Did Mrs. 800 dude clerk for Kavanaugh?
Did Mrs. 800 dude clerk for Kavanaugh?
Flagpole wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Your delusional.
You're not a good speller.
Whereas Flagpole is a smart feller.
Make that fart smeller.
Eastern Motors wrote:
"In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court."
This was in 2012 and she was concerned at that time that he might one be nominated to the Supreme Court? Seems a bit strange to have made that connection in 2012, I don't think he was on anyone's radar back then.
You think wrong. Here's an article by Jeffey Toobin, in the New Yorker issue of March 26, 2012. The final sentence: "If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh."
If Ford read the New Yorker -- and many of us do -- you'd better believe that she'd have been aware that her attacker may be headed to the Supreme Court.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/03/26/holding-courtzxczxcv wrote:
Now Kavanaugh certainly showed that he is as partisan and ill-tempered as they come with yesterday's histrionic performance. He clearly has and had a drinking problem and passed out on numerous occasions. Do Republicans believe that he has the temperament for the Court? Do they believe they do not have time to confirm one of their many other Federalist-Society approved judges in time for the mid-terms or at least for campaigning for mid-terms?
False: yesterday Judge Kavanaugh denied ever having blacked out from alcohol. He did say he (might have) drank and fallen asleep. As for his temperament for the court, the 300 opinions he wrote indicate to many that he is extremely well qualified. How many opinions had Justice Kagan at the time of her nomination?
It's only one that says it happened and 4 that say it either did not or they have no recollection. What everyone is up in arms about is a juvenile offense that in the rare case that it actually went to trial at the time of the alleged offense (the prosecutor said this would have never seen a court or even had a search warrant issued) would have likely resulted in a deferred sentence and would have been expunged from his record before his 21st birthday. But here you are 36 years later talking with absolute certainty of this man's guilt, in spite of the evidence and in spite of a career with no hint of indiscretion.
The committee is charged with looking at each candidate with a microscope, but they go too far when they use a proctoscope. The Democrats are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in delaying the vote. That is why they withheld the information until the last minute and why they violated everyone's confidentiality to leak the information to the press rather than produce it in the original FBI background check when it could have been handled appropriately. Destroying numerous families for their own personal advantage is reprehensible and borderline criminal (if you have knowledge of sexual assault on a minor in the states of California or Maryland, you are legally obligated to report it). DiFi and her colleagues are appalling.
Avocado's Number wrote:
Eastern Motors wrote:
"In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court."
This was in 2012 and she was concerned at that time that he might one be nominated to the Supreme Court? Seems a bit strange to have made that connection in 2012, I don't think he was on anyone's radar back then.
You think wrong. Here's an article by Jeffey Toobin, in the New Yorker issue of March 26, 2012. The final sentence: "If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh."
If Ford read the New Yorker -- and many of us do -- you'd better believe that she'd have been aware that her attacker may be headed to the Supreme Court.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/03/26/holding-court
Let us note that The New Yorker is very hostile towards Trump, and it ran the Ronan Farrow co-authored story about Kavanaugh at the Yale University party where Deborah Ramirez claims someone/Kavanaugh exposed himself to her.
Nope. Message me for more details.
joedirt wrote:
It's only one that says it happened and 4 that say it either did not or they have no recollection. What everyone is up in arms about is a juvenile offense that in the rare case that it actually went to trial at the time of the alleged offense (the prosecutor said this would have never seen a court or even had a search warrant issued) would have likely resulted in a deferred sentence and would have been expunged from his record before his 21st birthday. But here you are 36 years later talking with absolute certainty of this man's guilt, in spite of the evidence and in spite of a career with no hint of indiscretion.
The committee is charged with looking at each candidate with a microscope, but they go too far when they use a proctoscope. The Democrats are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in delaying the vote. That is why they withheld the information until the last minute and why they violated everyone's confidentiality to leak the information to the press rather than produce it in the original FBI background check when it could have been handled appropriately. Destroying numerous families for their own personal advantage is reprehensible and borderline criminal (if you have knowledge of sexual assault on a minor in the states of California or Maryland, you are legally obligated to report it). DiFi and her colleagues are appalling.
Thank you, joe, for cleaning up a lot of dirt.
joedirt wrote:
That is why they withheld the information until the last minute and why they violated everyone's confidentiality to leak the information to the press rather than produce it in the original FBI background check when it could have been handled appropriately.
You're right, it would have been handled and investigated appropriately and dismissed, the Dems knew this, which is why they've done it this way to get maximum effect. It's all fairly despicable when you think about it.
It is interesting how humans reveal themselves despite their best intentions. Kavanaugh comported himself yesterday exactly how an attempted rapist would be expected to. Hyper aggressive and narcissistic yet somehow failing to seal the deal.
Flagpole wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Flagpole,
You come up with some far fetched theories and explanations.
Igy
INCORRECT!
Yes you do. Just this week you jumped on the Avennati claim. It seems like even the most bizarre theories you fall for. Cleary you are extremely partisan and emotionallly locked to your biases.
the confessions of sex criminals wrote:
I suspect there are a good number of sex criminals on here supporting Kavanaugh. There are only three reasons to support him: 1) Roe v. Wade; 2) pro-corporate sympathies; 3) women haters/criminal sex offenders. I have read many of you guys for years. Very few of you give a care one way or another regarding Roe v. Wade. I have read many of you on letsrun supporting the little guy harmed by corporations. Kavanaugh always sides with corporations versus individuals. This kind of post from D.B. may encourage F.B.I. to give a look into his unsolved crimes.
News alert. Even "Roe" disavowed Roe vs. Wade. She realized she was a political pawn and the damage she had caused. Then, of course she was left to rot by them.
There IS NO REASON to defend that horrible decision which gave license to outright kill children for personal gain. Shame on you.
Reith wrote:
It is interesting how humans reveal themselves despite their best intentions. Kavanaugh comported himself yesterday exactly how an attempted rapist would be expected to. Hyper aggressive and narcissistic yet somehow failing to seal the deal.
Interesting how much you know about "attempted rapists". Fascinating what you're revealing to us here.
Reith wrote:
It is interesting how humans reveal themselves despite their best intentions. Kavanaugh comported himself yesterday exactly how an attempted rapist would be expected to. Hyper aggressive and narcissistic yet somehow failing to seal the deal.
I think it's more interesting how humans interpret data to confirm their preconceptions. If Kavanaugh had been calm and collected, Democrats would say that shows he's a psychopath. There's no winning. Incidentally, lots of Republicans saw Ford as confused and unconvincing while seeing Kavanaugh as authentic. Ultimately, demeanor is a b.s. way of determining credibility.
gungadin wrote:
the confessions of sex criminals wrote:
I suspect there are a good number of sex criminals on here supporting Kavanaugh. There are only three reasons to support him: 1) Roe v. Wade; 2) pro-corporate sympathies; 3) women haters/criminal sex offenders. I have read many of you guys for years. Very few of you give a care one way or another regarding Roe v. Wade. I have read many of you on letsrun supporting the little guy harmed by corporations. Kavanaugh always sides with corporations versus individuals. This kind of post from D.B. may encourage F.B.I. to give a look into his unsolved crimes.
News alert. Even "Roe" disavowed Roe vs. Wade. She realized she was a political pawn and the damage she had caused. Then, of course she was left to rot by them.
There IS NO REASON to defend that horrible decision which gave license to outright kill children for personal gain. Shame on you.
Roe v Wade doesn't give license to outright kill children for personal gain.
hytd wrote:
Let us note that The New Yorker is very hostile towards Trump, and it ran the Ronan Farrow co-authored story about Kavanaugh at the Yale University party where Deborah Ramirez claims someone/Kavanaugh exposed himself to her.
What on earth does that have to do with anything? It's hardly newsworthy that a magazine for literate people is hostile toward Donald Trump.
liberal trolling is cancer wrote:
Reith wrote:
It is interesting how humans reveal themselves despite their best intentions. Kavanaugh comported himself yesterday exactly how an attempted rapist would be expected to. Hyper aggressive and narcissistic yet somehow failing to seal the deal.
Interesting how much you know about "attempted rapists". Fascinating what you're revealing to us here.
Yes of course I do. You don't? Educate yourself.
Reith wrote:
It is interesting how humans reveal themselves despite their best intentions. Kavanaugh comported himself yesterday exactly how an attempted rapist would be expected to. Hyper aggressive and narcissistic yet somehow failing to seal the deal.
He was powerful, honest and riveting.
Reith wrote:
liberal trolling is cancer wrote:
Interesting how much you know about "attempted rapists". Fascinating what you're revealing to us here.
Yes of course I do. You don't? Educate yourself.
I don't see why you'd be interested in that particular thing. Your interest is very suspect to say the absolute least. Do you have something you want to share with us? Maybe just a guilty conscience? We're anonymous here.
800 dude wrote:
Reith wrote:
It is interesting how humans reveal themselves despite their best intentions. Kavanaugh comported himself yesterday exactly how an attempted rapist would be expected to. Hyper aggressive and narcissistic yet somehow failing to seal the deal.
Ultimately, demeanor is a b.s. way of determining credibility.
You just revealed ignorance which renders further interaction futile.