independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 16th Oct 2019 5:18am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Latest kavanaugh allegations
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 3 123>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 09/15/19 11:52am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

Latest kavanaugh allegations

I have no doubt that a college age male behaved inappropriately while in college in the 80’s. Especially by today’s standards.
Does more of the same charges change anything at this point?
.
I understand the importance of keeping this in the public view and the principle that this imparts and how this helps protect our daughters by bringing this further to light and not just letting it go. Personal responsibility.
.
I just worry when some use this for personal political gain or just partisan grandstanding. ...On both sides.
[Edited 9/15/19 11:53am]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 09/15/19 12:23pm

PennyPurple

avatar

It just goes to show how it was swept under the rug and not investigated properly, which is no surprise. Not much anyone can do about it now.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 09/15/19 12:48pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

PennyPurple said:

It just goes to show how it was swept under the rug and not investigated properly, which is no surprise. Not much anyone can do about it now.



If he perjured himself, he could be impeached and removed from the USSC. Which is what Beto, Castro, Warren and Harris have called for today.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 09/15/19 1:26pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

I have no doubt that a college age male behaved inappropriately while in college in the 80’s. Especially by today’s standards. Does more of the same charges change anything at this point?
.
I understand the importance of keeping this in the public view and the principle that this imparts and how this helps protect our daughters by bringing this further to light and not just letting it go. Personal responsibility.
.
I just worry when some use this for personal political gain or just partisan grandstanding. ...On both sides. [Edited 9/15/19 11:53am]



One way to look at it is this:

Let's assume the allegations are true. Just like the allegations about Bill Clinton getting a blowjob were true.

Brett Kavanaugh denied the allegations under oath, which would be perjury. Just like Bill Cinton lying under oath about getting a blowjob was perjury.

Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a blowjob; he was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob.

Bill Clinton only had 2 years left in his term, yet he was impeached. Brett Kavanaugh has 30 or more years left in his term.

A mitigating factor which I would assume plays a LOT in the minds of Democrats is Merrick Garland and Moscow Mitch's refusal to consider Garland's appointment.

In normal times I might not be surprised if the Democrats just said, "Oh well, let's just get on with governing".

But no one can dispute that unrepentant serial adulterer Donald J. Trump has one more justice on the USSC than he should. Impeaching Brett Kavanaugh could correct that - assuming, of course, that the Senate votes to convict and remove him.

The thing about that is that there really isn't a time limit on this. The Democrats could just wait until 2021 and if they control the White House, the House and the Senate, then it would be a lock to impeach Kavanaugh and perhaps not that hard to get a few Senate Republicans to join in convicting him.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 09/15/19 3:42pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

I just gotta give props to the reporters for their investigating reporting.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 09/15/19 4:55pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

I just gotta give props to the reporters for their investigating reporting.

They're the only ones doing their jobs these days. The scuttlebutt is that the FBI were forced not to probe too deeply into Kavanaugh's accusers and their witnesses....wonder who issued those orders ?

[Edited 9/15/19 17:02pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 09/15/19 5:02pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

I have no doubt that a college age male behaved inappropriately while in college in the 80’s. Especially by today’s standards. Does more of the same charges change anything at this point?
.
I understand the importance of keeping this in the public view and the principle that this imparts and how this helps protect our daughters by bringing this further to light and not just letting it go. Personal responsibility.
.
I just worry when some use this for personal political gain or just partisan grandstanding. ...On both sides. [Edited 9/15/19 11:53am]



One way to look at it is this:

Let's assume the allegations are true. Just like the allegations about Bill Clinton getting a blowjob were true.

Brett Kavanaugh denied the allegations under oath, which would be perjury. Just like Bill Cinton lying under oath about getting a blowjob was perjury.

Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a blowjob; he was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob.

Bill Clinton only had 2 years left in his term, yet he was impeached. Brett Kavanaugh has 30 or more years left in his term.

A mitigating factor which I would assume plays a LOT in the minds of Democrats is Merrick Garland and Moscow Mitch's refusal to consider Garland's appointment.

In normal times I might not be surprised if the Democrats just said, "Oh well, let's just get on with governing".

But no one can dispute that unrepentant serial adulterer Donald J. Trump has one more justice on the USSC than he should. Impeaching Brett Kavanaugh could correct that - assuming, of course, that the Senate votes to convict and remove him.

The thing about that is that there really isn't a time limit on this. The Democrats could just wait until 2021 and if they control the White House, the House and the Senate, then it would be a lock to impeach Kavanaugh and perhaps not that hard to get a few Senate Republicans to join in convicting him.

to prove perjury they will need a smoking stained Dress...

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 09/15/19 6:19pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

I just gotta give props to the reporters for their investigating reporting.

They're the only ones doing their jobs these days. The scuttlebutt is that the FBI were forced not to probe too deeply into Kavanaugh's accusers and their witnesses....wonder who issued those orders ?

[Edited 9/15/19 17:02pm]

I wonder who has tweeted about going after the reporters...

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 09/15/19 7:36pm

poppys

Is there a link for this thread?

Guys putting another guy's bare penis in your hands at a party is disgusting by any "days" standards. Don't fool yourself that people find it worse now.

What was blocking Merrick Garland after Scalia croaked if not partisan grandstanding??? Squarely during Obama's presidency. "Both sides" my azz.

[Edited 9/15/19 20:53pm]

"people like you"
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 09/16/19 7:48am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I'm keeping my powder dry until there is more evidence. You remember Jussie?

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 09/16/19 8:12am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

The victim refused to be interviewed. And he was not asked about this. So how could he have committed perjury?
No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 09/16/19 8:38am

poppys

Without links to an actual news story, this is just a gossip opinion thread anyway.

"people like you"
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 09/16/19 9:34am

RodeoSchro

avatar

poppys said:

Without links to an actual news story, this is just a gossip opinion thread anyway.



Here's one:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/...index.html


Days before Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, a Democratic senator urged the FBI to reach out to a witness who had key information about alleged misconduct by the nominee while at Yale, according to a letter obtained by CNN.


The letter comes as The New York Times reported over the weekend that the Times had interviewed more individuals who had corroborated the allegation of Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate who alleged Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her at a dorm room party. The Times also reported that there was another previously undisclosed allegation raised by Max Stier, a Yale classmate who told the Times that he had witnessed Kavanaugh engage in another, similar incident.



Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 09/16/19 9:37am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Impeach the sucker. Save the nation.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 09/16/19 9:40am

RodeoSchro

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

The victim refused to be interviewed. And he was not asked about this. So how could he have committed perjury?



The victim doesn't remember the incident; this indicates she was inebriated or otherwise incapacitated, or even unconscious.

But Kavanaugh's Yale classmate Max Stier saw the incident happen and HE is the one who reported that he had information relevant to Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing and would have been happy to talk to investigators, but they never followed up on his letter. Not even with Stier's contact information listed in the letter sent by Senator Chris Coons to the FBI.

Kavanaugh was asked under oath if he had ever sexually assaulted anyone. He said "No". It appears he lied and as we all know, you very much support impeachment for lying under oath. Glad to have you on our team!

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 09/16/19 12:41pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

The New York Times' new bombshell allegations against Brett Kavanaugh left out a very important detail. Here's what it means.

https://www.businessinsid...ail-2019-9

Analysis:
A weekend report from The New York Times containing a new sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh originally left out a key piece of information.
.
Adapted from a forthcoming book on Kavanaugh from two Times reporters, the essay alleged that former Kavanaugh's college classmate Max Stier allegedly sawthe future justice at a rowdy dorm party "with his pants down" and "friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student."
On Sunday evening, the Times amended the piece with an "editor's note" trying to explain why the charge wasn't near the top of the article as it normally would be given its newsworthiness.
.
The note laid out that friends of the female student had said she couldn't recall the incident and the same student declined to be interviewed for the book.
——-
The NYT added an editors’ note to Kavanaugh story which could help explain why the new allegation wasn’t the headline.
https://nytimes.com/2019/...le.html…
Image
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 09/16/19 1:21pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

The New York Times' new bombshell allegations against Brett Kavanaugh left out a very important detail. Here's what it means. https://www.businessinsid...ail-2019-9 Analysis: A weekend report from The New York Times containing a new sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh originally left out a key piece of information. . Adapted from a forthcoming book on Kavanaugh from two Times reporters, the essay alleged that former Kavanaugh's college classmate Max Stier allegedly sawthe future justice at a rowdy dorm party "with his pants down" and "friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student." On Sunday evening, the Times amended the piece with an "editor's note" trying to explain why the charge wasn't near the top of the article as it normally would be given its newsworthiness. . The note laid out that friends of the female student had said she couldn't recall the incident and the same student declined to be interviewed for the book. ——- The NYT added an editors’ note to Kavanaugh story which could help explain why the new allegation wasn’t the headline. https://nytimes.com/2019/...le.html… Image




Right, but does she not remember it because she was so intoxicated she doesn't remember anything from that night? It's entirely possible.

What's improbable to me is that Max Stier would make up a story involving a third party who he may have not seen in months, years or decades.

Put another way - let's assume this story was made up by Stier with no knowledge or help from the victim (let's call her Jane Doe). So Stier reports a bogus story to the FBI or a Senator, hoping against hope that Jane Doe doesn't come out and say, "WTF? That never happened to me". Stier would be easily proven to be a liar and an idiot. I can't see how anyone would take that risk.

But what sense is that Jane Doe hasn't denied it happened. She's only said she doesn't remember it.

If she KNEW it had never happened, she would say so.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 09/16/19 1:46pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

RodeoSchro said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


The New York Times' new bombshell allegations against Brett Kavanaugh left out a very important detail. Here's what it means. https://www.businessinsid...ail-2019-9 Analysis: A weekend report from The New York Times containing a new sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh originally left out a key piece of information. . Adapted from a forthcoming book on Kavanaugh from two Times reporters, the essay alleged that former Kavanaugh's college classmate Max Stier allegedly sawthe future justice at a rowdy dorm party "with his pants down" and "friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student." On Sunday evening, the Times amended the piece with an "editor's note" trying to explain why the charge wasn't near the top of the article as it normally would be given its newsworthiness. . The note laid out that friends of the female student had said she couldn't recall the incident and the same student declined to be interviewed for the book. ——- The NYT added an editors’ note to Kavanaugh story which could help explain why the new allegation wasn’t the headline. https://nytimes.com/2019/...le.html… Image




Right, but does she not remember it because she was so intoxicated she doesn't remember anything from that night? It's entirely possible.

What's improbable to me is that Max Stier would make up a story involving a third party who he may have not seen in months, years or decades.

Put another way - let's assume this story was made up by Stier with no knowledge or help from the victim (let's call her Jane Doe). So Stier reports a bogus story to the FBI or a Senator, hoping against hope that Jane Doe doesn't come out and say, "WTF? That never happened to me". Stier would be easily proven to be a liar and an idiot. I can't see how anyone would take that risk.

But what sense is that Jane Doe hasn't denied it happened. She's only said she doesn't remember it.

If she KNEW it had never happened, she would say so.



I’ve always assumed it was all true. It’s all procedural now. What can or cannot be proven 30-something years later, from when they were all partying college students.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 09/16/19 1:47pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

RodeoSchro said:




Right, but does she not remember it because she was so intoxicated she doesn't remember anything from that night? It's entirely possible.

What's improbable to me is that Max Stier would make up a story involving a third party who he may have not seen in months, years or decades.

Put another way - let's assume this story was made up by Stier with no knowledge or help from the victim (let's call her Jane Doe). So Stier reports a bogus story to the FBI or a Senator, hoping against hope that Jane Doe doesn't come out and say, "WTF? That never happened to me". Stier would be easily proven to be a liar and an idiot. I can't see how anyone would take that risk.

But what sense is that Jane Doe hasn't denied it happened. She's only said she doesn't remember it.

If she KNEW it had never happened, she would say so.

I’ve always assumed it was all true. It’s all procedural now. What can or cannot be proven 30-something years later, from when they were all partying college students.



Get ready to hear the word "corroboration" a lot.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 09/16/19 3:40pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

RodeoSchro said: I’ve always assumed it was all true. It’s all procedural now. What can or cannot be proven 30-something years later, from when they were all partying college students.



Get ready to hear the word "corroboration" a lot.

Same place same time same story. nod

"Families are torn apart, men women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find their parents have gone missing." - Anne Frank
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 09/16/19 3:52pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

The New York Times' new bombshell allegations against Brett Kavanaugh left out a very important detail. Here's what it means. https://www.businessinsid...ail-2019-9 Analysis: A weekend report from The New York Times containing a new sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh originally left out a key piece of information. . Adapted from a forthcoming book on Kavanaugh from two Times reporters, the essay alleged that former Kavanaugh's college classmate Max Stier allegedly sawthe future justice at a rowdy dorm party "with his pants down" and "friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student." On Sunday evening, the Times amended the piece with an "editor's note" trying to explain why the charge wasn't near the top of the article as it normally would be given its newsworthiness. . The note laid out that friends of the female student had said she couldn't recall the incident and the same student declined to be interviewed for the book. ——- The NYT added an editors’ note to Kavanaugh story which could help explain why the new allegation wasn’t the headline. https://nytimes.com/2019/...le.html… Image




Right, but does she not remember it because she was so intoxicated she doesn't remember anything from that night? It's entirely possible.

What's improbable to me is that Max Stier would make up a story involving a third party who he may have not seen in months, years or decades.

Put another way - let's assume this story was made up by Stier with no knowledge or help from the victim (let's call her Jane Doe). So Stier reports a bogus story to the FBI or a Senator, hoping against hope that Jane Doe doesn't come out and say, "WTF? That never happened to me". Stier would be easily proven to be a liar and an idiot. I can't see how anyone would take that risk.

But what sense is that Jane Doe hasn't denied it happened. She's only said she doesn't remember it.

If she KNEW it had never happened, she would say so.

she would have to testify that she was assaulted. Him saying he never assaulted anyone could be a problem if they can demonstrate this allegation is true and that he remembered it and that there was no extenuating circumstances.

And remember he can not be compelled to testify, and not doing so is not evience. If he were to step down in the next 6 months Trump could replace him. (that would be funny if he did that or better yet that horriable RGB)

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 09/16/19 3:53pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

RodeoSchro said: I’ve always assumed it was all true. It’s all procedural now. What can or cannot be proven 30-something years later, from when they were all partying college students.



Get ready to hear the word "corroboration" a lot.

that is how the legal system works...

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 09/16/19 3:57pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

You mean the demonic legal system.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 09/16/19 4:01pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

You mean the demonic legal system.

i like that a person typically is judged based on if they actually did the thing and not political game like we saw under obama's DOJ.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 09/16/19 4:02pm

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

The victim refused to be interviewed. And he was not asked about this. So how could he have committed perjury?



The victim doesn't remember the incident; this indicates she was inebriated or otherwise incapacitated, or even unconscious.

But Kavanaugh's Yale classmate Max Stier saw the incident happen and HE is the one who reported that he had information relevant to Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing and would have been happy to talk to investigators, but they never followed up on his letter. Not even with Stier's contact information listed in the letter sent by Senator Chris Coons to the FBI.

Kavanaugh was asked under oath if he had ever sexually assaulted anyone. He said "No". It appears he lied and as we all know, you very much support impeachment for lying under oath. Glad to have you on our team!


lol lol lol So more of this impeachment meme we keep hearing about?

I get the impression that the reporters and leftist wackos care more about all this than the "victim" does, especially since she's been able to carry on with her entire adult life and not even remember it. If anything Kavanaugh is guilty of, it's having friends who are snitches. lol

You guys would be better off trying to shoot him, at least then you'd have a chance of him getting taken off the bench. Dude got confirmed in the face of a hearing, bringing up old af cases with flimsy evidence at best every 6 months is just a waste of the public's time. I say, unless there's a smoking gun, hold that and hope someone good gets nominated when RBG dies. lol


[Edited 9/16/19 16:05pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 09/16/19 4:04pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

guitarslinger44 said:

RodeoSchro said:



The victim doesn't remember the incident; this indicates she was inebriated or otherwise incapacitated, or even unconscious.

But Kavanaugh's Yale classmate Max Stier saw the incident happen and HE is the one who reported that he had information relevant to Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing and would have been happy to talk to investigators, but they never followed up on his letter. Not even with Stier's contact information listed in the letter sent by Senator Chris Coons to the FBI.

Kavanaugh was asked under oath if he had ever sexually assaulted anyone. He said "No". It appears he lied and as we all know, you very much support impeachment for lying under oath. Glad to have you on our team!


lol lol lol So more of this impeachment meme we keep hearing about?

I get the impression that the reporters and leftist wackos care more about all this than the "victim" does, especially since she's been able to carry on with her entire adult life and not even remember it. If anything Kavanaugh is guilty of, it's having friends who are snitches. lol

You guys would be better off trying to shoot him, at least then you'd have a chance of him getting taken off the bench. Dude got confirmed, bringing up old af cases with flimsy evidence at best every 6 months is just gonna make you look petty and foolish. lol lol lol


[Edited 9/16/19 16:03pm]

yeah

"someone said it about someone I do not like so I will assume it is true..."

"Why do you not like him?"

"someone said something about him"

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 09/16/19 4:07pm

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

guitarslinger44 said:


lol lol lol So more of this impeachment meme we keep hearing about?

I get the impression that the reporters and leftist wackos care more about all this than the "victim" does, especially since she's been able to carry on with her entire adult life and not even remember it. If anything Kavanaugh is guilty of, it's having friends who are snitches. lol

You guys would be better off trying to shoot him, at least then you'd have a chance of him getting taken off the bench. Dude got confirmed, bringing up old af cases with flimsy evidence at best every 6 months is just gonna make you look petty and foolish. lol lol lol


[Edited 9/16/19 16:03pm]

yeah

"someone said it about someone I do not like so I will assume it is true..."

"Why do you not like him?"

"someone said something about him"


I don't even think he was the best nominee, but I believe him when he says he isn't going to reopen Roe v Wade. Abortion isn't going anywhere, at least not at a federal level. If people want to protect that choice, then they need to worry about who's getting elected at the local and state levels, not who's getting nominated to the Supreme Court.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 09/16/19 4:13pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

guitarslinger44 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

yeah

"someone said it about someone I do not like so I will assume it is true..."

"Why do you not like him?"

"someone said something about him"


I don't even think he was the best nominee, but I believe him when he says he isn't going to reopen Roe v Wade. Abortion isn't going anywhere, at least not at a federal level. If people want to protect that choice, then they need to worry about who's getting elected at the local and state levels, not who's getting nominated to the Supreme Court.

yeah I do not like him either... and think for now Roe V Wade ought to be left as ruled... but that would allow bans over 25 weeks or so...

And it it is not so much about choice as it is about control...the big new movement on the climate alarmist sheet are strict population control measures.

Same with gender issues: soon it will be an offence to refuse to date a person based on some of these issues.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 09/16/19 4:14pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

His defense of executive power is why Orange Baby selected him.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 09/16/19 4:16pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

guitarslinger44 said:



RodeoSchro said:




OnlyNDaUsa said:


The victim refused to be interviewed. And he was not asked about this. So how could he have committed perjury?



The victim doesn't remember the incident; this indicates she was inebriated or otherwise incapacitated, or even unconscious.

But Kavanaugh's Yale classmate Max Stier saw the incident happen and HE is the one who reported that he had information relevant to Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing and would have been happy to talk to investigators, but they never followed up on his letter. Not even with Stier's contact information listed in the letter sent by Senator Chris Coons to the FBI.

Kavanaugh was asked under oath if he had ever sexually assaulted anyone. He said "No". It appears he lied and as we all know, you very much support impeachment for lying under oath. Glad to have you on our team!




lol lol lol So more of this impeachment meme we keep hearing about?

I get the impression that the reporters and leftist wackos care more about all this than the "victim" does, especially since she's been able to carry on with her entire adult life and not even remember it. If anything Kavanaugh is guilty of, it's having friends who are snitches. lol

You guys would be better off trying to shoot him, at least then you'd have a chance of him getting taken off the bench. Dude got confirmed in the face of a hearing, bringing up old af cases with flimsy evidence at best every 6 months is just a waste of the public's time. I say, unless there's a smoking gun, hold that and hope someone good gets nominated when RBG dies. lol



[Edited 9/16/19 16:05pm]



But he got on the bench, now it's becoming clear that certain information was suppressed, or never investigated. So all the facts were not available to make an informed judgment (not that the GOP members would have cared anyway- they would have confirmed him if he had raped Mother Teresa on the steps of the Supreme Court on Easter Sunday morning and had it broadcast during the Super Bowl halftime show).

But the question remains: who gave the order to essentially quash a lot of the investigation into Kavanaugh, and why were so many potential witnesses not interviewed? According to The NY Times, about 25 potential witnesses to the event with Debbie Ramirez were bypassed. Why?
[Edited 9/16/19 16:17pm]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 3 123>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Latest kavanaugh allegations