kavanaugh

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence does

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

I wonder if the democrats have reached peak crazy yet....

Nah, I’m pretty sure by Friday morning we will hear from somebody who was part of Kavanaugh’s transgender underage prostitution ring that he was running out of the unisex bathrooms at the rest areas on I95
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess they just released video footage of him actually in line, I think that’s him at the front

https://youtu.be/hshbq4_OySI
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Nah, I’m pretty sure by Friday morning we will hear from somebody who was part of Kavanaugh’s transgender underage prostitution ring that he was running out of the unisex bathrooms at the rest areas on I95
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s a pizza place, did you miss that one? Oh wait that was George Soros and Hillary
Sorry you’re right the rest area is on the right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Nah, I’m pretty sure by Friday morning we will hear from somebody who was part of Kavanaugh’s transgender underage prostitution ring that he was running out of the unisex bathrooms at the rest areas on I95
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sex with farm animals is next...democrats are all in....my as well go full nut job

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

Federal judicial nominees undergo a rigorous FBI background check

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Federal judicial nominees undergo a rigorous FBI background check

Number 4
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

Number 4
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you bother?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

What vile accusations these women have made against Kavanagh. If they made the same type of accusations about me and I had the ability to have the FBI investigate I'd be screaming for them to investigate. Lie detectors all around for the accused and accuser. Anyone who lies would be guilty of perjury. I wonder why that hasn't happened?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

What's the point of investigating what is already known. Isn't it the point of an investigation to find out that which is not known?

[scottw]

interesting....


"The Judiciary Committee sent Thomas’s nomination to the full Senate on a vote of seven-to-seven. In mid-October, on the eve of the Senate’s final vote on Thomas, his confirmation looked like a sure thing.

Meanwhile, as the chances of defeating the Thomas nomination grew smaller, both the press and the groups working against him grew ever more vigorous in their search for material to use against him. Employees at the EEOC reported getting repeated phone calls from journalists and Thomas opponents explicitly asking for “dirt.” On Sunday, October 6, after the Senate Judiciary Committee had voted to send the Thomas nomination to the Senate, Newsday and National Public Radio reported that for a month the committee had had in its possession an affidavit from a woman named Anita Hill making charges of sexual harassment.

Thomas supporters protested the introduction of a new charge against him, after so many other accusations had been leveled and failed, on the very eve of the confirmation vote. Thomas opponents said that because not much was known about the charges, the vote should be postponed and Hill’s story given a more thorough airing.

But the opponents said a great deal more as well. They claimed that the Senate, by its treatment of Hill, had already demonstrated men’s outrageous indifference to the welfare of women and the fundamental incapacity of male elected officials to give proper political representation to their female constituents. If the Senators went ahead with their floor vote on Thomas as scheduled, they would compound the insult.

The anger of Thomas’s critics drove out respect for procedural traditions and niceties. The Judiciary Committee had considered Hill’s charges privately, in agreement with Hill’s expressed wishes; but someone on some Senate committee staff decided that he or she was morally justified in overriding these rules of confidentiality and leaking Hill’s affidavit, either directly to the press or to an intermediary, and subjecting both Hill and Thomas to a public airing of the issue.

After the leak, Thomas’s supporters said that because he was to be effectively put on trial, he should be given the presumption of innocence: Hill should have to come up with some solid corroboration of her claim. Thomas’s opponents dismissed this idea, explaining that since sexual harassment often took place in private, an absence of corroborating evidence was only to be expected. Asking for the conventional presumption of innocence under this circumstance would be nothing other than a fancy version of “blaming the victim.”

The opponents evidently calculated that by bathing the whole affair in the light of publicity, they could undo the Judiciary Committee’s verdict. And indeed, at first they seemed to succeed. But in the end, they succeeded too well. They forced a public event that featured Hill and Thomas facing off against each other directly and individually. They provided Hill with a phalanx of lawyers to match Thomas’s White House handlers. They created, in other words, a forum that strongly resembled a criminal trial."

[wdmso]

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

Sounds just as rediculous as the judge taking a number at the gang bang.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Train gang
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

this is comical....


In a statement released Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their "first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his [sic] complaint." They conducted a second interview the next day.

On Wednesday, Republicans said in the statement, they received a "more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford." GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.


Ford has previously said there is "zero chance" she would have confused Kavanaugh for anyone else.

In response, an aide to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee reportedly unloaded on Senate Republicans: "Republicans are flailing," the aide said, according to NBC News.

"They are desperately trying to muddy the waters. ... Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her. Democrats were never informed of these assertions in interviews, in violation of Senate rules."

The aide, before again calling for an FBI probe into Ford's accusations, added, "This is shameful and the height of irresponsibility."

[scottw]

this is hilarious....

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is hilarious....

Glad to see you think it’s hillarious to mock 2 victims of sexual assault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Glad to see you think it’s hillarious to mock 2 victims of sexual assault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

democrats are doing a fine job of mocking and delegitimizing all actual victims of sexual assault by turing it into a political weapon....again

this guy Avenatti is the perfect presidential candidate for the dems in 2020

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What's the point of investigating what is already known. Isn't it the point of an investigation to find out that which is not known?

Right, it's just an exercise to confirm what's already known, they don't ask any questions about the person's past.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1151866] Spence, it’s bad for the senate to bring in an expert sexual crimes prosecutor who is a female, to question both Ford and Kavanaugh?

Originally Posted by spence

Regardless, you'd do this because you hope to destroy the witness, not get to the facts.

"Rachel Mitchell, a veteran prosecutor from Arizona whose “life mission” has been to investigate sex crimes. Mitchell’s boss, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, praised called her a “professional, fair, objective prosecutor” who has a “caring heart” for victims.The people of America are well served with her involvement in this process,” he said.

Mitchell — a graduate of the Arizona State University law school — has worked as a prosecutor since 1993 and spent 12 years running the bureau in the division responsible for the prosecution of sex-related felonies, including adult sexual assault.

Cindi Nannetti, her former supervisor and co-counsel on high-profile cases, said: “Rachel doesn’t seek attention as a lawyer. She has excellent judgment. She demands thorough investigation by police officers. Her bottom line is justice.

“She’s super smart. I just don’t think she’ll be bullied by anyone. She just doesn’t look at anything politically.”

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=scottw;1152076]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, it’s bad for the senate to bring in an expert sexual crimes prosecutor who is a female, to question both Ford and Kavanaugh?





"Rachel Mitchell, a veteran prosecutor from Arizona whose “life mission” has been to investigate sex crimes. Mitchell’s boss, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, praised called her a “professional, fair, objective prosecutor” who has a “caring heart” for victims.The people of America are well served with her involvement in this process,” he said.

Mitchell — a graduate of the Arizona State University law school — has worked as a prosecutor since 1993 and spent 12 years running the bureau in the division responsible for the prosecution of sex-related felonies, including adult sexual assault.

Cindi Nannetti, her former supervisor and co-counsel on high-profile cases, said: “Rachel doesn’t seek attention as a lawyer. She has excellent judgment. She demands thorough investigation by police officers. Her bottom line is justice.

“She’s super smart. I just don’t think she’ll be bullied by anyone. She just doesn’t look at anything politically.”

Sounds familiar, pretty typical laudatory quote

“Robert Mueller is the perfect choice,” Jeffries said. “Most important is his integrity. For Bob, integrity is not merely a policy or a practice; it’s character. He is incapable of dishonesty or dissembling. Additionally, he has the skill and experience to be effective. His appointment has been universally applauded, as it should be.”

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

Sounds like a good reason to have the FBI investigate.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1152077]

Originally Posted by scottw

Sounds familiar, pretty typical laudatory quote

”

no...it sounds like exactly the opposite of what spence attempted to imply

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sounds like a good reason to have the FBI investigate.

boy....when you get stuck on a word or theme....

[nightfighter]

Only few minutes I heard of this circus was during Booker's line of questioning, which I found to be misleading and disgusting for a US Senator.

[Sea Dangles]

The circus today was on par with anything Trump has offered.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

[scottw]

deja vu all over again...


"I think that this today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this hearing should never occur in America. This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it at prime time over our entire nation. How would any member on this committee, any person in this room, or any person in this country, would like sleaze said about him or her in this fashion? Or this dirt dredged up and this gossip and these lies displayed in this manner? How would any person like it?

The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I am not here for that. I am here for my name, my family, my life, and my integrity. I think something is dreadfully wrong with this country when any person, any person in this free country would be subjected to this."

1991

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Says the party who wouldn't and blocked all attempt to seat Merrick Garland trying to take the high road it's laughable

He tainted himself in his opening statement with his conspiracy theory it he's victim of 'revenge on behalf of the Clintons or from pent up anger from Trumps election

the reason above is why they are blocking this and the midterms election now the GOP want to ram it thru before than

McConnell who seized the moment after the death of Scalia last February to announce there would be no confirmation hearings until after the election. "The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country," he said at the time. people have short memories