The esteemed US Senator from HI, Mazie Hirono, had this to say about the Kavanaugh accusation...(apparently she's also a geneticist)

She said the accuser "needs to be believed". Needs to be believed! In other words, we must disbelieve the accused! So apparently, Senator Hirono was appointed supreme guardian of the presumption of innocence, and she gets to decide who it applies to, and who it doesn't apply to.

She also calls on "men is this country to shut up and do the right thing for a change".

Screw you, toots.

https://ktla.com/2018/09/18/sen-hirono-tells-men-to-shut-up-do-the-right-thing-amid-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh/

My Senator, Richard Blumenthal, a former attorney general, feels that an unsubstantiated accusation is enough. Very well, Senator, I accuse you of sexual assault, now resign.

These people are absolutely disgusting, and they have no shame.

Go ahead Spence, tell us why I am taking her comment's out of context, and why the comments are actually the epitome of fair, and perfectly keeping with the notion of due process.

Don't worry, the usual suspects will put on their Labia lids and strut around like a virtue-signaling peacock in the hopes of getting laid this weekend.

These people are absolutely disgusting, and they have no shame
Are you coming up with a crayon drawing also?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s probably not Senator Horino’s fault, she’s a democrat in the senate, she spends all day with Chuck Schumer, Tim Kaine, Richard Blumenthal, and Chris Murphy. Who can blame her for believing that men are all a bunch of whiny, unpleasant, effete debutantes? she should have spent some time with senators like John McCain, Tom Cotton ( us army ranger, alumni if Harvard and Harvard Law), Tim Scott, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, you do realize roughly half the population are women and nowadays they have the right to vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, you do realize roughly half the population are women and nowadays they have the right to vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but can they still cook?

The esteemed US Senator from HI, Mazie Hirono, had this to say about the Kavanaugh accusation...(apparently she's also a geneticist)

She said the accuser "needs to be believed". Needs to be believed! In other words, we must disbelieve the accused! So apparently, Senator Hirono was appointed supreme guardian of the presumption of innocence, and she gets to decide who it applies to, and who it doesn't apply to.

She also calls on "men is this country to shut up and do the right thing for a change".

Screw you, toots.

https://ktla.com/2018/09/18/sen-hirono-tells-men-to-shut-up-do-the-right-thing-amid-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh/

My Senator, Richard Blumenthal, a former attorney general, feels that an unsubstantiated accusation is enough. Very well, Senator, I accuse you of sexual assault, now resign.

These people are absolutely disgusting, and they have no shame.

Go ahead Spence, tell us why I am taking her comment's out of context, and why the comments are actually the epitome of fair, and perfectly keeping with the notion of due process.

I agree she needs to be heard and having first hand knowledge of how difficult it is for these young rape victoms to come forward, I’m not ready to dismiss their claims just because they happened that long ago. I didn’t find out my X was raped in high school until we were married for ten years and even then it was like pulling teeth.

If it happened and some of the therapy she has received supports the claim and he is lying as many do; you ready to give him a pass?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My Senator, Richard Blumenthal, a former attorney general, feels that an unsubstantiated accusation is enough. Very well, Senator, I accuse you of sexual assault, now resign.



weren't there unsubstantiated allegations that he is a war hero?

I agree she needs to be heard

She was going to be heard, on Monday. But now her lawyer wants a full FBI investigation before she is heard, do you think they will finish that up by Monday? All this is shaping up to be, is a time wasting ploy until we get to the November Elections.

our government is officially FUBAR :wall:

I agree she needs to be heard and having first hand knowledge of how difficult it is for these young rape victoms to come forward, I’m not ready to dismiss their claims just because they happened that long ago. I didn’t find out my X was raped in high school until we were married for ten years and even then it was like pulling teeth.

If it happened and some of the therapy she has received supports the claim and he is lying as many do; you ready to give him a pass?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is not a rape accusation,sounds like groping at a high school party. He must be Satan.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Been to my share of high school and college parties, with lots of alcohol involved and I’ve never attempted to forcibly take a girls clothes off without concent. So attempting rape is ok because the young age and booze somehow gives a guy a pass?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They’ll never tell
https://www.businessinsider.com/kavanaugh-joking-high-school-video-2018-9
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Been to my share of high school and college parties, with lots of alcohol involved and I’ve never attempted to forcibly take a girls clothes off without concent. Same here

So attempting rape is ok because the young age and booze somehow gives a guy a pass?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently with this new Republican party it is. It is laughable to hear people call this a "hearing". No witnesses, no investigation, no nothing other letting 2 people testify.

Apparently with this new Republican party it is. It is laughable to hear people call this a "hearing". No witnesses, no investigation, no nothing other letting 2 people testify.

this is laughable.....

HILLARY said she deserves the benefit of the doubt......

and..."I mean, there can’t be one set of rules for Democrats and one set of rules for Republicans. That’s one of the reasons why people don’t have any confidence in the Congress. How can you?

that's right Hillary...please go directly to jail

So a little bit you won't find on Faux or Breitbart

While delivering remarks at the Columbus School of Law in March 2015, Kavanaugh made a jocular reference to his alma mater: "We had a good saying that we've held firm to to this day as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. That's been a good thing for all of us."

Both Kavanaugh and Judge have both vehemently denied Ford's allegations, which could derail Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination.
Judge on Tuesday issued a statement claiming he had no memory of the alleged assault and said he did not wish to testify, rejecting calls from Senate Democrats for him to do so.

Judge is the author of two memoirs, "Wasted" and "God and Man at Georgetown Prep." In both, he details the drinking and debauchery he took part in while at Prep.

Years after high school, Judge wrote a memoir, "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk." It chronicled his struggles with alcoholism while a teenager, painting his days at Georgetown Prep as filled with parties and black-out drunk nights.

While delivering remarks at the Columbus School of Law in March 2015, Kavanaugh made a jocular reference to his alma mater: "We had a good saying that we've held firm to to this day as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. That's been a good thing for all of us."


Well, That's good enough for me. When are we all gathering in the town square for the stoning?

All this is shaping up to be, is a time wasting ploy until we get to the November Elections.



That's all it was, right out of the gate. Fine, give 10 FBI agents a week to investigate.

I agree she needs to be heard and having first hand knowledge of how difficult it is for these young rape victoms to come forward, I’m not ready to dismiss their claims just because they happened that long ago. I didn’t find out my X was raped in high school until we were married for ten years and even then it was like pulling teeth.

If it happened and some of the therapy she has received supports the claim and he is lying as many do; you ready to give him a pass?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Everything you say is fair. But the accuser doesn't know when it happened, she doesn't know where it happened, there are discrepancies between what she says today and what she told her therapist...how can Kavanaugh possibly defend himself?

Did you read what John R said happened to him? He, presumably, was able to show that he was somewhere else at the time. But how could he do that, if the accuser could not specify the time and place? Can you imagine the spot John would have been in, if he had no chance to prove he was somewhere else at the time?

If he did it, he should answer for it, absolutely. But unfortunately, there is almost certainly no way to get anything more than he said / she said, and after 35 years, and with all his character witnesses and the lack of anyone else making accusations, is that enough? Is it nearly enough to punish him? I don't think so. It absolutely reeks of political motivation, it couldn't be more obvious.

Well, That's good enough for me. When are we all gathering in the town square for the stoning?

Yep, when he was a teenager, he occasionally was involved in drunken stupidity. Let's go right to the execution.

How did we get here?

Well, That's good enough for me. When are we all gathering in the town square for the stoning?

So it comes down to Supreme Court appointment for life or Stoning.
Those are the choices?

So it comes down to Supreme Court appointment for life or Stoning.
Those are the choices?

certainly seems that way.

I mean its Guilty until proven Innocent in the court of public opinion

So it comes down to Supreme Court appointment for life or Stoning.
Those are the choices?

they already stoned him in the hearing..this is the execution:kewl:

Been to my share of high school and college parties, with lots of alcohol involved and I’ve never attempted to forcibly take a girls clothes off without concent. So attempting rape is ok because the young age and booze somehow gives a guy a pass?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is grabbing a girls ass or titties attempted rape?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is grabbing a girls ass or titties attempted rape?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ask your wife

So it comes down to Supreme Court appointment for life or Stoning.
Those are the choices?

If an unsubstantiated allegation is enough to derail his nomination, how will anyone ever get confirmed again? The opposition party will always get someone to make an allegation, and then where are we, Pete?

certainly seems that way.

I mean its Guilty until proven Innocent in the court of public opinion

Senator Horino was on TV last night, she said we "all need to believe her".

In other words, Senator Horino thinks we all "need" to ignore the Constitution, at least when a liberal women accuses a conservative man.

If an unsubstantiated allegation is enough to derail his nomination, how will anyone ever get confirmed again? The opposition party will always get someone to make an allegation, and then where are we, Pete?

Not saying he shouldn't be confirmed but have an independent investigatative arm of the gov. (the FBI) do an investigation and have a fair hearing w/witnesses.

Senator Horino was on TV last night, she said we "all need to believe her".

In other words, Senator Horino thinks we all "need" to ignore the Constitution, at least when a liberal women accuses a conservative man.

And Orrin Hatch said

“The judge who I know very, very well, is an honest man, said this didn’t happen,” Hatch said, according to The Hill.

Sounds like he has already made his mind up that K is innocent so the so called hearing will be a joke.

Senator Horino was on TV last night, she said we "all need to believe her".

In other words, Senator Horino thinks we all "need" to ignore the Constitution, at least when a liberal women accuses a conservative man.
What does this have to do with the Constitution?

Not saying he shouldn't be confirmed but have an independent investigatative arm of the gov. (the FBI) do an investigation and have a fair hearing w/witnesses.



And Orrin Hatch said

“The judge who I know very, very well, is an honest man, said this didn’t happen,” Hatch said, according to The Hill.

Sounds like he has already made his mind up that K is innocent so the so called hearing will be a joke.

"have an independent investigatative arm of the gov. (the FBI) do an investigation and have a fair hearing w/witnesses."

I have no quarrel with that, but its very likely it will boil down to he said / she said. And the time to do this, as Senator Feinstein well knows, was when the FBI was already doing his background check. Paul, why do you suppose they didn't ask for the investigation then, in which case this would be behind us now?

"The judge who I know very, very well, is an honest man, said this didn’t happen,” Hatch said, according to The Hill."

He shouldn't be saying that, it's wrong for him to say that.

Now Paul, what do you think of Senator Horino, saying on TV that we "need to believe" Kavanaugh's accuser? She has also made up her mind ahead of time, which further contributes to the hearing being a joke.

I cannot possibly know what happened. But I'm pretty certain that the allegation will never be proven to any rational level of certainty, in which case no one should oppose his nomination based on this event.

I gotta hand it to the democrats, this is win-win. If they derail his nomination, and they re-take the senate, they can stop Trump from shifting the court to the right. If he gets confirmed, all of them will be shrieking right up until the midterms, that republicans have no empathy for victims of sexual assault. The only political risk, is that if this tactic (it's pretty underhanded) turns off voters in the key swing states. Sure it will increases the margin of victory in places where they would have won anyway, but does it help in WV and OH? We'll see.

Paul, why do you suppose that Senator Horino says we need to believe Kavanaugh';s accuser, but she's not saying we need to believe Keith Ellison's accuser? This kind of dirty fighting from the left is exactly why Trump got elected, and at times like this I thank God we have a POTUS who is more than wiling to take off the boxing gloves, and out on the brass knuckles, when his opponents do the same.

What does this have to do with the Constitution?

Senator Horino said we "need to believe" the accuser, which necessarily means we need to disbelieve Kavanaugh, and deny him a SCOTUS seat, without any due process.

She is saying we should punish Kavanaugh without any due process.

I'll ask you Spence, and have fun with this question...why is Senator Horino saying we "need to believe" Kavanaugh's accuser, but she isn't saying we need to believe Keith Ellison's accuser?

Why would anyone who feels this disqualifies Kavanaugh, not feel that Keith Ellison should step down? Both men have been accused of domestic violence against women. One gets a pass form the left, one is presumed guilty from the left. How come?

What does this have to do with the Constitution?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,..... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

or we could "Just Believe Her"

Paul, why do you suppose they didn't ask for the investigation then, in which case this would be behind us now?
prob. for some of the same reasons the Repubs. waited until the night before to release 17K?? pages of docs.


Now Paul, what do you think of Senator Horino, saying on TV that we "need to believe" Kavanaugh's accuser?

Politics - same as Hatch's statement.

Paul, why do you suppose that Senator Horino says we need to believe Kavanaugh';s accuser, but she's not saying we need to believe Keith Ellison's accuser? PoliticsThis kind of dirty fighting from the left is exactly why Trump got elected, and at times like this I thank God we have a POTUS who is more than wiling to take off the boxing gloves, and out on the brass knuckles, when his opponents do the same.

Both parties do it but you are so blinded that you think 1 party does it more than the other.

This is a Senate hearing, it is not a court of law.
Just like indictment vs impeachment are different so is the confirmation of a citizen to the Supreme Court.
Due process doesn't apply.
Is it political, absolutely and it always has been.
Is it dirtier than it used to be or just more public?

Both parties do it but you are so blinded that you think 1 party does it more than the other.



one party consistently takes it to all new levels of ick....:)

Both parties do it but you are so blinded that you think 1 party does it more than the other.

Both parties do it, no question. Even in the age of Trump, I see no comparison in frequency. But I know I'm biased.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,..... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

or we could "Just Believe Her"

According to Horino, you "need to believe her". Or else...

This is a Senate hearing, it is not a court of law.
Just like indictment vs impeachment are different so is the confirmation of a citizen to the Supreme Court.
Due process doesn't apply.
Is it political, absolutely and it always has been.
Is it dirtier than it used to be or just more public?

Can you answer my question about Keith Ellison?

What does this have to do with the Constitution?

you are right...the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the Constitution

Can you answer my question about Keith Ellison?

who's he?

who's he?

He is the vice chairman at the Democratic National Committee. And like Kavanaugh, he has been accused by a woman, of assault and domestic violence. And unlike Kavanaugh, no one on the left is concluding he's guilty and should be denied a job in public service.

Very similar circumstances between Ellison and Kavanaugh, very very different conclusions reached by most liberals. What do you think?

Both parties do it but you are so blinded that you think 1 party does it more than the other.

And sorry I didn't say it immediately, I respect your post (not the part calling me blind), it was uncommonly honest. Not uncommon for you, uncommon for all of us.

who's he?

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/17684222/keith-ellison-karen-monahan-minnesota-attorney-general-race

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/karen-monahan-keith-ellison-accuser-sends-democrat/

Senator Horino said we "need to believe" the accuser, which necessarily means we need to disbelieve Kavanaugh, and deny him a SCOTUS seat, without any due process.

She is saying we should punish Kavanaugh without any due process.
He's not being charged in a criminal court, I'm not sure how due process really applies in a legal sense in this case. I do think it's fair to ensure the allegation is properly looked into now that it's out in the open.

I'll ask you Spence, and have fun with this question...why is Senator Horino saying we "need to believe" Kavanaugh's accuser, but she isn't saying we need to believe Keith Ellison's accuser?
I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison.

Why would anyone who feels this disqualifies Kavanaugh, not feel that Keith Ellison should step down? Both men have been accused of domestic violence against women. One gets a pass form the left, one is presumed guilty from the left. How come?
I think one difference here is that Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story, offering evidence but refusing to produce it etc...

He's not being charged in a criminal court, I'm not sure how due process really applies in a legal sense in this case. I do think it's fair to ensure the allegation is properly looked into now that it's out in the open.


I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison.


I think one difference here is that Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story, offering evidence but refusing to produce it etc...

"I'm not aware of anyone asking her about Ellison."

Ahhhh, you dodging skills are second to none.

"Ellison's accuser has undercut her own credibility by changing her story"

Mrs Fords version that she is telling today, differs from what she told her therapist, so she is also apparently changing her story. She's having trouble remembering where and when it happened, isn't it possible she's misremembering the who as well? This is exactly why we have statutes of limitations.

Ask your wife

I asked my wife and daughter.

No was their answer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mrs Fords version that she is telling today, differs from what she told her therapist, so she is also apparently changing her story. She's having trouble remembering where and when it happened, isn't it possible she's misremembering the who as well? This is exactly why we have statutes of limitations.
The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist. As for her making a mistake on the assailant, that's what an investigation would be for. I don't think she would have come forward unless she personally was sure it was him.

In the Ellison case the initial allegation was actually made by her son which she eventually went along with. She's told the press multiple stories about a video that would prove her story and that she wouldn't give it to them anyway...it's all very strange.

The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist. As for her making a mistake on the assailant, that's what an investigation would be for. I don't think she would have come forward unless she personally was sure it was him.

In the Ellison case the initial allegation was actually made by her son which she eventually went along with. She's told the press multiple stories about a video that would prove her story and that she wouldn't give it to them anyway...it's all very strange.

"The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist"

True, or it could be a mistake by her.

Spence, Kavanaugh's best ability to prove innocence, would be to show he was somewhere else at the time. How can he begin to do that, when the accuser can't specify the when and the where? There's literally no possible way to defend himself against this.

It's a morally disgusting tactic, but politically very shrewd. No one knows how to bring a gun to a knife fight, like a liberal.

Oh, OK, you don't believe Ellison's accuser because her story is strange. But nothing strange about sending a letter, telling the senate to hold onto it while the FBI is doing a background check, not mentioning it during 38 hours of questioning. Nah, that's normal, at least by current liberal standards.

If I was Trump, if there's another vacancy (please Ginsberg), I'd go out of my way to fill it with the person that the liberals would hate the most, someone who would make them beg Trump to re-nominate Kavanaugh.. "Ability to infuriate liberals", would be near the top of my list of attributes I'd look for.

Your side won big by fighting dirty against honorable men like McCain and Romney. They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers.

Spence, Kavanaugh's best ability to prove innocence, would be to show he was somewhere else at the time. How can he begin to do that, when the accuser can't specify the when and the where? There's literally no possible way to defend himself against this.
That's why you have professionals like the FBI conduct an investigation. They would interview her several times, see if her story changes, talk to others she went to school with, see if there's any corroborating evidence. They might find something or they may simply say there's not enough to form a conclusion.

But the standard here isn't the same as for a crime.

It's a morally disgusting tactic, but politically very shrewd. No one knows how to bring a gun to a knife fight, like a liberal.
I'd say usually it's just the opposite. Dems have a habit of asking "oops, did I hit you too hard?"

Oh, OK, you don't believe Ellison's accuser because her story is strange.
I think it's very strange that she says she has a video and text messages that prove her story but she can't find them or it would be too embarrassing. That doesn't pass the smell test with flying colors.

But nothing strange about sending a letter, telling the senate to hold onto it while the FBI is doing a background check, not mentioning it during 38 hours of questioning. Nah, that's normal, at least by current liberal standards.
My understanding is she didn't want the exposure, it wasn't until a staffer leaked that the memo existed that it was made public. Could be a ruse, no idea.

If I was Trump, if there's another vacancy (please Ginsberg), I'd go out of my way to fill it with the person that the liberals would hate the most, someone who would make them beg Trump to re-nominate Kavanaugh.. "Ability to infuriate liberals", would be near the top of my list of attributes I'd look for
This doesn't surprise me, sounds like a good basis for leadership.

Your side won big by fighting dirty against honorable men like McCain and Romney. They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers.
You continue to have a pretty jaundiced view of things. Also, it's better so say that "we're" lucky he's limited by separation of powers. We'll see how long even that lasts.

"They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers."
And that is my big concern, why did Trump go off the Federalist list and pick Kavanaugh? The biggest Washington insider
Trump doesn't want to take a chance on being indicted.
He'd just as soon be president for life like some of the people he admires and then have his children succeed him.
Of course you find an issue with the only Muslim in Congress, is he being appointed to a lifetime position also? :whackin:

"They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers."
And that is my big concern, why did Trump go off the Federalist list and pick Kavanaugh? The biggest Washington insider
Trump doesn't want to take a chance on being indicted.
He'd just as soon be president for life like some of the people he admires and then have his children succeed him.
Of course you find an issue with the only Muslim in Congress, is he being appointed to a lifetime position also? :whackin:

what muslim in congress are you talking about? keith ellison isn’t in congress. but it sounds like you’re saying it’s wrong to believe a man is guilty, if he’s a muslim? so kavanaugh usnoresumed guilty, but not ellison because
muslims get special treatment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if this woman shows up with an envelope with a hair in it and claims it's kavanaugh's nothing will happen?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd say usually it's just the opposite. Dems have a habit of asking "oops, did I hit you too hard?"




Sure, sure. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh.

So if this woman shows up with an envelope with a hair in it and claims it's kavanaugh's nothing will happen?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure everyone will be like... "wow...you kept a hair in an envelope for 36 years...that's really impressive!"

So if this woman shows up with an envelope with a hair in it and claims it's kavanaugh's nothing will happen?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Straight or a “Curly”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I asked a friend of mine who went to Georgetown
He said what happens in Georgetown stays in Georgetown and👎🏽
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I asked a friend of mine who went to Georgetown
He said what happens in Georgetown stays in Georgetown and👎🏽
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for the insight
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hilary Clinton, who went on national TV and slut shamed her husbands victims ( called them looney tunes) was on manbc last night, telling the country ( well, at least telling the 14 viewers), that we all must show compassion and empathy to the victims of sexual assault. Naturally the host wasn’t about to mention the irony.

The liberal descent into total madness, is just about complete. They are truly unhinged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hilary Clinton, who went on national TV and slut shamed her husbands victims ( called them looney tunes) was on manbc last night, telling the country ( well, at least telling the 14 viewers), that we all must show compassion and empathy to the victims of sexual assault. Naturally the host wasn’t about to mention the irony.

The liberal descent into total madness, is just about complete. They are truly unhinged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So apparently 13 other people besides you watched?
Some are concerned about the Trumplicans total submission while claiming we don’t really think it’s ok and don’t agree with everything but who’s gonna miss out on great head? We’re Getting what we want, so what if it’s ugly.
The morning will come sooner or later and you’ll be wishing you had chewed your arm off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So apparently 13 other people besides you watched?
Some are concerned about the Trumplicans total submission while claiming we don’t really think it’s ok and don’t agree with everything but who’s gonna miss out on great head? We’re Getting what we want, so what if it’s ugly.
The morning will come sooner or later and you’ll be wishing you had chewed your arm off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i see you said absolutely nothing, about the irony i pointed out. when did hilary become concerned with victims is sexual assaults? Because she showed no such concern when she used her pulpit to attack her husbands victims, and there was dna evidence to show he was guilty, not just a witch hunt as might be the case here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=15&v=4LWPcEo2gV0



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=15&v=4LWPcEo2gV0

appropriate

i see you said absolutely nothing, about the irony i pointed out. when did hilary become concerned with victims is sexual assaults? Because she showed no such concern when she used her pulpit to attack her husbands victims, and there was dna evidence to show he was guilty, not just a witch hunt as might be the case here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But you expect bad behavior out of Dems. So why aren't
the Rebub. setting a good example and having the FBI investigate (like they did w/A. Hill)? If either she or he lies to the FBI, prosecute them. If the FBI finds that there credible evidence/belief that K may have done what she claims, then have a hearing w/any witnesses both parties want to present. If they find she is crazy, say that and the vote can proceed.

democrats are the perfect example of why you should never negotiate with terrorists

Hilary Clinton, who went on national TV and slut shamed her husbands victims ( called them looney tunes) was on manbc last night, telling the country ( well, at least telling the 14 viewers), that we all must show compassion and empathy to the victims of sexual assault. Naturally the host wasn’t about to mention the irony.

The liberal descent into total madness, is just about complete. They are truly unhinged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim can you stop bringing this up.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-viciously-attack/

But you expect bad behavior out of Dems. So why aren't
the Rebub. setting a good example and having the FBI investigate (like they did w/A. Hill)? If either she or he lies to the FBI, prosecute them. If the FBI finds that there credible evidence/belief that K may have done what she claims, then have a hearing w/any witnesses both parties want to present. If they find she is crazy, say that and the vote can proceed.

You dodged my question again, but I will show yo a courtesy you won't show me.

If I was Trump, I'd give 10 FBI agents a week to look into it, (which wouldn't be enough, they'd demand the investigation last until after the midterms) and that would be it, no more delays. If it turned up nothing, I'd be tempted to send the bill for the agents' time to the accuser, but wouldn't go that far.

Additional question, why in gods name didn't Feinstein ask the FBI to look into this, when she knew they were doing a background check on him? Spence has answered that question by saying they wanted to respect her privacy. Unfortunately for Spence, that weak argument is destroyed by the fact that the democrats are the ones who leaked her identity, to the press of all people. So they didn't want to share her identity with the FBI, but they gave it to the press? That makes all kinds of sense, I mean it's chock full of logic.

Jim can you stop bringing this up.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-viciously-attack/

On national TV, she claimed that Bill hadn't done anything to these women (in other words, they were lying), but rather, he was framed by the vast right wing conspiracy, dun-dun-dun!!

Naturally, Maddow wasn't about to challenge Hilary on the hypocrisy.

How am I wrong? She didn't say they were all lying, when she blamed it all on the GOP? When did she say we needed to have empathy for them, listen to their stories, feel their pain?

or turn your back on a crazy person with a weapon....

But you expect bad behavior out of Dems. So why aren't
the Rebub. setting a good example and having the FBI investigate (like they did w/A. Hill)? If either she or he lies to the FBI, prosecute them. If the FBI finds that there credible evidence/belief that K may have done what she claims, then have a hearing w/any witnesses both parties want to present. If they find she is crazy, say that and the vote can proceed.

and the fbi has explicitly addressed that the investugatedbthe anita hill case. the fbi said Hills allegation wasn’t 35 years old, wasn’t missing all the details that Fords accusation is missing, and that Hill was eager to testify under oath. take it for what it’s worth, that’s what they’re saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the fbi also said this is typical mo for democrats

You dodged my question again, but I will show yo a courtesy you won't show me.



How did I dodge your question when I don't think you asked me a question?

and the fbi has explicitly addressed that the investugatedbthe anita hill case. the fbi said Hills allegation wasn’t 35 years old, wasn’t missing all the details that Fords accusation is missingand they got info how?, and that Hill was eager to testify under oath. take it for what it’s worth, that’s what they’re saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your saying the FBI doesn't want to investigate? They easily could be ordered to by the Pres. or the committee.

Jim can you stop bringing this up.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-viciously-attack/

But she did have Vince Foster and Seth Rich killed and belongs to a satanic cult. Never mind her participating in a child sex ring where they entice the kids w/free pizza.

The I stands for investigation, that’s what they do.
There’s enough people who went to Georgetown and Holton Arms at that time that you could ascertain if there is anything to the allegation.
A Senate confirmation hearing is not a court hearing or an election.
It is one of the duties of the Senate to determine the suitability of candidates submitted by the president for appointments based on their judgment as the most august body of elected citizens in this republic.
It has not and should not be a rubber stamp for the will of the president
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and the fbi has explicitly addressed that the investugatedbthe anita hill case. the fbi said Hills allegation wasn’t 35 years old, wasn’t missing all the details that Fords accusation is missing, and that Hill was eager to testify under oath. take it for what it’s worth, that’s what they’re saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Who in the FBI said this, and when and where?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On national TV, she claimed that Bill hadn't done anything to these women (in other words, they were lying), but rather, he was framed by the vast right wing conspiracy, dun-dun-dun!!

Naturally, Maddow wasn't about to challenge Hilary on the hypocrisy.

How am I wrong? She didn't say they were all lying, when she blamed it all on the GOP? When did she say we needed to have empathy for them, listen to their stories, feel their pain?
I think you're (as usual) conflating events.

Who in the FBI said this, and when and where?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He made it up. All the FBI needs to investigate is a green light from POTUS.

President Donald Trump has said the FBI doesn't want to investigate Christine Blasey Ford's assertion that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her, and that it's "not what they do."

In fact, the FBI could certainly investigate Ford's claim, but only if the White House asks the bureau to do so. She has no authority to request it. Neither does the Senate.

When the FBI conducts a background investigation of a presidential nominee, it vacuums up all kinds of information about the nominee, including claims from people interviewed by agents, and dumps it into the file. It does not, however, investigate whether or not derogatory information is true — unless it's asked to follow up by the White House. Several current and former Justice Department and FBI officials say this has always been the practice, and there is actually a longstanding formal memorandum of understanding between DOJ and the White House that specifies these limits.

The Senate cannot ask the FBI to investigate Ford's allegations that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a high school party more than 30 years ago, because Kavanaugh is the president's nominee, not the Senate's.

Here's another way to think about it. In doing background investigations, the FBI is acting as an agent of the White House. That's a separate role from its responsibility to investigate crimes. The Senate can always ask the FBI to investigate a potential crime that it becomes aware of, but it can't direct the FBI to investigate the background of a presidential nominee.

And in this case, even assuming Ford's allegation to be true, there's no suggestion of a federal crime, quite apart from the statute of limitations issue. So the FBI has no independent authority to open a criminal investigation. Its only role here would be to re-open the Kavanaugh background investigation.

democrats like to kick you in the nuts and then demand civility

I'm sure everyone will be like... "wow...you kept a hair in an envelope for 36 years...that's really impressive!"


not like keeping a dress with a load on it . hasn't all ready happen :kewl:

not like keeping a dress with a load on it . hasn't all ready happen :kewl:

she was a democrat :jester:

democrats like to kick you in the nuts and then demand civility
Said the pot calling the kettle black
In these times, however, it’s a joke to focus on incivility by Democrats even as the Republican president routinely says things that are as bad as or worse than the attacks of the most irresponsible Democratic no-name precinct chair. Nor is President Donald Trump as much of an outlier as one might imagine. After all, his crusade to declare President Barack Obama a non-citizen was taken up by many Republican politicians; his repeated ethnic slur against Senator Elizabeth Warren, repeated this past weekend, was adapted from one used against her by Massachusetts Republicans.

This strain of Republican rhetoric goes back to Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawmaker from Georgia who became House speaker was not just prone to excessive rhetoric himself, but trained Republican politicians to use extreme wording.

Then there’s Republican-aligned media, a constant source of institutionalized incivility that encourages a politics of grievance by searching out any examples of Democratic rhetorical excess.


Basically, anyone who thinks the parties are even remotely equivalent on this score is treating Trump as if he doesn’t count. And anyone who thinks the parties are roughly equivalent if you remove Trump from the equation should take Kevin Drum’s advice and spend more time critically monitoring Republican-aligned media. And, as Norm Ornstein reminds us, critical monitoring is not the same as reacting to the problem of incivility with a “knee-jerk response” of trying to find equal fault on both sides. and using conservative outlets only as a source for finding examples of poor Democratic behavior.

Said the pot calling the kettle black
In these times, however, it’s a joke to focus on incivility by Democrats even as the Republican president routinely says things that are as bad as or worse than the attacks of the most irresponsible Democratic no-name precinct chair. Nor is President Donald Trump as much of an outlier as one might imagine. After all, his crusade to declare President Barack Obama a non-citizen was taken up by many Republican politicians; his repeated ethnic slur against Senator Elizabeth Warren, repeated this past weekend, was adapted from one used against her by Massachusetts Republicans.

This strain of Republican rhetoric goes back to Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawmaker from Georgia who became House speaker was not just prone to excessive rhetoric himself, but trained Republican politicians to use extreme wording.

Then there’s Republican-aligned media, a constant source of institutionalized incivility that encourages a politics of grievance by searching out any examples of Democratic rhetorical excess.


Basically, anyone who thinks the parties are even remotely equivalent on this score is treating Trump as if he doesn’t count. And anyone who thinks the parties are roughly equivalent if you remove Trump from the equation should take Kevin Drum’s advice and spend more time critically monitoring Republican-aligned media. And, as Norm Ornstein reminds us, critical monitoring is not the same as reacting to the problem of incivility with a “knee-jerk response” of trying to find equal fault on both sides. and using conservative outlets only as a source for finding examples of poor Democratic behavior.

yawn

So your saying the FBI doesn't want to investigate? They easily could be ordered to by the Pres. or the committee.

I'm not saying that, the FBI said that. They have no interest in investigating a story this thin with so many holes. That's why they say they investigated the Anita Hill allegation, but took a pass on this. Now, Trump can order them to do it, which is why they asked for an FBI investigation (they can blame Trump for not ordering it), instead of asking the MD police to investigate, since it's their jurisdiction.

Sorry, here's my question...if a simple allegation is enough to disqualify Kavanaugh, why aren't all the liberals screaming for Keith Ellison to resign?

He made it up. All the FBI needs to investigate is a green light from POTUS.

No I'm not.

They don't need Trump's permission. He can order them to do it if they choose to pass, which they did, and they explained why.

But she did have Vince Foster and Seth Rich killed and belongs to a satanic cult. Never mind her participating in a child sex ring where they entice the kids w/free pizza.

I never said that. But she did say that Bill's accusers were lying.

He made it up. All the FBI needs to investigate is a green light from POTUS.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35848/breaking-fbi-isnt-investigating-brett-kavanaugh-ashe-schow

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/19/fbi-will-not-launch-criminal-investigation-into-kavanaugh-allegations.html

I think you're (as usual) conflating events.

I think you're (as usual) wrong, not man enough to admit it, so you say I'm taking something out of context, or conflating something.

Spence you also claimed multiple times, the Ford's allegation was not shared with the FBI during his background check, to protect her identity. If the democrats were concerned with her privacy, why did they leak her identity to the media? They wouldn't give her name to the FBI, but they gave it to the media?

democrats look dumber than ever,,,,this is great:D

No I'm not.

They don't need Trump's permission. He can order them to do it if they choose to pass, which they did, and they explained why.

Who and when
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35848/breaking-fbi-isnt-investigating-brett-kavanaugh-ashe-schow

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/19/fbi-will-not-launch-criminal-investigation-into-kavanaugh-allegations.html

A criminal investigation and a background investigation are not the same thing
A senate hearing is not a court of law
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said that. But she did say that Bill's accusers were lying.
As long as you are doing what about

The dirt: Even before the release of a 2005 video in which he boasted about sexually assaulting women—“Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,” he said, as well as “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything”—there’s a long line of allegations against Trump. Jill Harth says Trump assaulted her in the 1990s. Trump’s ex-wife Ivana Trump once suggested he had raped her, though she has since recanted her story. Former Miss Utah Temple Taggart said he kissed her on the lips inappropriately. But since the release, more women have come forward. Two told The New York Times that Trump had assaulted them, one saying he tried to put his hand up her skirt on a flight in the 1970s and another saying he forcibly kissed her. A Florida woman says Trump groped her. A former People reporter recounted an alleged assault at his Mar-a-Lago debate, and says he told her, “You know we’re going to have an affair, don’t you?” Several former teen pageant contestants said Trump walked in on them while they were naked or partially dressed.
The upshot: Trump denies all of the allegations. In the sexual-assault cases, Trump faces the difficulty that he in some cases bragged openly about just the behavior of which he has accused—whether grabbing or forcibly kissing. Trump has demanded a retraction from the Times, and has threatened to sue several outlets. The paper, in a letter, refused. A woman who brought a rape case against Trump (twice) withdrew her suit in November, but in January, Summer Zervos sued Trump for defamation, after he labeled her claims of sexual assault false.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A senate hearing is not a court of law

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no...it's a circus thank to the democrats :hihi:


ahhh...the words of that liberal lion and democrat icon....


"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be.

The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our President. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate, and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and on the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

As long as you are doing what about

The dirt: Even before the release of a 2005 video in which he boasted about sexually assaulting women—“Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,” he said, as well as “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything”—there’s a long line of allegations against Trump. Jill Harth says Trump assaulted her in the 1990s. Trump’s ex-wife Ivana Trump once suggested he had raped her, though she has since recanted her story. Former Miss Utah Temple Taggart said he kissed her on the lips inappropriately. But since the release, more women have come forward. Two told The New York Times that Trump had assaulted them, one saying he tried to put his hand up her skirt on a flight in the 1970s and another saying he forcibly kissed her. A Florida woman says Trump groped her. A former People reporter recounted an alleged assault at his Mar-a-Lago debate, and says he told her, “You know we’re going to have an affair, don’t you?” Several former teen pageant contestants said Trump walked in on them while they were naked or partially dressed.
The upshot: Trump denies all of the allegations. In the sexual-assault cases, Trump faces the difficulty that he in some cases bragged openly about just the behavior of which he has accused—whether grabbing or forcibly kissing. Trump has demanded a retraction from the Times, and has threatened to sue several outlets. The paper, in a letter, refused. A woman who brought a rape case against Trump (twice) withdrew her suit in November, but in January, Summer Zervos sued Trump for defamation, after he labeled her claims of sexual assault false.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Earth to Pete,,,i am not defending Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This kind of dirty fighting from the left is exactly why Trump got elected,


Your completely indoctrinated in rights proganga if you think

1 the dems fight dirty ( compared to the Republicans )

2 and thats what help elect Trump .


your detached from reality

Earth to Pete,,,i am not defending Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No but you are whatabouin and I’m not defending Hillary either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like how a consentual blow job is an impeachable offense to republicans but attempted rape is totally cool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, here's my question...if a simple allegation is enough to disqualify Kavanaugh, why aren't all the liberals screaming for Keith Ellison to resign?

I don't think this is enough to disqualify K - but have the FBI investigate and if there is enough there then have a hearing - with witnesses, evidence, etc.

Like they did w/A Hill. Orrin Hatch was in favor of it then but not now.

I like how a consentual blow job is an impeachable offense to republicans but attempted rape is totally cool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was there proof of the blowjob (I.e. see dress) and is there proof of attempted rape?

And he was impeached for lying under oath.

And for the record, I always thought the whole BJ thing should have just been between Bill, Hillary, and Monica
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your completely indoctrinated in rights proganga if you think

1 the dems fight dirty ( compared to the Republicans )

2 and thats what help elect Trump .


your detached from reality

If you’re going to accuse people of being detached from reality, it would help your argument if knew the difference between you’re and your. Most of us learned that in elementary school.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A criminal investigation and a background investigation are not the same thing
A senate hearing is not a court of law
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure what you mean. I posted where the FBI said they took a pass on investigating Ford's claims. Trump can order them to do it if he wants, which I presume he does not.

Your completely indoctrinated in rights proganga if you think

1 the dems fight dirty ( compared to the Republicans )

2 and thats what help elect Trump .


your detached from reality

OK. So what happens when liberal speakers give a speech on college campus - nothing. WHat happens when conservatives try to give a speech - a riot. Compare the tea party to Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter. Look at this case.

Of course the left's habit of fighting dirty helped lead to Trump.

I like how a consentual blow job is an impeachable offense to republicans but attempted rape is totally cool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wasn't the affair, he lied about it under oath. That was the impeachable ofense. Also there was irrefutable evidence of the affair, not just she said he said.

Not sure what you mean. I posted where the FBI said they took a pass on investigating Ford's claims. Trump can order them to do it if he wants, which I presume he does not.

Who and when from the fbi said they would not continue the background check?
Of course they would not open an investigation into a state crime but they are the agency that does background checks at the request of the president, seems he either doesn’t want to know or doesn’t know how it works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK. So what happens when liberal speakers give a speech on college campus - nothing. WHat happens when conservatives try to give a speech - a riot. Compare the tea party to Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter. Look at this case.

Of course the left's habit of fighting dirty helped lead to Trump.
Of course you wouldn’t be guilty of any of these things

In these times, however, it’s a joke to focus on incivility by Democrats even as the Republican president routinely says things that are as bad as or worse than the attacks of the most irresponsible Democratic no-name precinct chair. Nor is President Donald Trump as much of an outlier as one might imagine. After all, his crusade to declare President Barack Obama a non-citizen was taken up by many Republican politicians; his repeated ethnic slur against Senator Elizabeth Warren, repeated this past weekend, was adapted from one used against her by Massachusetts Republicans.

This strain of Republican rhetoric goes back to Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawmaker from Georgia who became House speaker was not just prone to excessive rhetoric himself, but trained Republican politicians to use extreme wording.

Then there’s Republican-aligned media, a constant source of institutionalized incivility that encourages a politics of grievance by searching out any examples of Democratic rhetorical excess.


Basically, anyone who thinks the parties are even remotely equivalent on this score is treating Trump as if he doesn’t count. And anyone who thinks the parties are roughly equivalent if you remove Trump from the equation should take Kevin Drum’s advice and spend more time critically monitoring Republican-aligned media. And, as Norm Ornstein reminds us, critical monitoring is not the same as reacting to the problem of incivility with a “knee-jerk response” of trying to find equal fault on both sides. and using conservative outlets only as a source for finding examples of poor Democratic behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course you wouldn’t be guilty of any of these things

In these times, however, it’s a joke to focus on incivility by Democrats even as the Republican president routinely says things that are as bad as or worse than the attacks of the most irresponsible Democratic no-name precinct chair. Nor is President Donald Trump as much of an outlier as one might imagine. After all, his crusade to declare President Barack Obama a non-citizen was taken up by many Republican politicians; his repeated ethnic slur against Senator Elizabeth Warren, repeated this past weekend, was adapted from one used against her by Massachusetts Republicans.

This strain of Republican rhetoric goes back to Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawmaker from Georgia who became House speaker was not just prone to excessive rhetoric himself, but trained Republican politicians to use extreme wording.

Then there’s Republican-aligned media, a constant source of institutionalized incivility that encourages a politics of grievance by searching out any examples of Democratic rhetorical excess.


Basically, anyone who thinks the parties are even remotely equivalent on this score is treating Trump as if he doesn’t count. And anyone who thinks the parties are roughly equivalent if you remove Trump from the equation should take Kevin Drum’s advice and spend more time critically monitoring Republican-aligned media. And, as Norm Ornstein reminds us, critical monitoring is not the same as reacting to the problem of incivility with a “knee-jerk response” of trying to find equal fault on both sides. and using conservative outlets only as a source for finding examples of poor Democratic behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is stupid....did you write this pete or are you plagiarizing again?

this is stupid....did you write this pete or are you plagiarizing again?
Plagiarizing
It take it you disagree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was there proof of the blowjob (I.e. see dress) and is there proof of attempted rape?

And he was impeached for lying under oath.

And for the record, I always thought the whole BJ thing should have just been between Bill, Hillary, and Monica
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that is why Rudy (if he is smarter than he sounds) will never let Trump sit down with Mueller to testify under oath, he can’t stop lying regardless of the implications.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oprah told trump to speak his own truth so that's what he does...i thought that was big with the lefties

If you’re going to accuse people of being detached from reality, it would help your argument if knew the difference between you’re and your. Most of us learned that in elementary school.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thanks for adding nothing to the conversation. it must be liberating

thanks for adding nothing to the conversation. it must be liberating

You’re welcome. See how I used the word correctly there? It is liberating to be smarter than people who are not only narrow minded but simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By the way, it’s also correct to start sentences with capital letters, Wayne. A little bit of correct grammar goes a long way when you want to be taken seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re welcome. See how I used the word correctly there? It is liberating to be smarter than people who are not only narrow minded but simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please be safe it is dangerous sitting on such a high horse :horse:

You’re welcome. See how I used the word correctly there? It is liberating to be smarter than people who are not only narrow minded but simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks like another new low for this forum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks like another new low for this forum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hold my beer....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks like another new low for this forum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing to add except to comment on a post as usual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing to add except to comment on a post as usual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pot, meet kettle....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Senator Horino said today, that because of the way Kavanaugh decides cases, she doesn't think that presumption of innocence applies to him. Nice to hear a totalitarian admit it that the protections provided by our justice system, do not apply to everyone equally in her mind. This is a US Senator.

Senator Horino said today, that because of the way Kavanaugh decides cases, she doesn't think that presumption of innocence applies to him. Nice to hear a totalitarian admit it that the protections provided by our justice system, do not apply to everyone equally in her mind. This is a US Senator.


She is an enemy of the people... not a US Senator in my opinion and should have her head examined

Nothing to add except to comment on a post as usual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Touche

Senator Horino said today, that because of the way Kavanaugh decides cases, she doesn't think that presumption of innocence applies to him. Nice to hear a totalitarian admit it that the protections provided by our justice system, do not apply to everyone equally in her mind. This is a US Senator.
Are you making things up again?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She said on CNN that his credibility in this accusation is "very questionable", specifically because of the way that he has decides cases, and she specified women's reproductive rights. As if Kavanaugh is opposed to reproductive rights in any general kind of sense, but liberals don't like to use the word "abortion", even though that's all this is.

Unless he decides cases by forcing himself on unwilling women, how can his judicial record have any bearing in this accusation? Go ahead and explain that, please?

Now he's a serial rapist according to the 3rd accuser, and yet six FBI investigations failed to uncover any of this. Fascinating.

She said on CNN that his credibility in this accusation is "very questionable", specifically because of the way that he has decides cases, and she specified women's reproductive rights. As if Kavanaugh is opposed to reproductive rights in any general kind of sense, but liberals don't like to use the word "abortion", even though that's all this is.

Unless he decides cases by forcing himself on unwilling women, how can his judicial record have any bearing in this accusation? Go ahead and explain that, please?

Now he's a serial rapist according to the 3rd accuser, and yet six FBI investigations failed to uncover any of this. Fascinating.
I believe she questioned his application of the facts in cases she's very familiar with and questions his credibility because of that. This makes her an "enemy of the people?" That's some standard.

As for the background check, we've covered that before.

Put a fork in him Jim.

I believe she questioned his application of the facts in cases she's very familiar with and questions his credibility because of that. This makes her an "enemy of the people?" That's some standard.

As for the background check, we've covered that before.

Put a fork in him Jim.

I believe she questioned his application of the facts in cases she's very familiar with and questions his credibility because of that. is above reproach because she' has a 'D' after her name. Fixed it for you.

I would advise a ten day FBI investigation, and if it turns up zip, that's the end of it. I don't think they will withdraw his nomination based on allegations that are not only unsubstantiated, but explicitly denied by the witnesses named by the accuser. Spence, how many times does Ford have to say "this person was there", and have that person flatly deny that, before even you start scratching your head? Is that remotely possible? Or is all that matters to you, the politics? Does justice ever factor into your thinking? Because if there's any actual evidence, I'd scream for his nomination to be withdrawn.

And if Trump ever nominates another judge, I hope he picks Mrs Barrett, the one who Feinstein said "the dogma is loud in you". Let your side dig up dirt that she's a slut.

Trump isn't Bush. I wouldn't count on him withdrawing the nomination without something more than allegations. For all his many faults, one thing I admire about him, is that he cares about not cowering to the mob. He could not care less what they think. There's no pressuring this guy with these tactics.

Spence, how many times does Ford have to say "this person was there", and have that person flatly deny that, before even you start scratching your head? Is that remotely possible? Or is all that matters to you, the politics? Does justice ever factor into your thinking? Because if there's any actual evidence, I'd scream for his nomination to be withdrawn.
I think Judge is the only witness who denies he was there. The others just don't recall, and I believe most of them support Ford. I don't think I could recall most of the parties I was at in high school or college unless something noteworthy happened.

This isn't a matter of justice, it's a very big job interview.

these are the weakest allegations of sexual assault in the history of allegations of sexual assault

"In the course of calling former classmates to corroborate her claim that Brett Kavanaugh drunkenly exposed himself to her at a dorm party, Deborah Ramirez told a number of them that she wasn’t entirely sure that Kavanaugh was responsible, the New York Times reported Sunday.

“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge,” the Times reported. “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

Ramirez went public in a Sunday New Yorker article with the accusation that Kavanaugh, then a freshman at Yale, thrust his penis in her face while playing a drinking game. The article does not include any eyewitness accounts and several of Kavanaugh’s college friends and roommates disputed the claim in a statement."

I believe she questioned his application of the facts in cases she's very familiar with and questions his credibility because of that. .

So how has Kavanaugh decided any cases, in a way which makes it more likely, that he is a violent pervert? I'm all ears...

I believe she questioned his application of the facts in cases she's very familiar with and questions his credibility because of that. This makes her an "enemy of the people?" That's some standard.


I believe you believe what you wrote, because I believe you can talk yourself into believing pretty much anything that the Democrats go along with.
She should be called out for the extremist she is, oh and also have her head examined.