OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

[Polishprince]

Trumps choice another pos should have welcomed an investigation Why didn't he?? same reason trump can't show his taxes Afraid of what will be found

They did welcome an investigation, just not days before the confirmation.

You can't possibly NOT see what this is really about can you? Delay, delay, delay. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, this will all go away because they KNOW they these allegations are bogus but they don't care. They are petulant little children, just like the snowflakes that support them.

lets see what the fbi finds out bull shit or not

How do you "investigate" if you don't know the time or the place, ed? I still don't understand how the neighbors never said anything about Kav's alleged weekly Rape Train parties

 

[Asclepias]

Trumps choice another pos should have welcomed an investigation Why didn't he?? same reason trump can't show his taxes Afraid of what will be found

They did welcome an investigation, just not days before the confirmation.

You can't possibly NOT see what this is really about can you? Delay, delay, delay. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, this will all go away because they KNOW they these allegations are bogus but they don't care. They are petulant little children, just like the snowflakes that support them.

lets see what the fbi finds out bull shit or not

How do you "investigate" if you don't know the time or the place, ed? I still don't understand how the neighbors never said anything about Kav's alleged weekly Rape Train parties

Youre about to find out since you seem to be ignorant of how they do it. Maybe thats why youre not an FBI agent. You dont know anything.

 

[edward37]

Trumps choice another pos should have welcomed an investigation Why didn't he?? same reason trump can't show his taxes Afraid of what will be found

They did welcome an investigation, just not days before the confirmation.

You can't possibly NOT see what this is really about can you? Delay, delay, delay. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, this will all go away because they KNOW they these allegations are bogus but they don't care. They are petulant little children, just like the snowflakes that support them.

lets see what the fbi finds out bull shit or not

How do you "investigate" if you don't know the time or the place, ed? I still don't understand how the neighbors never said anything about Kav's alleged weekly Rape Train parties

Polak for what you did with our other board you're invisible to me

 

[otto105]

If you paid attention...Dr.Ford the accuser did not seem upset that her supposed female friend who was supposedly at the supposed party...couldn't back her up...because of medical problems? Dr.Ford would not tell a "lifelong friend" she claims was at the party what had happened all the years they have stayed in touch?
This is the friend Leland Keyser...from Politico:
"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," said Howard Walsh, who said he has been "engaged in the limited capacity" of corresponding with the committee on behalf of Keyser.
Walsh's email was in response to a missive from one of the lawyers for the GOP majority staff, which stated: "I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article."

Mrs. Leland Keyser doesn't recall the party, but believes her friends story is true.

 

[iceberg]

Chris Murphy on Twitter

Chris Murphy‏Verified account @ChrisMurphyCT

US Senate candidate, CT
Yes, of course there should be an FBI investigation. But whatever they find doesn’t change the fact that Kavanaugh, especially after his performance yesterday, is the most dangerous Supreme Court pick of our lifetime.


so - as you can see - they don't even care about the investigation. they just keep on the full court press and if kavanaugh gets mad, then then flip to SEE HE'S GOT ISSUES WE TOLD YOU!!!

you can't make stupid happy.

 

[iceberg]

Trumps choice another pos should have welcomed an investigation Why didn't he?? same reason trump can't show his taxes Afraid of what will be found

They did welcome an investigation, just not days before the confirmation.

You can't possibly NOT see what this is really about can you? Delay, delay, delay. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, this will all go away because they KNOW they these allegations are bogus but they don't care. They are petulant little children, just like the snowflakes that support them.

lets see what the fbi finds out bull shit or not

How do you "investigate" if you don't know the time or the place, ed? I still don't understand how the neighbors never said anything about Kav's alleged weekly Rape Train parties

it's painfully obvious they don't care about the investigation. if this gets "cleared" they just come up with another reason why.

whats sad is, if you think THIS confirmation hearing is a circus, we've got a "hold my beer" moment coming for the next time the dems put up a nomination.

 

[Redfish]

There the FBI had jurisdiction, and the incident was less time in the past.

Here the FBI has no jurisdiction.

No one has said the FBI had jurisdiction. Thank you for the offer f of red herring

I guess the longer in the past an incident is, the less you want it investigated.

sad

So you are saying the FBI can just up and investigate someone breaking a State law (which is what Kavenaugh is accused of) without the permission of the State law enforcement?

It's not a Red Herring, it's how things work.

The FBI investigates federal crimes, crimes across State lines (which usually become federal crimes), can be invited by Local law enforcement to assist. At most otherwise they can come in when local law enforcement is doing their jobs (watch Mississippi Burning for that) but even then that falls under the category of federal crimes.

again? The FBI can be asked by the President to vet and investigate. You're throwing around talking pints meant to deflect

question: What would be so wrong with asking the president to allow the FBI to look into this?

and if then find nothing, what them? How long to we give them to investigate something that is based on one person's claims and that there is no evidence or corroborating testimony?

As long as necessary

so you admit that this was never about "finding the truth" it was always about delaying the vote in hopes that the dems could take the senate in novermber and block all further Trump nominees? At least you are honest about it, unlike the dems on the committee

 

[L.K.Eder]

No one has said the FBI had jurisdiction. Thank you for the offer f of red herring

I guess the longer in the past an incident is, the less you want it investigated.

sad

So you are saying the FBI can just up and investigate someone breaking a State law (which is what Kavenaugh is accused of) without the permission of the State law enforcement?

It's not a Red Herring, it's how things work.

The FBI investigates federal crimes, crimes across State lines (which usually become federal crimes), can be invited by Local law enforcement to assist. At most otherwise they can come in when local law enforcement is doing their jobs (watch Mississippi Burning for that) but even then that falls under the category of federal crimes.

again? The FBI can be asked by the President to vet and investigate. You're throwing around talking pints meant to deflect

question: What would be so wrong with asking the president to allow the FBI to look into this?

and if then find nothing, what them? How long to we give them to investigate something that is based on one person's claims and that there is no evidence or corroborating testimony?

As long as necessary

so you admit that this was never about "finding the truth" it was always about delaying the vote in hopes that the dems could take the senate in novermber and block all further Trump nominees? At least you are honest about it, unlike the dems on the committee

Trumptard pouts cuz it is all so unfair.

 

[iceberg]

So you are saying the FBI can just up and investigate someone breaking a State law (which is what Kavenaugh is accused of) without the permission of the State law enforcement?

It's not a Red Herring, it's how things work.

The FBI investigates federal crimes, crimes across State lines (which usually become federal crimes), can be invited by Local law enforcement to assist. At most otherwise they can come in when local law enforcement is doing their jobs (watch Mississippi Burning for that) but even then that falls under the category of federal crimes.

again? The FBI can be asked by the President to vet and investigate. You're throwing around talking pints meant to deflect

question: What would be so wrong with asking the president to allow the FBI to look into this?

and if then find nothing, what them? How long to we give them to investigate something that is based on one person's claims and that there is no evidence or corroborating testimony?

As long as necessary

so you admit that this was never about "finding the truth" it was always about delaying the vote in hopes that the dems could take the senate in novermber and block all further Trump nominees? At least you are honest about it, unlike the dems on the committee

Trumptard pouts cuz it is all so unfair.

um...this entire shitshow is the left pouting cause they didn't get their candidate in cause the right honored "the biden rule".

so yea, you keep on whining about fairness and all.

 

[dave p]

Senator Whitehouse (a former prosecutor) from a couple hours ago, hits the TRIFECTA, with Kavanaugh's own calendar. BOOM

Yeah ok.

 

[forkup]

-First I saw Ford's testimony. She has to be the worlds greatest actrice to have concocted this. It's her credibility that you have to asses. After all it's not the Democrats who are leveling this charge,it's Ford. Is there politics involved... most certainly. Does that mean the accusation is untrue... it most certainly not.
-The statement that coming forward on sexual assault is hurtful to people coming forward is not just wrong, but in essence epitomizes all that's wrong about this. People are afraid to come forward because they know that coming forward carries a huge psychological cost. A cost that is exacted because it is a he said she said story. What you just seemed to imply that when someone does come forward it should be when nobody else has to hear it.
-I just saw a clip from someone confronting Flake who just voted to confirm Kavanaugh. She goes after him for demeaning her assault by voting to confirm. It's a raw appeal to emotion but it also shows the effect the GOP's decision has on everybody dealing with this. You just blamed the victim for having the courage to speak out.

- if "ford" is leading the charge - great. is she after justice or politics now because "justice" would be to go through local law enforcement, not take it to her state reps. while you're right you can't say this makes her accusations "untrue" - by the same logic therefor they can't be "true" either. at best, stalemate, now what? the left also continues to demand for an FBI investigation. the FBI has done (6) background checks and nothing like this came up from *anyone* questioned. what exactly would they be investigating and if you were the FBI and told to do this by trump, where would you start?

- i never denied the counter reactions to this can get nasty. they get nasty to the accused also as his life is now instantly socially judged and his family now under attack from the extreme left who do not want him as a SCOTUS. we seem to bypass how easily this emotional standoff can be manipulated to make a liar have a lot more power than they should. i'm not calling FORD a liar at this point, but i am saying any witness she's called on so far has said "nope, didn't happen". when do we say enough is enough if no named witnesses verify her claim? can we also agree that the power this gives the accuser is beyond measure if left unchecked and simply believed due to the nature of the accusation? we seem to be leaving a door wide open to trust that can be easily manipulated by people for whatever gain they are after at the time.

- you just believed the "victim" because she spoke out. this is a "danger zone" that shouldn't be "rewarded" so easily. the ability to misuse sexual accusations is vast and powerful. or do you disagree that it could/would be used in a political or revenge fashion?

-Justice for sexual assault victims does NOT always run through the justice department. If you honestly think about it, you have to know that. It's that realization that's one of the reasons that both keeps victims from reporting, and them seeking revenge another way, as I suspect is the case here.
-As to the danger of unscrupulous people abusing sexual assault accusations. Have you seen her testimony and if you did can you honestly claim she was faking? Not even Kavanaugh himself tried to claim that, just that he didn't do it.
-In the event of stalemate as you put it, I side with the victim. I find someone willing to testify and take the predictable punishment for that testimony as more credible then the person denying it. Since the reality is that more people who accuse someone are speaking the truth then those who deny they did, speak the truth.
- There is even a side to this that I keep on reiterating that I just don't get a satisfactory answer to. If we are talking about a position on the Supreme Court is it not reasonable that person to be beyond reproach? Is the standard so low that not being sure he committed sexual assault,is sufficiently satisfactory to appoint him to this position. Even more, he very much showed in yesterdays testimony that he holds the left responsible for his troubles. How easy would it be for ANY left wing group having to defend something before the supreme court to demand he recuse himself simply playing his testimony yesterday? He isn't the only right wing judge out there. Trump had 25 people on the shortlist. You guys are ramming somebody through for the highest judicial post in the country, risking disruption to the court, not to mention losing 3/4 of the women in the country, for what?

You re an antisemite and a Holocaust denier. Prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you. I am a Jew and I can tell by your writing style that you are an antisemite.

I'm not slotted for an appointment to the supreme court. Neither is your accusation credible because you can't point to anything specific in my writing style that gives that accusation credence. I can and I have, to you I believe stated facts that point to corroboration that Ford did speak the truth. I also want to point out that the judiciary committee has taken steps to insure they would not get some of that corroboration.

lady justice is blind for a reason and that reason is the law is the same to us all. his appointment has no bearing on how we follow the rule of law.

Iceberg, sorry, to me that's a self serving abdication of responsibility. First as has been stated. The confirmation process is political not judicial. That does NOT have the standard of proof that a judicial matter has. The only question should be if Ford is believable, and if she is if that doubt does or doesn't disqualify him for the bench? Beyond reasonable doubt does not feature in that equation.
Neither is the presumption of innocence ever been a problem when going after Hillary or Al Franken.
Look, I understand by talking to you that you hold your beliefs in good faith, I also believe that you try to be fair. But ask yourself this question. If you are a parent and have a child in, let's say a children's softball team and you have reason to believe that the guy is applying to be the coach might be a child molester. Would the fact that you're not certain he is, stop you from objecting? You are suggesting to put on the Supreme Court somebody credibly accused of sexual assault. Should certainty of the allegation really stop you from opposing him?

 

[DOTR]

Anybody think the FBI delay is anything more than for the delay itself? This email is already out. Never ever treat a liberal like a human being.

 

[iceberg]

- if "ford" is leading the charge - great. is she after justice or politics now because "justice" would be to go through local law enforcement, not take it to her state reps. while you're right you can't say this makes her accusations "untrue" - by the same logic therefor they can't be "true" either. at best, stalemate, now what? the left also continues to demand for an FBI investigation. the FBI has done (6) background checks and nothing like this came up from *anyone* questioned. what exactly would they be investigating and if you were the FBI and told to do this by trump, where would you start?

- i never denied the counter reactions to this can get nasty. they get nasty to the accused also as his life is now instantly socially judged and his family now under attack from the extreme left who do not want him as a SCOTUS. we seem to bypass how easily this emotional standoff can be manipulated to make a liar have a lot more power than they should. i'm not calling FORD a liar at this point, but i am saying any witness she's called on so far has said "nope, didn't happen". when do we say enough is enough if no named witnesses verify her claim? can we also agree that the power this gives the accuser is beyond measure if left unchecked and simply believed due to the nature of the accusation? we seem to be leaving a door wide open to trust that can be easily manipulated by people for whatever gain they are after at the time.

- you just believed the "victim" because she spoke out. this is a "danger zone" that shouldn't be "rewarded" so easily. the ability to misuse sexual accusations is vast and powerful. or do you disagree that it could/would be used in a political or revenge fashion?

-Justice for sexual assault victims does NOT always run through the justice department. If you honestly think about it, you have to know that. It's that realization that's one of the reasons that both keeps victims from reporting, and them seeking revenge another way, as I suspect is the case here.
-As to the danger of unscrupulous people abusing sexual assault accusations. Have you seen her testimony and if you did can you honestly claim she was faking? Not even Kavanaugh himself tried to claim that, just that he didn't do it.
-In the event of stalemate as you put it, I side with the victim. I find someone willing to testify and take the predictable punishment for that testimony as more credible then the person denying it. Since the reality is that more people who accuse someone are speaking the truth then those who deny they did, speak the truth.
- There is even a side to this that I keep on reiterating that I just don't get a satisfactory answer to. If we are talking about a position on the Supreme Court is it not reasonable that person to be beyond reproach? Is the standard so low that not being sure he committed sexual assault,is sufficiently satisfactory to appoint him to this position. Even more, he very much showed in yesterdays testimony that he holds the left responsible for his troubles. How easy would it be for ANY left wing group having to defend something before the supreme court to demand he recuse himself simply playing his testimony yesterday? He isn't the only right wing judge out there. Trump had 25 people on the shortlist. You guys are ramming somebody through for the highest judicial post in the country, risking disruption to the court, not to mention losing 3/4 of the women in the country, for what?

You re an antisemite and a Holocaust denier. Prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you. I am a Jew and I can tell by your writing style that you are an antisemite.

I'm not slotted for an appointment to the supreme court. Neither is your accusation credible because you can't point to anything specific in my writing style that gives that accusation credence. I can and I have, to you I believe stated facts that point to corroboration that Ford did speak the truth. I also want to point out that the judiciary committee has taken steps to insure they would not get some of that corroboration.

lady justice is blind for a reason and that reason is the law is the same to us all. his appointment has no bearing on how we follow the rule of law.

Iceberg, sorry, to me that's a self serving abdication of responsibility. First as has been stated. The confirmation process is political not judicial. That does NOT have the standard of proof that a judicial matter has. The only question should be if Ford is believable, and if she is if that doubt does or doesn't disqualify for the bench. Beyond reasonable doubt does not feature in that equation.
Neither is the presumption of innocence ever been a problem when going after Hillary or Al Franken.
Look, I understand by talking to you that you hold your beliefs in good faith, I also believe that you try to be fair. But ask yourself this question. If you are a parent of let's say a children's softball team and you have reason to believe that the guy is applying to be the coach might be a child molester. Would the fact that you're not certain he is, stop you from objecting? You are suggesting to put on the Supreme Court somebody credibly accused of sexual assault. Should certainty of the allegation really stop you from opposing him?

SO -

let me be clear. you're now saying an accusation is enough to convict someone and put them on par with a softball coach child molester who's had a trial, been found guilty, and did whatever time they were committed to?

what you're in the end suggesting is that the accusation is enough. the left seems to be counting on this in an emotional game of "ball control" to run out the clock.

in return - i also think you hold your own beliefs in good faith. look forward to talking to you as we move into this strange ass future we're creating today. but let me ask you, if someone said *you* committed sexual assault on them way in the past, should we automatically believe the accuser, or go through our judicial system as setup and running for hundreds of years?

as for your question - i'd look them up online cause you can find it now and if true, my child does something else with their time. done.

 

[forkup]

-Justice for sexual assault victims does NOT always run through the justice department. If you honestly think about it, you have to know that. It's that realization that's one of the reasons that both keeps victims from reporting, and them seeking revenge another way, as I suspect is the case here.
-As to the danger of unscrupulous people abusing sexual assault accusations. Have you seen her testimony and if you did can you honestly claim she was faking? Not even Kavanaugh himself tried to claim that, just that he didn't do it.
-In the event of stalemate as you put it, I side with the victim. I find someone willing to testify and take the predictable punishment for that testimony as more credible then the person denying it. Since the reality is that more people who accuse someone are speaking the truth then those who deny they did, speak the truth.
- There is even a side to this that I keep on reiterating that I just don't get a satisfactory answer to. If we are talking about a position on the Supreme Court is it not reasonable that person to be beyond reproach? Is the standard so low that not being sure he committed sexual assault,is sufficiently satisfactory to appoint him to this position. Even more, he very much showed in yesterdays testimony that he holds the left responsible for his troubles. How easy would it be for ANY left wing group having to defend something before the supreme court to demand he recuse himself simply playing his testimony yesterday? He isn't the only right wing judge out there. Trump had 25 people on the shortlist. You guys are ramming somebody through for the highest judicial post in the country, risking disruption to the court, not to mention losing 3/4 of the women in the country, for what?

You re an antisemite and a Holocaust denier. Prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you. I am a Jew and I can tell by your writing style that you are an antisemite.

I'm not slotted for an appointment to the supreme court. Neither is your accusation credible because you can't point to anything specific in my writing style that gives that accusation credence. I can and I have, to you I believe stated facts that point to corroboration that Ford did speak the truth. I also want to point out that the judiciary committee has taken steps to insure they would not get some of that corroboration.

lady justice is blind for a reason and that reason is the law is the same to us all. his appointment has no bearing on how we follow the rule of law.

Iceberg, sorry, to me that's a self serving abdication of responsibility. First as has been stated. The confirmation process is political not judicial. That does NOT have the standard of proof that a judicial matter has. The only question should be if Ford is believable, and if she is if that doubt does or doesn't disqualify for the bench. Beyond reasonable doubt does not feature in that equation.
Neither is the presumption of innocence ever been a problem when going after Hillary or Al Franken.
Look, I understand by talking to you that you hold your beliefs in good faith, I also believe that you try to be fair. But ask yourself this question. If you are a parent of let's say a children's softball team and you have reason to believe that the guy is applying to be the coach might be a child molester. Would the fact that you're not certain he is, stop you from objecting? You are suggesting to put on the Supreme Court somebody credibly accused of sexual assault. Should certainty of the allegation really stop you from opposing him?

SO -

let me be clear. you're now saying an accusation is enough to convict someone and put them on par with a softball coach child molester who's had a trial, been found guilty, and did whatever time they were committed to?

what you're in the end suggesting is that the accusation is enough. the left seems to be counting on this in an emotional game of "ball control" to run out the clock.

in return - i also think you hold your own beliefs in good faith. look forward to talking to you as we move into this strange ass future we're creating today. but let me ask you, if someone said *you* committed sexual assault on them way in the past, should we automatically believe the accuser, or go through our judicial system as setup and running for hundreds of years?

as for your question - i'd look them up online cause you can find it now and if true, my child does something else with their time. done.

No, I was making an analogy. I was pointing out that, there are times when the judicial standard does not matter in assessing someones qualifications for a particular job.

 

[iceberg]

You re an antisemite and a Holocaust denier. Prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you. I am a Jew and I can tell by your writing style that you are an antisemite.

I'm not slotted for an appointment to the supreme court. Neither is your accusation credible because you can't point to anything specific in my writing style that gives that accusation credence. I can and I have, to you I believe stated facts that point to corroboration that Ford did speak the truth. I also want to point out that the judiciary committee has taken steps to insure they would not get some of that corroboration.

lady justice is blind for a reason and that reason is the law is the same to us all. his appointment has no bearing on how we follow the rule of law.

Iceberg, sorry, to me that's a self serving abdication of responsibility. First as has been stated. The confirmation process is political not judicial. That does NOT have the standard of proof that a judicial matter has. The only question should be if Ford is believable, and if she is if that doubt does or doesn't disqualify for the bench. Beyond reasonable doubt does not feature in that equation.
Neither is the presumption of innocence ever been a problem when going after Hillary or Al Franken.
Look, I understand by talking to you that you hold your beliefs in good faith, I also believe that you try to be fair. But ask yourself this question. If you are a parent of let's say a children's softball team and you have reason to believe that the guy is applying to be the coach might be a child molester. Would the fact that you're not certain he is, stop you from objecting? You are suggesting to put on the Supreme Court somebody credibly accused of sexual assault. Should certainty of the allegation really stop you from opposing him?

SO -

let me be clear. you're now saying an accusation is enough to convict someone and put them on par with a softball coach child molester who's had a trial, been found guilty, and did whatever time they were committed to?

what you're in the end suggesting is that the accusation is enough. the left seems to be counting on this in an emotional game of "ball control" to run out the clock.

in return - i also think you hold your own beliefs in good faith. look forward to talking to you as we move into this strange ass future we're creating today. but let me ask you, if someone said *you* committed sexual assault on them way in the past, should we automatically believe the accuser, or go through our judicial system as setup and running for hundreds of years?

as for your question - i'd look them up online cause you can find it now and if true, my child does something else with their time. done.

No I was making an analogy. I was pointing out that, there are times when the judicial standard does not matter in assessing someones qualifications for a particular job.

if you're going to accuse them of a crime, we then have:

1) our court system that would entail going to the LOCAL police at the time of the incident
or
2) court of public opinion and may the loudest win.

is whoever is loudest and most emotional now the bar we're setting in how to approve our SCOTUS nominations? if so, fine. game on and like i said, count on the right to come back with a 'hold my beer' cause we keep getting cute here vs. realizing what we're doing to this country *ALL GOD DAMN SIDES* love.

 

[Faun]

You are Trolling as usual.

Nah, just pointing out you’re a raving lunatic; as evidenced by you suggesting he could have raped little children because he takes these investigations seriously.

Many of these politicians are raping little children, this is why any suggestion of Organised Paedophile Rings NEVER gets investigated, but you of course are a Leftist Troll Tool who supports EVERYTHING The State tells you to support and being a Leftist Troll Tool you would NEVER question if The State is sordid and dirty, it's your type who are the raving lunatics.

LOLOL

Thanks for reminding everyone what a raving lunatic you are. Wasn’t necessary, but thanks just the same. Meanwhile, good luck confirming Kavanaugh without Flake, Collins and Murkowski.

Go away Troll Tool Boi, now who's supporting rape? Oh that's right YOU, you like the majority of Leftist Troll Tools don't CARE if children are being raped in Organised Paedophile Rings OR if children are being Trafficked to be raped, you INSIST NONE of this even happens, so that makes your type COMPLICIT.

Dumbfuck, you have absolutely zero evidence that Flake is involved in any way, shape or form with any pedophile ring.

How much more evidence do you need to show the forum how big of a ranting lunatic you really are?

 

[iceberg]

You are Trolling as usual.

Nah, just pointing out you’re a raving lunatic; as evidenced by you suggesting he could have raped little children because he takes these investigations seriously.

Many of these politicians are raping little children, this is why any suggestion of Organised Paedophile Rings NEVER gets investigated, but you of course are a Leftist Troll Tool who supports EVERYTHING The State tells you to support and being a Leftist Troll Tool you would NEVER question if The State is sordid and dirty, it's your type who are the raving lunatics.

LOLOL

Thanks for reminding everyone what a raving lunatic you are. Wasn’t necessary, but thanks just the same. Meanwhile, good luck confirming Kavanaugh without Flake, Collins and Murkowski.

Go away Troll Tool Boi, now who's supporting rape? Oh that's right YOU, you like the majority of Leftist Troll Tools don't CARE if children are being raped in Organised Paedophile Rings OR if children are being Trafficked to be raped, you INSIST NONE of this even happens, so that makes your type COMPLICIT.

Dumbfuck, you have absolutely zero evidence that Flake is involved in any way, shape or form with any pedophile ring.

How much more evidence do you need to show the forum how big of a ranting lunatic you really are?

very true.

we also have absolutely zero evidence kavanaugh did any of this.

we're making evidence meaningless. wheee, look at us!

 

[Tilly]

Kavanaugh LIED, he and most of the others, were not 18 when drinking in high school...

No he didn’t lie.
So provide a link to support your allegation as I listened to his entire testimony and did not hear him say he was of legal drinking age at all.

 

[Faun]

Statute of limitations as still not run out in Maryland so why isn't this loon tard and her high priced DNC Lawyers not filing police reports to force Maryland Law Enforcement to Investigate?

Yet ONE thing could be done- Dr. Christine Blasey Ford finally makes a sexual assault police report in Montgomery County according to proper procedure. The PD or Sherriffs can call the FBI in at any time. So sorry that we can see the game and that Biden opened this game up. Nobody needs an infinite FBI investigation...and besides, according to Biden the FBI reports are inconclusive. So sorry.

AZGAL, that will never happen because Dr. Ford's theatrical performance had not one shred of honesty nor truth about it. Unless you call hyperbole of the theater the truth. By the way, her performance was almost flawless except for the body language quirks that show up one way or another in the case of intentional deception in human communications.

Nonsense.

The real reason Dr. Ford can’t go to the police with this now is because the statute of limitations expired some 35 years ago.

 

[Tilly]

Listen Kid...Kavanaugh admitted the shocking fact that teenage boys (18 as seniors) drink beer. I think Kavanaugh singlehandedly just turned some working class Dem and independent males Red. Like the vampire that he is!

Listen Kid...Kavanaugh admitted the shocking fact that teenage boys (18 as seniors) drink beer. I think Kavanaugh singlehandedly just turned some working class Dem and independent males Red. Like the vampire that he is!

Kavanaugh LIED, he and most of the others, were not 18 when drinking in high school...

he was 17 years old the day of the house party in July of 1982... that was written on his calendar, and would not be 18 years old for another 7 months, until February 1983....

and that party was not his first Rodeo.


He just flat out lied about it, in the hearing.

and my question is, why lie about his age and friend's ages, when drinking? What is he trying to cover up? His age, all these years later or his drinking problem, that still may exist?

He didn’t lie about his age.