Kavanaugh
 

i had thought that was settled, but then the NYT runs a piece about a sexual assault, and they left out the minor detail that the alleged victim has no memory of the event. but that’s a minor detail not worth including.

i’m not sure these deranged witch hunts help the democrats, maybe they do.

i also learned that Yales does regularly have “nude parties” where the kids wear no clothes. The students say it leads to more sophisticated conversation. i’m sure. And parents kill themselves to send their children there.

From your post it looks like you don't care about sexual assault. It is a joke how the Admin. told the FBI to investigate. People came forward to state they had info. and the FBI was constrained and couldn't interview them.

The NYT corrected the story I bet that you will bring that up again and again. The witnesses who came forward w/the story stated they doubted she would remember bc she was drunk.

Why not do a good and complete investigation so there isn't a cloud over his head?

But Antonio Brown
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i care a lot about actual
sexual assaults. stuff
that appears made up for political purposes, is a little
different from a woman actually getting hurt.

paul, we have two democrat presidential candidates saying he should
be impeached, when the victim isn’t making a complaint, and has reportedly said she doesn’t know if the event took place. that’s probable cause? harris is a prosecutor, and warren is a harvard law professor. they of all people
should know better.

they’re pusses trump won and got to pick two justices. elections have consequences. the gop didn’t do this with kagan or sotomayor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is a bit disturbing that a Senator (Cooms) sent a letter to the FBI asking them to talk to witnesses from Yale that apparently was never acted on.

If Garland had moved forward under a similar cloud, and Jim Jordan had sent a similar letter, heads on the right would have exploded....

yes the nyt corrected the story, only after the editors actively deleted key facts from the original
piece, and also only after they were vilified for doing so. big whoop they fixed it. we all know what they did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and if my aunt had wheels, she’d be a tea cart. the gop doesn’t resort to these smear tactics with democratic scotus nominees. kagan and sotomayor got confirmed, each got plenty of gop votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NM

#BelieveHer even if she doesn’t remember it happening :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right. paul, if the alleged
victim isn’t making a complaint and isn’t saying it happened, what’s there to investigate?

he’s a serial predator, and there’s zero direct, credible evidence? come on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From what I've heard the new incident had some pretty credible sourcing. Should have been investigated at a min.

The truth is credible people wanted to speak to the FBI and were not allowed to.
The lesson the Senate, the FBI, the president and Kavanaugh sent to victims was: The male perpetrator and his allies can orchestrate, choreograph and curate the process to avoid accountability.

who cares if the victim agrees that the event took place. how about going to the CT police, they have no jurisdiction? or does the Yale University, as well as the CT state government, bend over backwards to protect trump? that makes all
kinds of sense, yale and the state of CT being so conservative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

makes you wonder why then, the NYT edited the story the way they did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is no low that is too low for the despicable democrats to stoop to...they are shameless..and relentless...like rabid creatures

So, if these claims came forward they should not have investigated them?

If RGB is off the court early in 2020, should we expect the GOP and Trump to not put forth a nominee because if is an election year following the Garland precedent?

So if someone doesn't know something happened to them, in your mind it is ok to do something to them?

Raping a handicapped or someone not cognizant is ok in your book?

Even the NYTimes makes mistakes. Difference is a credible outlet corrects the record as they did.

A Senate hearing for a lifetime appointment is not a criminal trial nor should it be.
Confirmation hearings were not intended to be based on the rules of evidence, but on the judgement of Senators, the hundred top ranked elected officials in a coequal branch of government.
It is wiser to err and not confirm than it is to put a person on the Supreme Court for life who, even in appearance, is tainted in some way.
No person is important enough to take that chance.

yeah..."mistake"

this is idiocy....where do you come up with this crap?

oops...was that snarky?

The stuff that runs through his mind...🙄
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if the victim isn’t asking for an investigation, and won’t even concede that the event took place, then i’m not sure there’s anything to investigate.

ahhh, ginsberg and the scotus. that’s what this is all about, obviously. let me start by saying i think garland should
have been given a hearing, and then he should have been rejected. but he wasn’t.

if ginsburg retires, i don’t think the senate should wait. the american people, in free elections, have chosen to give senate control
to the republicans. for 8 years, from 2009 - 2016, obama liked to say that elections have consequences. i agree with him. unlike democrats, i agree with that even when it’s not good for
my personal agenda.

when passing on garland, the gop
senate should not have said its best to wait for the next election. they should have said “ the american people gave senate control to the gop, and that includes responsibility for confirming judges, and no logic would lead anyone to conclude that he people did that, because they wanted Scalia replaced with Garland.”. that’s what they should have said. they didn’t, which means they will look very hypocritical if they try to sneak one in, in 2020. but i hope that’s what happens.

the party that controls the senate, confirms judges. today, that’s the gop.

ginsberg blew it by not retiring when the democrats had the white house and the senate. if trump gets re elected ( unlikely imo but i said that in 2016 too), and the gop keeps the senate, it’s very likely she gets replaced with Amy Barrett. a conservative catholic, and during those conformation hearings, you’ll see just how much democrats like women.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you must be of the mindset that if the person is not aware something is happening to them it is ok to do it to them and there is no recourse.

Looks like your that low despicable person you ranted about earlier.

Did Kavanaugh repeatedly lie to Congress is the question?

The Supreme Court nominee has been adamant that while he enjoys beer and perhaps at time drank “too many,” it was never to the point of passing out, blacking out, or even causing slight lapses in memory.

He grew “belligerent and aggressive” as a drunk, according to Chad Ludington, one of Kavanaugh’s former classmates.

Liz Swisher, another former Yale classmate “There’s no problem with drinking beer in college. The problem is lying about it.”

In 2004, Kavanaugh said he did not “personally” handle the nomination of Judge William Pryor, who currently sits on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Alabama, Georgia, and Florida).

Kavanaugh, who worked in Bush’s White House counsel office in the early 2000s, distanced himself from Pryor’s nomination in 2004, saying during his own confirmation hearing, “No, I was not involved in handling his nomination.”

Between 2002 and 2003, Kavanaugh is included in several emails referencing the Pryor nomination. In one exchange between Kavanaugh and White House aide Kyle Sampson, Kavanaugh is asked: “How did the Pryor interview go?” He responded, “Call me.” In another email chain, Kavanaugh is included in a conversation about a conference call to “coordinate plans and efforts” around Pryor.

There’s also the case of the improperly obtained Democratic files, detailing strategies for opposing Bush’s judicial nominees in the 2000s, which a Republican Senate aide circulated with White House staff.

In 2004, Kavanaugh claimed that he had never seen “any documents that appeared ... to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” But an email between the Republican staffer and Kavanaugh showed him receiving some of the documents.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked Kavanaugh directly: “Are Ramirez’s allegations about you true?”

Kavanaugh responded with a little slithery lawyer speak, “None of the witnesses in the room support that. If that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our freshman dorm.” And apparently interviewing his dorm-mates is not worth doing.

The lack of stuff what runs through your mind:rude:

just a simple, honest mistake, no political motivations behind it.

how many mistakes have they made, which portray liberals
as predators?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who is saying that’s what happened here? again, why didn’t Yale ( has its own police), or the CT police, look into this? ask them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We have a sexual predator in the White House it shouldn’t surprise anyone the FBI’s investigation was limited in time and scope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Until recently colleges did not ever admit that their students or employees did any wrong and covered it up. If anything was done about it, there was a NDA involved.
In the past few years, it has started to change but it is not over yet.
Ask Gym Jordan.