI. That's why Ford ran away from it. 

whole different ballgame when one is questioned under oath before the court with questions posed by the defense 

You think witnesses are going to lie to the FBI and then crack under pressure from a civil litigator?  No.

ad hominem failure to acknowledge the logical

It's not ad hominem to point out your words do not make sense. 

 
 
A. Macarthur
11.1.4  A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.3    5 days ago
There was no ban on follow up questions.  Obviously, that was more than enough time as Democrat couldn't bothered to question him under oath prior to the public hearing when there were no cameras.   And then they used most of their time talking about farting and his yearbook rather than exploring her allegations. 

The Real Reason the White House Told the FBI Not to Interview Christine Blasey Ford?

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have a theory.

DAVID CORN OCTOBER 4, 2018 12:49 PM

 Saul Loeb/AP
Looking for news you can trust?
Subscribe to our free newsletters.

On Wednesday night, the lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford responded sharply to the news that the Trump White House had blocked the FBI from interviewing her about her allegation that she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 1982. This probe, her attorneys said, “cannot be called an investigation. We are profoundly disappointed that after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward, those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth.” The decision to not interview Ford, Kavanaugh, and dozens of other witnesses related to her allegation and Deborah Ramirez’s claim that Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct during his college days has drawn much criticism from Democrats and others, as Republicans cite the FBI’s report—which has been presented to the White House and Senate—to contend there is no evidence Kavanaugh committed any wrongdoing in these cases.  

“When you’re in front of the FBI, you cannot refuse to answer questions, you cannot attack the agents, you cannot change the subject,” a Democratic member of the committee says. “The White House did not want Kavanaugh in such a situation. And if he said anything to the FBI that could prove false, he could end up in a lot of trouble.”

The absence of Ford and Kavanaugh interviews in the investigation offers Ford allies and other critics an obvious and justifiable talking point to challenge the legitimacy of the days-long probe. After all, the standard operating procedure for any investigation would include questioning the accuser and the accused. Forgoing these interviews undermines the FBI’s report and makes it easy for critics to contend that this has been a sham investigation. So why would the White House take such a step? The Democrats on Senate Judiciary Committee have a theory: Trump White House officials blocked an interview with Ford because they were worried about the FBI questioning Kavanaugh. 

Kavanaugh, that is, did not undergo a true and professional grilling. An FBI interview would have been a much different experience. “When you’re in front of the FBI, you cannot refuse to answer questions, you cannot attack the agents, you cannot change the subject,” a Democratic member of the committee says. “The White House did not want Kavanaugh in such a situation. And if he said anything to the FBI that could prove false, he could end up in a lot of trouble.”

It was predictable that an FBI investigation without interviews of the primary figures would be denounced. As Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the committee, tweeted, “Interviewing the accuser & accused is Investigation 101. It is absolutely necessary to follow up on leads & corroborate details. The fact the FBI has not been authorized to take basic steps demonstrates the WH is turning this investigation into a sham & charade.” And the absence of these interviews highlights the fact that the FBI, following White House orders, did not contact more than 40 potential witnesses. 

The White House instruction to not interview Ford and Kavanaugh, as could have been expected, has created a firestorm and undermined the credibility of the the FBI’s work and its report. The case remains unresolved. To many, it looks like the fix was in. Yet Trump and his aides, including White House counsel Don McGahn (a longtime friend of Kavanaugh), apparently preferred taking this hit over having Kavanaugh face federal investigators. It does make one wonder just what Trump, McGahn, and other White House officials feared about a Kavanaugh sit-down with the FBI.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/the-real-reason-the-white-house-told-the-fbi-not-to-interview-christine-blasey-ford/

IMO, in time, the FBI's credibility will continue to be questioned as to why it allowed itself to look hamstrung by the Trump White House; to save face, career FBI individuals will leak the truth.

Further,

The purpose of the hearing was to allow Ford to detail an alleged attack by Kavanaugh more than 30 years ago, when the two were both high school students, and allow questioning. Grassley, R-Iowa, enforced a strict questioning time limit and exchanged some choice words with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). On another occasion, he said he was "rudely" interrupted by a staffer. 

 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  A. Macarthur @11.1.4    5 days ago

your copy and paste opinion piece from Mother Jones doesn't rebut anything I wrot

 
 
Dulay
11.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.3    5 days ago
Obviously, that was more than enough time as Democrat couldn't bothered to question him under oath prior to the public hearing when there were no cameras.

Really? When was that exactly? 

So Democrats can embarrass themselves hyperventilating about the July 1 entry again?

The irony is that the GOP 'assistant' was the one to first point out the July 1 entry. Then she asked him how many beers are too many beers. That was when Grassley took an unscheduled recess and shit canned the 'assistant'. 

And then have it backfire so completely that Ford herself had to say, "that's obviously not the day?"

Link? 

You think witnesses are going to lie to the FBI and then crack under pressure from a civil litigator? No.

Yes, Gates did just that. 

It's not ad hominem to point out your words do not make sense.

Actually, they make perfect sense. 

 
 
Dulay
11.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.3    3 days ago

512

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
13  The Magic Eight Ball    5 days ago

im not up on liable and slander laws but an innocent man would sue the shit out of all of them if the law allows.

whut? is ford afraid of an actual court of law with real consequences?

as she has never and will never go to the police to file credible charges against kavanaugh?

id say ford is terrified of a real court of law.

 
 
Tessylo
13.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @13    5 days ago

Playing with your imagination again?  You have that ass backwards as usual.  

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
13.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @13.1    5 days ago

[Removed]

 

 
 
A. Macarthur
13.2  A. Macarthur  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @13    5 days ago
im not up on liable and slander laws but an innocent man would sue the shit out of all of them if the law allows. whut? is ford afraid of an actual court of law with real consequences?

An innocent man might well do so … a liar and his cheerleaders might just bluff for political grandstanding purposes. 

Ford explained her reasons for testifying before the Judiciary Committee; she was not looking for criminal penalties, rather, to hopefully have her allegation thoroughly investigated by the FBI as part of Kavanaugh's background check in order to determine his character and fitness for SCOTUS Justice.

Possibly, should those of you satisfied with what you saw in this process, one day have a wife or daughter, share with you, years after the fact, that she was sexually assaulted by a perpetrator who subsequently re-appeared in one way, shape or form … you'll just tell her to "be afraid and forget it."

 
 
livefreeordie
13.2.1  livefreeordie  replied to  A. Macarthur @13.2    5 days ago

There is zero evidence this woman was ever assaulted by anyone and even more so that a 17 years old Brett Kavanaugh did nothing to this woman

 
 
A. Macarthur
13.2.2  A. Macarthur  replied to  livefreeordie @13.2.1    5 days ago
There is zero evidence this woman was ever assaulted by anyone and even more so that a 17 years old Brett Kavanaugh did nothing to this woman

While that may be the case, in my direct experience, the only individuals who do what they can to thwart an investigation from pulling every thread that might unravel, are those who fear the outcome.

 
 
livefreeordie
13.2.3  livefreeordie  replied to  A. Macarthur @13.2.2    5 days ago

Nonsense, why should the innocent subject themselves to an obvious smear campaign with no basis in fact. 

"your experience"?, have you been accused before of crimes you believed you had not committed?

 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.4  KDMichigan  replied to  A. Macarthur @13.2    5 days ago
one day have a wife or daughter, share with you, years after the fact, that she was sexually assaulted by a perpetrator

I guess If you or any male family member are falsely accused by a female of being inappropriate you will just confess to it and accept the consequences. 

 
 
igknorantzrulz
13.2.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.4    5 days ago
member are falsely accused by a female of being inappropriate you will just confess to it and accept the consequences. 

or do the Kavanaugh krumble

n

lie about it

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
14  Ed-NavDoc    5 days ago

It's over, like it or not Judge Kavanaugh won. All should just deal with it,let it go, and move on. What further good will it do any to pursue this further besides inflame things even more?

 
 
Sparty On
14.1  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @14    5 days ago

They haven't gotten over Trump winning yet so don't hold your breath Doc ....

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
14.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @14.1    5 days ago

Very true. Just further examples of the all too common condition in progressive leftist liberals known as "Sore Loser Syndrome"!

 
 
A. Macarthur
14.1.2  A. Macarthur  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @14.1.1    5 days ago

Who said the following …

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. 

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. 

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth. 

It is not truth that matters, but victory. 

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. 

Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.

The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes.

Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.

Be proud of your people when you don't have to be ashamed of any of its social classes.

And in certain circles honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.

 
 
Nowhere Man
14.1.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  A. Macarthur @14.1.2    4 days ago
The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.

That's easy, Adolph Hitler....

And unfortunately, the propaganda bible was written by Joseph Pulitzer, an american. (a liberal american)

Hitler learned from the best....

 
 
calbab
14.2  calbab  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @14    5 days ago

We need and when in power again should demand a proper investigation of Kavanaugh. "Nuh-uh." Republicans do not get to stuff by hook or crook or deceit a liar on the court which has authority over every man, woman, boy, girl, or unborn in this country! Too many questions unanswered. Demand answers now!!

One more thing: Justice Kennedy should be ashamed of participating in a sham process  (see photo above). All those comprehensive opinions issued with the highest code of ethics and purpose by Justice Kennedy over many decades "bow down" to one of his own former clerks replacing him in the most controversial, selfish, and hypocritical manners! J. Kennedy could have stayed out of it—but, there he is affirming the process.

Kavanaugh needs to come clean! Somebody must demand this man come clean!

 
 
livefreeordie
14.2.1  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @14.2    5 days ago

We have the answers; a good and honorable man with fidelity to the Constitution now sits on our highest court.

unfortunately the radical left will never be happy until they kill or otherwise create harm to all conservatives and especially conservative Christians.

Im happy to see all conservatives and especially conservative Christians wake up to the reality of this threat to our lives, liberties, and the Constitutional Republic 

 
 
Tessylo
14.2.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @14.2.1    5 days ago
'We have the answers; a good and honorable man with fidelity to the Constitution now sits on our highest court. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

unfortunately the radical left will never be happy until they kill or otherwise create harm to all conservatives and especially conservative Christians.

jrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gif

'Im happy to see all conservatives and especially conservative Christians wake up to the reality of this threat to our lives, liberties, and the Constitutional Republic' 

jrSmiley_23_smiley_image.gif

'conservative Christians.'

That's an oxymoron.  No such thing 'pastor'.  

 
 
livefreeordie
14.2.3  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.2    5 days ago

Do you live on another planet. It’s as absurd as your smears attempting to denigrate my title without any basis in fact.

you continue to demonstrate that your hatred of those you disagree with knows no limits

 
 
Tessylo
14.2.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @14.2.3    5 days ago

[Removed]

 
 
arkpdx
14.2.5  arkpdx  replied to  calbab @14.2    5 days ago
Kavanaugh needs to come clean!

He has! 

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
14.2.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  calbab @14.2    5 days ago

Don't know what you think he needs to come clean for? And the sham process you mentioned is the inquisition that Diane Feinstein and her Democrat cronies began from the beginning with zero supporting evidence or proof and throwing Dr Ford under the bus before she ever even got into that hearing room. You want somebody to come clean? Demand it of Feinstein!

 
 
calbab
14.2.7  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @14.2.1    5 days ago

Naw, conservatives must not be allowed to envelope this seat without proper scrutiny of the man holding it. You got him; can you keep him? This is the question.

As a Christian, I resent your misuse of the concept of fidelity, while not supporting a testing of whether or not, in fact, Justice Kavanaugh's word is his bond.

We need an investigation in order to determine, if haste has caused waste. If Kavanaugh is a good and honorable man in his pursuit of a lifetime appointment his truth will bear itself out. If not, well, we need to know that a liar and dishonest man is sitting over all the people of this great nation. That requires further action, indeed.

 
 
calbab
14.2.8  calbab  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @14.2.6    5 days ago

Stop with the deflection. Ms. Blasey, Ms. Ramirez, and Justice Kavanaugh's past and current friends have 'sounded' — Senator Feinstein is remote to the story Kavanaugh has told the committee in his own 'voice.'

I have no further patience with tired, weak republican talking points. Not now!

 
 
calbab
14.2.9  calbab  replied to  arkpdx @14.2.5    5 days ago

That is a general lie. Kavanaugh was chosen by a small percentage of the people, with hopes he will do their bidding. The other side has something to say about that now that haste is no longer a factor. Too many questions swept aside need to be reset and answered. I do not expect you to care for your own reasons and motivations. However, I do not wish to associate myself with an unprincipled process simply to make some conservatives content.

Kavanaugh needs the unusual step of further investigation after the fact of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

 
 
livefreeordie
14.2.10  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @14.2.7    5 days ago

We already know the truth.  He has been vetted by the FBI 7 times without any hint of anything less than a stellar record

We know that the ABA gave him it's highest recommendation (the slur came from a partisan attack by it's president which the ABA itself said had not merit or change to their recommendation).

You can resent the truth all that you want but it won't change the facts.  You have joined in the attempt by your fellow leftists to destroy a good Christian man and his family.  You deserve nothing but contempt for that effort.

 
 
livefreeordie
14.2.11  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @14.2.9    5 days ago

No he doesn't.  [Removed]

 
 
calbab
14.2.12  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @14.2.10    5 days ago
You deserve nothing but contempt for that effort.

Noted. Glad you make your feeling clear! Justice Kavanaugh should have no qualms with an additional vetting by the FBI, nevertheless.

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
14.2.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  calbab @14.2.8    5 days ago

You are proof positive that as the old saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see. You have no patience because you refuse to accept any other outcome other than that which you have already closed your mind to. Those are not Republican talking points, those are just facts. And FYI, I am neither Republican nor Democrat, so you can save the political party barbs as they are meaningless to me. You have a good day now...

 
 
calbab
14.2.14  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @14.2.11    5 days ago

"Nothing"?  That's pretty absolute. Are you sure nothing can change my mind? How come? Just how much do you know about me?

 
 
calbab
14.2.15  calbab  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @14.2.13    5 days ago

Oh, I see alright. Consider this: Senator Diane Feinstein is not party to the accusations made by Ms. Blasey, Ms. Ramirez, and Justice Kavanaugh's past and current friends.You do not consider your evaluation,

the inquisition that Diane Feinstein and her Democrat cronies began from the beginning with zero supporting evidence or proof and throwing Dr Ford under the bus before she ever even got into that hearing room. . . .

to be  a gross use of loaded words not preferred by the average independent minded thinker in mixed discussions?

Who's mind has determined an outcome? The mind which is asking for more clarifying investigation, or the member's mind that chooses to ignore the case without a proper closure?

 
 
livefreeordie
14.2.16  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @14.2.14    4 days ago

I know all I need to know based upon your posts this year.  You have made clear your hatred of conservatives and conservative Christians

 
 
calbab
14.2.17  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @14.2.16    4 days ago

And, I could say you have made clear a lack of compassion and forgetfulness to hold to the forthrightness in diversity in a land founded on diversity for its vitality. The country need not change to suit a subset of conservatives—all this land's subsets should mellow-out so as to better serve "country and God."

Continue the childish name-calling. Continue to foist on me what you know not! If you are correct, then I will ne'er surprise you!

In the meantime, Justice Kavanaugh has been called out by legal professionals, a former associate justice to the Court, and church leadership councils, because he has been conservatively 'engineered' to sit on the Court. Which is not proper!

I hope and pray that somebody check Justice Kavanaugh out the correct way now that the "expediting" is over. If he is discovered to be justified-peace be upon him. If he is found to have taken part in a calculated series of lies or a party in a conservative conspiracy to inculcate the "American" people he should be properly exposed.

As for you, servant of the Christ - this from me to you; as something of an olive branch for remembrance:

Philippians 2 
Therefore, if you have any encouragement for me from your being in union with the Messiah, any comfort flowing from love, any fellowship with me in the Spirit, or any compassion and sympathy,
then complete my joy by having a common purpose and a common love, by being one in heart and mind. Do nothing out of rivalry or vanity; but, in humility, regard each other as better than yourselves — look out for each other’s interests and not just for your own.

 
 
Tessylo
14.2.18  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @14.2.10    4 days ago

He was never thorougly vetted to begin with.  At least one of his college roommates was never interviewed by the FBI.  I wonder how many others weren't interviewed.

A good 'christian' man doesn't get shitfaced stumbling incoherently raping drunk and then lie about it, lie about everything, 'pastor'.  They don't get involved in gang rapes.  They don't put their penis in a woman's face.  They don't slam women against a wall and sexually grind on them.  

 
 
Sparty On
14.2.19  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.18    4 days ago
He was never thorougly vetted to begin with.

Yes because as we all know ...... seven FBI background investigations is nothing.   I went through worse than that to qualify for a Costco membership ...... /s

 
 
livefreeordie
14.2.20  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @14.2.17    4 days ago

For Marxist statists”compassion” is defined as forcibly seizing from one class of citizens to give to another who didn’t earn it.  It’s real definition is theft and has nothing to do with compassion

the wonderful passage from Philippians is polar opposite of your ideology

Christ like compassion and caring can never come from coercion and compulsion of the state. That is an oxymoron.

 
 
livefreeordie
14.2.21  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.18    4 days ago

And neither did Kavanaugh 

 
 
calbab
14.2.22  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @14.2.20    4 days ago

Stop projecting politics onto Jesus, please. You will not be allowed to hi-jack the Gospel unto your small group. Since you do not understand Jesus' example of unity between brethren, since you persist in mocking the spirit which is in you through intransigence, I am going to end this now.

I will not play a role in mocking the Spirit through unworthy discussion between brethren. Good bye Livefreeordie.

 
 
A. Macarthur
14.3  A. Macarthur  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @14    5 days ago
It's over, like it or not Judge Kavanaugh won. All should just deal with it,let it go, and move on. What further good will it do any to pursue this further besides inflame things even more?

Only an unimpeded investigation will provide an answer to your dismissive, apparently fearful question.

 
 
Ender
14.3.1  Ender  replied to  A. Macarthur @14.3    5 days ago
FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate on Wednesday that the White House put limits on the re-opened investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

"I've spoken with our background investigation specialists and they have assured me this was handled in a way consistent with their experience and the standard process," the FBI director said, later adding that the inquiry was "very specific in scope—limited in scope."

Asked by Harris if White House counsel Don McGahn set the limits on the investigation, Wray said he didn't know if McGahn had contact with FBI officials on the topic.

Link

They admit that the FBI investigation was very limited as to what the president wanted.

It was a sham investigation.

 
 
livefreeordie
14.3.2  livefreeordie  replied to  Ender @14.3.1    5 days ago

[No Value]

 
 
Ender
14.3.3  Ender  replied to  livefreeordie @14.3.2    5 days ago

So how is the Director of the FBI saying that the investigation was very limited in scope, directed by the president, a lie?

For someone that supposedly hates big government, you are all to willing to dismiss any concerns.

 
 
livefreeordie
14.3.4  livefreeordie  replied to  Ender @14.3.1    5 days ago

“Our supplemental update to the previous background investigation was limited in scope, and I think that is consistent with the standard process for such investigations going back quite a long ways,” Wray told senators in response to questions from Sen. Kamala Harris, a Democrat from California."

In other words they didn't repeat a full background check. It was limited to the phony accusations made by the left.

 
 
livefreeordie
14.3.5  livefreeordie  replied to  Ender @14.3.3    5 days ago

because you didn't give the full context of those remarks which is typical of the leftist Alinsky method of deceitful statements

 
 
livefreeordie
14.3.6  livefreeordie  replied to  Ender @14.3.3    5 days ago

For someone that supposedly hates big government, you are all to willing to dismiss any concerns.

Actually my remarks are consistent with my hatred of most government including the FBI which should be drastically reduced.

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
14.3.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  A. Macarthur @14.3    5 days ago

There was one. Democrats just refused to accept it. And they will continue to refuse results until they get exactly the results they want and nothing less! By that time of course, any results would be meaningless. 

 
 
Ender
14.3.8  Ender  replied to  livefreeordie @14.3.4    5 days ago

It was limited period. Whether one wants to believe it or not. There is no full context to give. It says it all. It was limited in scope.

Hell they did not even interview the two main people.

Actually when you call me a leftist, I take that with pride. Much better than the alternative.

As was said above, the next time the rightwing tries to pass any sham bills under the guise of trying to protect women, I will remind them that any accusation can never be proven and according to the right, women are liars.

 
 
livefreeordie
14.3.9  livefreeordie  replied to  Ender @14.3.8    4 days ago

we don't need bills to protect any class of people beyond the far too many bills we already have.

 
 
A. Macarthur
14.3.10  A. Macarthur  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @14.3.7    4 days ago
There was one. Democrats just refused to accept it. And they will continue to refuse results until they get exactly the results they want and nothing less! By that time of course, any results would be meaningless. 
The investigation was intentionally limited by the White House causing the FBI to ignore individuals who phoned, offered to testify, sent written statements … 40 potential sources of information summarily ignored.
Your comment is dismissive and hypocritically accuses Democrats (and me by extension) of doing yourself, exactly that which you accuse others of doing.
Make a substantive argument or be called out!

original

 
 
Sparty On
14.3.11  Sparty On  replied to  A. Macarthur @14.3.10    4 days ago
Make a substantive argument or be called out!

That would hold more water Mac if you called out the plethora of left leaning posts here that regularly fall squarely inside that pyramid.

You may have done it but i honestly can't recall reading one where you did.

 
 
A. Macarthur
14.3.12  A. Macarthur  replied to  Sparty On @14.3.11    4 days ago
Make a substantive argument or be called out!

That would hold more water Mac if you called out the plethora of left leaning posts here that regularly fall squarely inside that pyramid.

You may have done it but i honestly can't recall reading one where you did.

If/when a post is specific in nature rather than dismissive, without ad hominem, and is substantive, I leave it alone … maybe give it a thumbs up.

But if/when I disagree with a post, unlike others herein, I'll not only disagree, I will post counter-points, refute source credibility if warranted … and tell the who, what and why for my refutation.

Those are my standards … and, if I disagree with a post but cannot give specific as to my reason(s), I DON'T COMMENT ON IT!
 
 
calbab
14.4  calbab  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @14    4 days ago

Enflame away! Judge Kavanaugh won nothing if its ill-gotten gain. You should know better than to suggest that corruption or contempt is a proper replacement for propriety. The issue is unresolved.

 
 
A. Macarthur
15  A. Macarthur    4 days ago

It's well past time to call out those on The NT who fail to post in point-counter-point fashion, instead, who consistently evade substantive debate/dialogue, and, attack-the-messenger-members.

Note: Let this serve as a guide to viable vs. ad hominem posts!

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] The terms ad mulierem[3] and ad feminam[4] have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female.

original

Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type of argument in a disagreement.

 
 
Cerenkov
15.1  Cerenkov  replied to  A. Macarthur @15    4 days ago

Pedantic meta.

 
 
A. Macarthur
16  A. Macarthur    4 days ago

Pedantic meta.

Viable guideline to identify trolls, deflectors, harassers and conversation-killers … an ironic comment considering to what it responds and how it does so. 

Check the pyramid boys and girls.

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
16.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  A. Macarthur @16    4 days ago

So does that mean for everybody or just anybody who disagrees with your particular point of view? Somehow I get the feeling it may be the latter, especially since you felt the need to post it twice in the article...

 
 
A. Macarthur
16.1.1  A. Macarthur  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @16.1    4 days ago
So does that mean for everybody or just anybody who disagrees with your particular point of view? Somehow I get the feeling it may be the latter, especially since you felt the need to post it twice in the article...

Ironic and hypocritical that you would post a comment that precisely offers nothing but ad hominem and dismissiveness … rather than to actually show examples that validate your inference and implication.

Some of you boys post little other than what you posted to get this response; when the metaphorical shoe fits … take it out of your metaphorical mouth; from now on, much of the time, I'll call out every such comment. 

Check the pyramid … your comment fits neatly in one of the slots.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online








47 visitors