Kavanaugh
Comments
-
They want a guy as biased and partisan as possible. Having a guy who hates the Clintons more than he cares about the constitution is their ideal candidate.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate.
0 -
He also seems to be very partisan. And some of them seem to know him personally (like Lindsey).pjhawks said:
because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
This would own the libs. Sometimes it seems like GOP legislators are playing the internet game of politics, where "owning the libs" is more important than the actual good of the country. In reality, it's probably more indirect; the GOP base cares about owning libs and since Trump, working across the aisle is now a bad thing (see; turning against McCain). If you are a GOP legislator, you have to be all in on protecting Trump and villainizing the other side or you'll be ousted in your next primary. They've lost cite of the big picture to focus on the red team beating the blue team.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate.
The other possibility is that they're all part of (directly or indirectly) whatever Trump was involved in and they value this guy's desire to protect Trump and, by extension, them. The only thing that truly sets this guy apart from other conservative judges, outside of his un-professional demeanor, is his belief that the president is Republican presidents are above the law.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
His opinions on executive power may also have something to do with it.pjhawks said:
because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate.0 -
So I was thinking about his all morning and I have to admit that I was totally wrong on the Till comparison. Carry on.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0
-
My impression is different. Its not about admitting fault. I'll admit I'm a republican, so many of you are just going to dismiss this anyway or take it with a grain of salt.pjhawks said:
because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate.
But it is clear the Dems used this for political gain. No question about that, this was mishandled purposefully in a way to get the most exposure about 5 weeks before a major election. It was an attempt to stall the confirmation and publicize this for votes. I have no doubt of that. This could have been a closed hearing, kept private as Dr Ford wished. Someone on the democratic committee leaked her letter and name (not Dr Ford or her friends as Feinstein suggested, that's just stupid) when this could have been addressed 2 months ago.
Reports are now saying they did offer to fly the whole committee to CA for a hearing. Ford claims she would have accepted, but the offer and communication was not clear. The discussions were not made directly to Ford herself, but through Senators and lawyers. Seems very plausible, even likely this was intentionally to stall even further.
I don't believe Ford was a willing participant, but used instead.
I don't think republicans handled it very well either. Once they got wind of the accusations (6 weeks after the dems knew about it for what its worth) they could have done this very differently as well.
But my impression isn't that they have such a hard-on for this guy as much as making a point that they won't let the democratic tactics ruin their nomination.
But if it was about women and sexual abuse, it is all about dragging the republican image through the mud weeks before the election, other this would have been handled differently. There was plenty of time to investigate without having to delay the nomination if acted on in a timely manner. They would not have sat on the information for 2 months then leaked it to the press. This wil still be a hot topic when the elections happen, and they is exactly what they wanted.
0 -
This is exactly what the Republicans did when they questioned Kavanagh. They made the whole issue about the process and not the allegations.mace1229 said:
My impression is different. Its not about admitting fault. I'll admit I'm a republican, so many of you are just going to dismiss this anyway or take it with a grain of salt.pjhawks said:
because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate.
But it is clear the Dems used this for political gain. No question about that, this was mishandled purposefully in a way to get the most exposure about 5 weeks before a major election. It was an attempt to stall the confirmation and publicize this for votes. I have no doubt of that. This could have been a closed hearing, kept private as Dr Ford wished. Someone on the democratic committee leaked her letter and name (not Dr Ford or her friends as Feinstein suggested, that's just stupid) when this could have been addressed 2 months ago.
Reports are now saying they did offer to fly the whole committee to CA for a hearing. Ford claims she would have accepted, but the offer and communication was not clear. The discussions were not made directly to Ford herself, but through Senators and lawyers. Seems very plausible, even likely this was intentionally to stall even further.
I don't believe Ford was a willing participant, but used instead.
I don't think republicans handled it very well either. Once they got wind of the accusations (6 weeks after the dems knew about it for what its worth) they could have done this very differently as well.
But my impression isn't that they have such a hard-on for this guy as much as making a point that they won't let the democratic tactics ruin their nomination.
But if it was about women and sexual abuse, it is all about dragging the republican image through the mud weeks before the election, other this would have been handled differently. There was plenty of time to investigate without having to delay the nomination if acted on in a timely manner. They would not have sat on the information for 2 months then leaked it to the press. This wil still be a hot topic when the elections happen, and they is exactly what they wanted.
0 -
Yeah, it's gross.eddiec said:
This is exactly what the Republicans did when they questioned Kavanagh. They made the whole issue about the process and not the allegations.mace1229 said:
My impression is different. Its not about admitting fault. I'll admit I'm a republican, so many of you are just going to dismiss this anyway or take it with a grain of salt.pjhawks said:
because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate.
But it is clear the Dems used this for political gain. No question about that, this was mishandled purposefully in a way to get the most exposure about 5 weeks before a major election. It was an attempt to stall the confirmation and publicize this for votes. I have no doubt of that. This could have been a closed hearing, kept private as Dr Ford wished. Someone on the democratic committee leaked her letter and name (not Dr Ford or her friends as Feinstein suggested, that's just stupid) when this could have been addressed 2 months ago.
Reports are now saying they did offer to fly the whole committee to CA for a hearing. Ford claims she would have accepted, but the offer and communication was not clear. The discussions were not made directly to Ford herself, but through Senators and lawyers. Seems very plausible, even likely this was intentionally to stall even further.
I don't believe Ford was a willing participant, but used instead.
I don't think republicans handled it very well either. Once they got wind of the accusations (6 weeks after the dems knew about it for what its worth) they could have done this very differently as well.
But my impression isn't that they have such a hard-on for this guy as much as making a point that they won't let the democratic tactics ruin their nomination.
But if it was about women and sexual abuse, it is all about dragging the republican image through the mud weeks before the election, other this would have been handled differently. There was plenty of time to investigate without having to delay the nomination if acted on in a timely manner. They would not have sat on the information for 2 months then leaked it to the press. This wil still be a hot topic when the elections happen, and they is exactly what they wanted.0 -
eddiec said:
This is exactly what the Republicans did when they questioned Kavanagh. They made the whole issue about the process and not the allegations.mace1229 said:
My impression is different. Its not about admitting fault. I'll admit I'm a republican, so many of you are just going to dismiss this anyway or take it with a grain of salt.pjhawks said:
because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate.
But it is clear the Dems used this for political gain. No question about that, this was mishandled purposefully in a way to get the most exposure about 5 weeks before a major election. It was an attempt to stall the confirmation and publicize this for votes. I have no doubt of that. This could have been a closed hearing, kept private as Dr Ford wished. Someone on the democratic committee leaked her letter and name (not Dr Ford or her friends as Feinstein suggested, that's just stupid) when this could have been addressed 2 months ago.
Reports are now saying they did offer to fly the whole committee to CA for a hearing. Ford claims she would have accepted, but the offer and communication was not clear. The discussions were not made directly to Ford herself, but through Senators and lawyers. Seems very plausible, even likely this was intentionally to stall even further.
I don't believe Ford was a willing participant, but used instead.
I don't think republicans handled it very well either. Once they got wind of the accusations (6 weeks after the dems knew about it for what its worth) they could have done this very differently as well.
But my impression isn't that they have such a hard-on for this guy as much as making a point that they won't let the democratic tactics ruin their nomination.
But if it was about women and sexual abuse, it is all about dragging the republican image through the mud weeks before the election, other this would have been handled differently. There was plenty of time to investigate without having to delay the nomination if acted on in a timely manner. They would not have sat on the information for 2 months then leaked it to the press. This wil still be a hot topic when the elections happen, and they is exactly what they wanted.
It would be nice if the GOP cared half as much about getting to the bottom of the allegations or Kavanaugh perjuring himself as they did the shenanigans from the opposition, but whatever... it's only a lifetime appointment, no big deal.0 -
You're absolutely right that the Democrats held this issue in order to inflict maximum political damage, and arguably damage to the nomination itself. I said much earlier that this was an extreme example of hardball politics. But that doesn't mean he is deserving of the seat.mace1229 said:
My impression is different. Its not about admitting fault. I'll admit I'm a republican, so many of you are just going to dismiss this anyway or take it with a grain of salt.pjhawks said:
because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate.
But it is clear the Dems used this for political gain. No question about that, this was mishandled purposefully in a way to get the most exposure about 5 weeks before a major election. It was an attempt to stall the confirmation and publicize this for votes. I have no doubt of that. This could have been a closed hearing, kept private as Dr Ford wished. Someone on the democratic committee leaked her letter and name (not Dr Ford or her friends as Feinstein suggested, that's just stupid) when this could have been addressed 2 months ago.
Reports are now saying they did offer to fly the whole committee to CA for a hearing. Ford claims she would have accepted, but the offer and communication was not clear. The discussions were not made directly to Ford herself, but through Senators and lawyers. Seems very plausible, even likely this was intentionally to stall even further.
I don't believe Ford was a willing participant, but used instead.
I don't think republicans handled it very well either. Once they got wind of the accusations (6 weeks after the dems knew about it for what its worth) they could have done this very differently as well.
But my impression isn't that they have such a hard-on for this guy as much as making a point that they won't let the democratic tactics ruin their nomination.
But if it was about women and sexual abuse, it is all about dragging the republican image through the mud weeks before the election, other this would have been handled differently. There was plenty of time to investigate without having to delay the nomination if acted on in a timely manner. They would not have sat on the information for 2 months then leaked it to the press. This wil still be a hot topic when the elections happen, and they is exactly what they wanted.0 -
i don't disagree that the dems handled this in a political manner. i had posted I didn't like how the Dems let this go down. That being said I think it had more to do with delaying the process to hopefully stretch it past the election than it did with hurting repubs in said election. The republicans have done enough damage themselves for the election. But regardless of the Dems motivation the repubs are supporting an entitled piece of shit at best and most likely a sexual abuser for the high court. It's not a good look for the GOP.mace1229 said:
My impression is different. Its not about admitting fault. I'll admit I'm a republican, so many of you are just going to dismiss this anyway or take it with a grain of salt.pjhawks said:
because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate.
But it is clear the Dems used this for political gain. No question about that, this was mishandled purposefully in a way to get the most exposure about 5 weeks before a major election. It was an attempt to stall the confirmation and publicize this for votes. I have no doubt of that. This could have been a closed hearing, kept private as Dr Ford wished. Someone on the democratic committee leaked her letter and name (not Dr Ford or her friends as Feinstein suggested, that's just stupid) when this could have been addressed 2 months ago.
Reports are now saying they did offer to fly the whole committee to CA for a hearing. Ford claims she would have accepted, but the offer and communication was not clear. The discussions were not made directly to Ford herself, but through Senators and lawyers. Seems very plausible, even likely this was intentionally to stall even further.
I don't believe Ford was a willing participant, but used instead.
I don't think republicans handled it very well either. Once they got wind of the accusations (6 weeks after the dems knew about it for what its worth) they could have done this very differently as well.
But my impression isn't that they have such a hard-on for this guy as much as making a point that they won't let the democratic tactics ruin their nomination.
But if it was about women and sexual abuse, it is all about dragging the republican image through the mud weeks before the election, other this would have been handled differently. There was plenty of time to investigate without having to delay the nomination if acted on in a timely manner. They would not have sat on the information for 2 months then leaked it to the press. This wil still be a hot topic when the elections happen, and they is exactly what they wanted.0 -
Hard ball politics was not even holding committee hearings on Merrick Garland and keeping the seat vacant, without a committee or floor vote for 200+ days. Fuck the repubs and Mitch McConnel and Lindsey Graham in particular.mrussel1 said:
You're absolutely right that the Democrats held this issue in order to inflict maximum political damage, and arguably damage to the nomination itself. I said much earlier that this was an extreme example of hardball politics. But that doesn't mean he is deserving of the seat.mace1229 said:
My impression is different. Its not about admitting fault. I'll admit I'm a republican, so many of you are just going to dismiss this anyway or take it with a grain of salt.pjhawks said:
because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.Ledbetterman10 said:I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate.
But it is clear the Dems used this for political gain. No question about that, this was mishandled purposefully in a way to get the most exposure about 5 weeks before a major election. It was an attempt to stall the confirmation and publicize this for votes. I have no doubt of that. This could have been a closed hearing, kept private as Dr Ford wished. Someone on the democratic committee leaked her letter and name (not Dr Ford or her friends as Feinstein suggested, that's just stupid) when this could have been addressed 2 months ago.
Reports are now saying they did offer to fly the whole committee to CA for a hearing. Ford claims she would have accepted, but the offer and communication was not clear. The discussions were not made directly to Ford herself, but through Senators and lawyers. Seems very plausible, even likely this was intentionally to stall even further.
I don't believe Ford was a willing participant, but used instead.
I don't think republicans handled it very well either. Once they got wind of the accusations (6 weeks after the dems knew about it for what its worth) they could have done this very differently as well.
But my impression isn't that they have such a hard-on for this guy as much as making a point that they won't let the democratic tactics ruin their nomination.
But if it was about women and sexual abuse, it is all about dragging the republican image through the mud weeks before the election, other this would have been handled differently. There was plenty of time to investigate without having to delay the nomination if acted on in a timely manner. They would not have sat on the information for 2 months then leaked it to the press. This wil still be a hot topic when the elections happen, and they is exactly what they wanted.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
-
Tell us something else that we already knewmcgruff10 said:So I was thinking about his all morning and I have to admit that I was totally wrong on the Till comparison. Carry on.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
Found this today. A few of these are questionable, but the majority are overwhelmingly clear and show why this guy does not belong on the SCOTUS.
1. He lied about Devil's Triangle. A Devil's Triangle is two different kinds of sexual acts, involving either a threesome, or three types of sexual intercourse with one woman in one night. It is not a drinking game. He lied about this several times and his classmates have called him out.
2. He lied about "bouf," which refers to anal intercourse, and not flatulence. He doubled down on this lie several times during testimony.
3. He lied about "Renata Alumnius." That referred to him going on a date with the purported class "slut." It was not about being her friend (and she recently said she was horrified by his yearbook references.) His testimony directly contradicts a poem about Renata written by one of his close friends found in the same yearbook he refers to himself as a Renata Alumnius, portraying Renata as a cheap and sleazy date.
4. He lied that the "Beach Week Ralph Club," which refers to vomiting from drinking at a traditional beach week (which all the schools around here have--we all know the expression). He lied and said it referred to his weak stomach.
5. He lied under oath about not watching Ford's testimony. Today. Witnesses saw him watching it. The Wall Street Journal reported he was watching it with others in the Senate's Dirksen Office Building. There are many press stories on this.
6. He lied about not knowing about stolen emails from the Democratic members of the judicial committee. He knew the emails were stolen and confirmed it in the emails the Judicial Committee republicans tried to suppress. The Washington Post gave him three pinocchios for this lie.
7. He lied about witnesses supporting his claims. They did not support his claims as he characterized their testimony. They generally supplied brief statements through lawyers about not remembering the party. This was no testimony. This was no independent investigation.
8. More specifically, Ford and Kavanaugh's mutual friend Leland Kaiser says while she does not remember that party, but she believes everything her friend Ford said about it. She has stated this to the press and it came up in testimony today.
9. Kavanugh lied about his drinking. He drank a lot in the last year of high school and college (and several witnesses say he drank a lot for years afterwards). Several friends of mine who specialize in alcoholism said he exhibited signs of having drunk before this hearing. He was referred to by his college roommate as a sloppy and belligerent drunk. We saw glimpses of that belligerence today. Dozens of his contemporaries have confirmed how aggressive he becomes with drinking.
10. He lied that never drunk on weekdays in the summer of 1982. In his own calendar, he referred to "skis," which he admitted refer to "brewskis," with Mark and PJ on Thursday July 1 in a calendar entry that matches closely Ford's account. Most of the people in that list were the same mentioned by Ford in her testimony. He drank. On that Thursday night. After working out.
11. He lied about Judge not remembering what happened. Six weeks after the incident, probably mid-August 1982, Ford reported seeing Judge at the Potomac Safeway in River Road near where we live. Local newspapers have confirmed that Judge worked there at the time Ford said. No one has refuted her testimony that Judge was "nervous" and had "turned white." The committee is still refusing to interview or depose or subpoena Judge.
12. He lied that "100 kegs or bust" did not indicate a lot of drinking in 1982-3. He was part of a group endeavoring to drink 100 kegs that year, and his best friend became a serious alcoholic and admitted to sexual assault resembling this assault during that period to his girlfriend. His girlfriend was also not deposed by the committee.
13. He lied about Trump in the first line of his first press conference as nominee. He lied about Trump doing more vetting than for any other Supreme Court nominee in modern history. In fact, Trump vetted much much less than other modern President's, admittedly working from short lists provided by two conservative think tanks, which he announced in advance he would limit his choice to. Several books have confirmed that Trump spent little time on the vetting.
14. He lied that he is "open to any investigation." He is not and is actively participating in blocking the testimony of eye witness Mark Judge, his girlfiend, and other participants. Judge is hiding out in a beach house on the eastern shore and Judge being interviewed by the FBI. Kavanaugh is actively involved in strategizing about evidence suppression, at all day strategy meetings with Trump's lawyers.
15. He lied about the nature of Mark's book. He said that both it was part of his therapy and coming clean as an alcoholic and drug addict, and called the book "fictional." It can't be both a testimonial of a recovering alcoholic and fictional at the same time.
16. He refuses to answer the question again and again about whether or not there should be an investigation and whether or not his friend Mark Judge should be questioned, further belying that he is "open to investigation."
17. He is lying about whether he was the "Bart O'Kavanaugh" in Mark Judge's book. He knows the drunken and vomiting "O'Kavanaugh" is him.
18. He is lying about never having forgot anything about the night after a night of drinking. There are several testimonials from classmates to this effect.
19. He is lying that there is a conspiracy against him and that Ford's charges are trumped up and part of that conspiracy. The best evidence of no conspiracy is how his high school classmate Gorsuch--they were one year about apart at Georgetown Prep--was subject to no such conspiracy, in confirmation hearings just months ago. Gorsuch is honorable. Judge is lying.
20. Kavanaugh supporter Whelan helped concoct the story of other men taking credit for assaulting Ford. Whelan has deleted all of his tweets after being challenged on the completely bogus stories he was advancing by his colleagues. The dissembling tweets are gone.
Senator Blumenthal quoted the legal principle "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which is a legal principle that dictates jurors can rule a witness to be false in everything if he says one thing that is not true." If you believe any of the above is correct, you have to come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is lying and should not be confirmed.
It's a hopeless situation...0 -
Perhaps you missed what I was saying.Gern Blansten said:
Because it is likely he assaulted Ford...she is 100% certain it was him, passed a lie detector test, etc.cincybearcat said:
Ok.... looking at these 1 at a time:Gern Blansten said:
He lied about drinking, boofing, Devil's Triangle, FFFFourth of July, Renate Alumnus, likely sexually assaultSpiritual_Chaos said:
It should.Gern Blansten said:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/kavanaugh-classmate-tell-fbi-nominee-s-violent-drunken-behavior-college-n915326?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma
This should be interesting. Will the report say that Kav was lying in his hearing?
I mean... he did lie.
Republicans just don't care about it and journalists aren't pushing them (enough) on it.
I was trying to remember if any of the Dems brought up Renate's response to the yearbook during the hearing....Kav said it was to show that she was "one of us"...she made a statement saying how awful the reference was.
1) Drinking - it appears he is lying about his consumption.
2) Boofing - farting? really? wth
3) Devil's triangle - I really wish I knew the truth on this one. I wonder who coached him to say 'Quarters'
4) FFFFourth of July - I heard his answer on this one....what is the alternative reason for it? I mean I could guess but it would just be guessing
5) Renate Alumnus - this really seems like a lie as well (why do you say likely sexual assault?)
FFFFourth of July refers to Find em, finger em, fuck em, forget em. Hard to explain (along with Devil's Triangle (a threesome between 2 guys, 1 girl) when you are defending yourself from sexual assault)
Boofing is putting alcohol in your rectum. Likely delivered via a bong
2) boofing - I was saying wth was his stupid “farting” excuse
3) devil triangle - I wish I knew for sure on this one. I know what it normally means
4) the FFFFourth was new to me. Ok heard the line before but never written like that.hippiemom = goodness0 -
-
Just like Trumpito...
Even if the assault allegations are untrue (they aren't) his temperament is completely unacceptable.
He will be impeached.
Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180 -
July 1, 1982
Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help