Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Ms. Ford takes a polygraph and hires a lawyer in August but had no intention of going public until her identity was exposed. Is that so?
And why is this important?
The issue is did BK or didn't BK do what he was accused of. Is that not what is important here?
If he didn't then all is good for him, right?
If he did, well, then maybe he shouldn't be a supreme court justice. Wouldn't you agree?
Seems pretty simple to me.
Flagpole wrote:
Politico wrote:
The meeting was neither collusion nor conspiracy. Bob Woodward agrees with me.
You Trumpers are hilarious.
1) Bob Woodward did not say the Trump Tower Meeting wasn't collusion or conspiracy. In fact he said, "We’re going to see what Mueller has."
2) Here is the question that Hugh Hewitt asked Woodward, "Did you Bob Woodward hear anything in your research or your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?” Woodward replied, "I did not. Of course I looked for it, looked for it hard.” So, in his OWN research and interviews, he didn't hear anything about collusion. That would be remarkable if someone on the Trump team admitted to that.
3) Woodward's book is all about how unfit Trump is to be President and how his staff all feels that way. Woodward has been going on talk shows talking about how dangerous they all say Trump is, and Woodward has said he has never seen anything like it. Comparing Trump to Nixon, Woodward said that at least Nixon was competent and that no one ever said otherwise. As a result of that book then and those interviews, Trump and the White House have attacked Woodward as a bad journalist, said that all his other books have had big problems and that Fear is fiction. BUT, then when you can take a Woodward quote out of context that seems to support your HOPE that Trump didn't collude, then he's the most reliable person ever.
Note this -- It will be proven that Trump and his Administration colluded (conspired) with Russia to help him win the election.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
So Woodward didn’t research the Trump Tower meeting?
Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?
///
?
so tell me why is more than likely Kavanaugh is lying? If he is, he is hanging his whole life out to dry, his current job, his family, the whole but. As far as Trump being able to pick someone else, yes that is what this is all about, a tactic by the Ds to delay the confirmation vote until after the midterms, by when they hope to control the Senate and can then dictate to Trump who they want. Worst case, for them, is that they do not win the Senate and have to deal with someone else very similar to Kavanaugh. As far as winning the vote of women for the mid terms, the Ds also stand to gain there more than Trump - lets face it a lot of women will never vote in support of Trump. The whole farce of a hearing the Ds put on was for show for the midterms.
Hey Dude! wrote:
Hey, it's Lying LL and Flagpole!
How goes it, dudes? Unable to control your own pollution? Remember, it was you who said that you'd keep your pollution off of this thread. Can't pass that off on anyone else.
///
Lying LL and Flagpole
Agree^, it's them alright
Suksamram wrote:
Guy who says wrote:You really have to wonder about Runninart2004's background when he assures us that 100% of those who are disgusted by Kavanaugh's alleged behavior are into child pornography and when he also seems to think that attempted rape is no big deal.
I assumed he was accusing almost everyone of child pornography. But it's such an outrageous allegation I wonder if he meant something else and just didn't articulate it well.
For one you’re taking me too literal. The point I’m making is about relationships and physical interactions and online interactions between 16-19 year olds that are technically illegal but no one makes a fuss about it. That these types of interactions and relationships have become much more common place since everyone now has a smart phone in high school. I’m just being realistic. Maybe most Of y’all were virgins into your 20s and couldn’t bear to talk to a female in high school much less anything else, I don’t know.
So what I’m gathering from the story is that he groped her, I see why Trump likes him now. It’s wrong but he was a kid, again I understand most here are barely old enough to shave so maybe that’s why y’all are so emotional. Again what he did was wrong but he was a flipping kid. Move on.
Alan
lack of hearing wrote:
M Jamal wrote:
Gorsuch can't be nominated again. We don't know whether other candidates exist who have done less than Kavanaugh.
Gorsuch can certainly be nominated again. He never had a Congressional hearing. He can be nominated again.
He could have two seats?
Runningart2004 wrote:
Suksamram wrote:
I assumed he was accusing almost everyone of child pornography. But it's such an outrageous allegation I wonder if he meant something else and just didn't articulate it well.
For one you’re taking me too literal. The point I’m making is about relationships and physical interactions and online interactions between 16-19 year olds that are technically illegal but no one makes a fuss about it. That these types of interactions and relationships have become much more common place since everyone now has a smart phone in high school. I’m just being realistic. Maybe most Of y’all were virgins into your 20s and couldn’t bear to talk to a female in high school much less anything else, I don’t know.
So what I’m gathering from the story is that he groped her, I see why Trump likes him now. It’s wrong but he was a kid, again I understand most here are barely old enough to shave so maybe that’s why y’all are so emotional. Again what he did was wrong but he was a flipping kid. Move on.
Alan
Some are virgins. Some had consensual sex. Those who assaulted are the outliers.
Statutory rape is probably common, but if both people wanted it they wouldn't report it. The only time they'll be in trouble is if they get caught.
Runningart2004 wrote:
So what I’m gathering from the story is that he groped her*, . . .
* In a locked room with his hand over her mouth while restraining her against her will and trying to remove her clothing.
If not here, I'm curious at what point you would call it attempted rape.
Monkeys typing wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
So what I’m gathering from the story is that he groped her*, . . .
* In a locked room with his hand over her mouth while restraining her against her will and trying to remove her clothing.
If not here, I'm curious at what point you would call it attempted rape.
Well yes that’s attempted rape, according to her testimony. Again I wonder why now? Why wait 35yrs?
So I’ll say yes, a 17yr old HS kid attempted to rape a 15yr old girl. It’s sad, it’s horrbile, but again that was a lifetime ago. I just don’t think it should affect his appointment. Mostly because this incident would never have come up otherwise, it’s using a sad horrible 35yr old incident for political gain.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
Well yes that’s attempted rape, according to her testimony. Again I wonder why now? Why wait 35yrs?
So I’ll say yes, a 17yr old HS kid attempted to rape a 15yr old girl. It’s sad, it’s horrbile, but again that was a lifetime ago. I just don’t think it should affect his appointment. Mostly because this incident would never have come up otherwise, it’s using a sad horrible 35yr old incident for political gain.
Alan
It's very common. Teenagers are the least likely to report sexual assaults, less likely than younger children. They're overcome with intense feelings of shame and feel like damaged goods. Do some research on this subject. The woman in question told her therapist about the incident six years ago. That's evidence to believe her.
It's disgusting that you would discount a rape attempt in the confirmation of someone to any court. Maybe in 30 years, Larry Nasser can go serve on a medical board somewhere since what he did will be well in the past by then?
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
Well yes that’s attempted rape, according to her testimony. Again I wonder why now? Why wait 35yrs?
So I’ll say yes, a 17yr old HS kid attempted to rape a 15yr old girl. It’s sad, it’s horrbile, but again that was a lifetime ago. I just don’t think it should affect his appointment. Mostly because this incident would never have come up otherwise, it’s using a sad horrible 35yr old incident for political gain.
Alan
It's very common. Teenagers are the least likely to report sexual assaults, less likely than younger children. They're overcome with intense feelings of shame and feel like damaged goods. Do some research on this subject. The woman in question told her therapist about the incident six years ago. That's evidence to believe her.
It's disgusting that you would discount a rape attempt in the confirmation of someone to any court. Maybe in 30 years, Larry Nasser can go serve on a medical board somewhere since what he did will be well in the past by then?
Was Kavanaugh named specifically in the notes?
Fear. wrote:
Politico wrote:
The meeting was neither collusion nor conspiracy. Bob Woodward agrees with me.
An actual quote from Woodward's book "Fear" which you will never bother to read.
Chapter 21: [John] Dowd [Trump's former lawyer] discussed the known facts with Trump’s legal advisers and reviewed the material for possible vulnerabilities. Based on a preliminary review of the known evidence, he did not see anything to support a charge of collusion with the Russians or obstruction of justice.
And that is it as far as it goes. Woodward himself makes zero assumptions about collusion. The word conspiracy appears exactly ONE time. and it is a quote from Dowd. “All the records have been produced,” Dowd said. “All the witnesses have been interviewed except one or two. The entire inquiry appears to be the product of a conspiracy by the DNC...”
I do find it troubling that Woodward and Page don't think that the Trump Tower Meeting was collusion.
PIO! wrote:
Duane wrote:
It is entirely possible they are both telling the truth. She was at a party and someone who she believes was Kavanaugh tried to force himself on you. But was it really Kavanaugh? She supposedly first remembered this 6 years ago I think. But she did not remember where, or during what year it happened. Since she believes everything she says, she passes the polygraph. That does not mean what she remembers (meaning who) is accurate.
A far, far more likely scenario for your "they are both telling the truth" hypothesis is that she is telling the truth about what actually happened and he has forgotten that it ever took place because he was drunk at the time and it was "no big deal" to him - hence, less memorable.
I think either of those scenarios are possible.
The first one means Kavanaugh will be confirmed and the accuser not blamed for making this up- just honest, inaccurate recollection.
The second one may also lead to him being confirmed as it would be too vague to prevent a confirmation.
If the woman totally fabricated this, it would be pretty bad for her.
If Kavanaugh is trying to bury this with denials and it's clear he did it, he's done.
Let the process play out.
We now have it on good authority that Trump has a weird little dick and a pubic hair situation resembling an ape-man. I demand congressional hearings regarding this matter posthaste!
totally agree with what you say
L L wrote:
Let the process play out.
This is 'merica. We don't do that.
We let the media determine the result first.
Duane wrote:
so tell me why is more than likely Kavanaugh is lying? If he is, he is hanging his whole life out to dry, his current job, his family, the whole but. As far as Trump being able to pick someone else, yes that is what this is all about, a tactic by the Ds to delay the confirmation vote until after the midterms, by when they hope to control the Senate and can then dictate to Trump who they want. Worst case, for them, is that they do not win the Senate and have to deal with someone else very similar to Kavanaugh. As far as winning the vote of women for the mid terms, the Ds also stand to gain there more than Trump - lets face it a lot of women will never vote in support of Trump. The whole farce of a hearing the Ds put on was for show for the midterms.
You're kidding, right? Is that supposed to be a real question?
He is being accused of something horrendous and disgusting. Perhaps he doesn't want people to believe the accusations. What do you think - does that seem plausible?
He may possibly be blocked from achieving what would be the apex of his career and becoming one of the most powerful people in the country for the rest of his life. Perhaps he does not want to be blocked. What do you think - does that seem plausible?
Seriously dude, did you even think at all before asking that "question"?
Off the rails wrote:
Wow ... one post outs Flagpole as being many different handles and he has a full meltdown.
Hey, Flagpole. You just confirmed you are posting under different handles, as well as a rampant name thief.
Good work.
Thanks,
Flagpole