So...democrats no longer insist on believing all women?
 

Brett Kavanaugh was faced with decades-old, un-substantiated accusations. But the entire left, including the media, said the accusation were enough. Biden himself, said we should believe women making the accusations. Not just "hear" them mind you, but assume that they are telling the truth. That's what Biden said, and obviously what the media believed.

My, oh my, how the liberals have changed their tune in very short order. Now with Biden, all of a sudden, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" means something again. Denied to Brett Kavanaugh, they are stepping over themselves to ensure Biden enjoys it.

As Groucho Marx said…"these are my principles. if you don't like them, I have other, different principles."

Truth doesn't matter, certainly principles don't matter. Only politics.

Wasn't there another thread on this subject?

Ok = so I believe her. There should be a hearing, just as there should have been a hearing on Trump and a real hearing and a real investigation on Kavanaugh.

Reade has constantly changed her story from not being sexually assaulted to being sexually assaulted. Her brother has also changed what he said she told him. One witness did say Reade told her years ago about the assault. She has professed a big love of Russia which may give her an motive - who knows. Blassy ford had no inconsistancies in her statements in the Rep. did not believe her.

The story was broken by left wing media.

there is a ton of repetition here...have you ever read your posts?

Blassy ford had friends who flatly contradicted her, she couldn't remember what year it took place, how she got home, etc.

The whole thing was a sham. Why did Feinsten wait until the end of the scheduled confirmation hearing to reveal the accusation? If Feinstein actually believed it happened, why not go right to the police? Why wait until the end of a political confirmation hearing? For political effect, that's why.

Kind of hard to have inconsistencies when you don't remember where it happened, when it happened, and who was there when it happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah but other than those trivial details, her story was iron-clad.

I don't believe the 2nd paragraph is totally correct. Didn't feinsten tell here she needed to go talk to someone else or something like that?

Either way - that whole hearing was a sham and many people who wanted to talk to the FBI never had the chance. You can't now say she should be believed if you didn't say that with BFord just as the opposite is true.

Feinstein said at the end of the regularly scheduled hearings, that she had a letter and was about to drop a bomb. The only thing missing was dramatic music piped in.

They sat on the accusation for maximum political effect. Obviously.

This was Feinstein's statement

“President Trump and Senate Republicans are trying to deflect attention from Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual assault allegations by saying my staff or I leaked the letter from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford—they’re wrong.

“The timeline is clear: I referred the un-redacted letter to the FBI on September 12. That night the FBI added a redacted version to Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, to which all 100 senators have access. The New Yorker published details on September 14, and Dr. Blasey Ford went public in the Washington Post on September 16. It wasn’t until September 17 that someone with access to the redacted version of the letter read it to CNN, where it was published online.

“I honored Dr. Blasey Ford’s request for confidentiality. It was only when reporters were knocking on her door that I referred the letter to the FBI. At no point did I or anyone on my staff divulge Dr. Blasey Ford’s name to press. She knows that and believes it, for which I’m grateful.

“I find it interesting that the same critics who last week condemned me for not releasing Dr. Blasey Ford’s letter against her wishes are now suggesting I did leak the letter.

“Throughout this process I acted in strict accordance to the wishes of the survivor.”

I believe her
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S_UmPyXEWr4#
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok be honest....would any of you EVER touch someone else's kids like that...not to mention the adults

When in this process, did Feinstein inform the judiciary committee of the bombshell?

She can say whatever she wants. She also is one of the crooks who walked out of a hearing on the coronavirus and then dumped stock. But it's OK when she does it, because she's a democrat.

Who said that it was ok or are you lying again?

Just think, now lots of Americans will get checks signed by Trump and they aren't even porn stars.

I saw a LOT of calls, by name, for the Republican guy (Burr?) to get expelled from the senate, and the lady republican from GA also. I've seen nowhere near the media coverage on Feinstein doing the same thing.

Same with this topic. Are you willing to say that the media covered the accusations against Kavanaugh, in a similar fashion to the way they covered the accusations against Biden? No bias? None?

A tiny speck of consistency would go a long, long way...

So you didn't actually hear anyone say "But it's OK when she does it, because she's a democrat" but rather you heard something about Burr and so you're going to lie (again - see I can do that too) and make that statement up?

What a joke.

Across the board (Rep. and Dem) people gave Burr the most flack bc he did it with multiple stocks and the timing was like the next day after a briefing. The woman from GA did not get as much flack bc she said her stocks where in a blind trust. Finestein got less bc she only traded 1 stock I believe.

What I hear, is calls for Burr (a republican) to resign. I haven't heard the mainstream media call for her resignation, even though she did it too.

So in your opinion, if the media says Burr should resign but don't call for Feinstein to resign...that doesn't mean they don't care that she did it, not unless they catually come out and say "it's only OK if she does it". You brain can't connect those dots?

Same with Biden and sex assault. With Kavanaugh, the accusation was enough to disqualify hm in the eyes of the democrats and the media. But Biden enjoys a presumption of innocence that was denied to Kavanaugh. Those two facts don't lead you to conclude that there's a double standard?

If you are so dim/slow that you can't call that hypocrisy unless one person says "the accusation makes Kavanaugh unfit, but the accusation doesn't make Biden unfit", that's on you. Most people with IQs in the double- or triple-digits can see that for what it is. If you don't see it, I'm sorry for you.

Of course, I doubt you're not that stupid, you're just being argumentative because you can't admit the hypocrisy, because like the others, you can't go against the liberal narrative.

"Finestein got less bc she only traded 1 stock I believe"

I see. So it's OK to trade $1,000,000 worth of one single stock based on insider info, but disqualifying to trade two stocks even if the total value is $5. You are suggesting, that it's only improper when it involves a certain number of equities. The number of equities is the determining factor.

That just makes ALL KINDS of sense. According to Bloomberg, she sold between $1.5M and $6.0M worth of that one stock. Nothing to see there, as it was only one stock.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ngs-in-january

I didn't read all that crap but you lied - are you a compulsive liar?- see I can do that too.

Are you so dim witted that you cannot recognize you lied?

What lie did I tell, exactly? Like talking to a toddler now.

Clearly, or you wouldn't be saying the nonsensical things you are saying. Try reading a bit more.

You made up a statement and then want someone to defend it.

Own your lies.

You're a compulsive liar now.

Your whole premise was based on a lie you made up and yet you want someone to defend the lie you made up.

Try being honest.

WHat was the lie? And who am I trying to get to defend it?

Paul, you said insider trading is only an issue if more than one security is involved. Has anyone, anywhere, ever said that? How did you come up with that standard? Answer - it lets the democrat off the hook. But that's just a coincidence, right?

You lied again. You are a compulsive liar.

You made up a laughably absurd excuse (insider trading doesn't warrant scrutiny if only one security was traded) that no one, ever, has used. You came up with that idiotic excuse to defend the democrat. Not only did I not lie, you proved my point.

You aid the degree to which insider trading is unethical, depends on the number of securities involved, rather than the amount of money involved, or the nature of the insider information upon which the decision to sell was made. If you actually believe that, you're an idiot. If you don't believe it but invented that excuse to defend the democrats, youre a liar.

you conceded that the democrat is getting less scrutiny. She sole over $1 million of stock based on information she gathered doing the job we entrusted her to do, information not available to the public, But you say because only 1 stock was involved, that's a valid reason for the decreased scrutiny.




An idiot or a liar. There isn't a third excuse for saying that.

Don't understand the last statement. I'm an idiot or an liar?

I pointed out numerous times where you lied and you can't point out any statements that I made that are incorrect.

You do know that Fienstein didn't sell any stocks right - bc it sounds like you don't know that. Not knowing that makes it seem like you are an idiot.

.....and another one bites the dust.

Embargo on
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device