Pretty funny to watch the media work overtime this week to try to smear Kavanaugh in whatever way they think they might.
Same with people like "Fat Hurts"
They know that the FBI investigation will do nothing but tell us that Ford's story is uncorroborated- which we knew weeks ago.
Speaking of weeks...in one week....Kavanaugh will be the newest SCOTUS.
Sweatnick straight jacket wrote:
The best part of this whole saga is Flagpole believed this blithering idiot...
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-backtracks-on-some-claims-in-extensive-nbc-news-interview/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Show me a post where I said I believed ANY of the accusers. I never said that ever. I DID say we should hear what all of them had to say and that Swetnick had witnesses who would corroborate her story. I actually ALSO criticized Avenatti for backtracking a bit in one of HIS recent television interviews.
Good lord, do any of you people have any ability to read and comprehend?
Reith wrote:
It is obviously that Kavanaugh is a sociopath...but, let us be fair. Swetnick has backtracked in the sense that she stated in an affidavit that there was a line of boy rapists outside bedrooms and now she is saying the boys were huddled up.
The story "changed" from a line to a huddle.... wow..... what a huge backtrack.... seriously???????
They probably did both, lined up and huddled. What's the difference really, not much.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Comedy.... wrote:
This thread is now just comedy... actually it always was, I suppose.
...
The Republicans will hold on to the majority in the Senate and may even gain seats...especially if Trump drops BK. That will be a great way to get his base to come out and vote in the mid-terms....
Then you don't understand traditional conservatives, who are not Trump's base. They like Kavanaugh, but not Trump.
The one thing that will motivate them is the undeniably sleazy tactics used against Kavanaugh. You can see it right here in this thread - few new comments about believing Ford, it's moved on to talk of perjury about drinking and the meaning of dirty words and phrases. That's what witch hunts are about - get your target under the spotlight using whatever pretext, and then jump on whatever they say. It was never about Ford.
The GOP has spent the past two years watching its people led into perjury traps, and will get a huge morale boost if their party stands up to this one, and take their anger to the polls to punish the Dems. If it capitulates, the opposite will happen, they'll view it as spineless and turn against it.
So you are telling me that if Trump decides to cut BK loose and goes with his next in line (another conservative approved judge) that traditional conservative republicans will either not vote in the next election or vote D? You are saying this when you know that traditional conservative republicans always vote in mid-terms?
Traditional conservative republicans that I know don't act like that.
Sorry to disagree with your thought on this... I still have no idea why Trump and the republicans want to draw a line in the sand for this guy... to me they have way more to lose on this than win.
Fat hurts wrote:
You need to do a lot better than that. You aren't even getting close. That was an article about the reliability of eyewitness testimony. There is nothing in there about mistaken identity of an attacker who is known by the victim.
When the victim is attacked and she knows who it is, that memory is locked in hard. Every memory specialist I have seen over the past few days has said this.
So find me someone who understands human memory that thinks mistaken identity is possible in Dr. Ford's case.
How do we know she knew her attacker?
Hardloper wrote:
How do we know she knew her attacker?
What we know is that you are a troll.
Wow, big change NOT wrote:
Reith wrote:
It is obviously that Kavanaugh is a sociopath...but, let us be fair. Swetnick has backtracked in the sense that she stated in an affidavit that there was a line of boy rapists outside bedrooms and now she is saying the boys were huddled up.
The story "changed" from a line to a huddle.... wow..... what a huge backtrack.... seriously???????
They probably did both, lined up and huddled. What's the difference really, not much.
Yeah...I just watched the interview. Despite Snow saying that Swetnick said some things that were different than her written testimony, she didn't say what those were, and I didn't hear any backtracking at all, and I'm sure Avenatti would agree.
First, Trump set his goons out after Blasey Ford. Now the second Kavanaugh accuser got gang-banged by team Trump BEFORE her name was known to the public. Trump and Kavanaugh are pathetic.
Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public
Team Trump needs to cut bait and dump Kavanaugh. They can still appoint a conservative justice (perhaps a woman?) that will please the base and the donors. They can turn this into a rallying cry to turn out the base in November. McConnell could rush this through before the first of the year.
But, the cadre of old misogynists in the GOP are too stubborn to seek a solution that allows them to save face, get their 5-4 court, and possibly save their hold on the Senate. No, better to risk it all on Dolt 45's hope for a positive decision in Gamble v. United States. (I'm sure Mueller has gamed that scenario out also.)
They chose this hill to die on. I hope that they enjoy the view.
Flagpole wrote:
Sweatnick straight jacket wrote:
The best part of this whole saga is Flagpole believed this blithering idiot...
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-backtracks-on-some-claims-in-extensive-nbc-news-interview/amp/?__twitter_impression=trueShow me a post where I said I believed ANY of the accusers. I never said that ever. I DID say we should hear what all of them had to say and that Swetnick had witnesses who would corroborate her story. I actually ALSO criticized Avenatti for backtracking a bit in one of HIS recent television interviews.
Good lord, do any of you people have any ability to read and comprehend?
You backed the wrong horse, brother. Aveneitt's an idiot. Only you believed what they both were spouting off about.
How did those witnesses you said would corroborate her story turn out? Another flagpolian flop.
Just another time where you were wrong. Not that its rare or anything.
Backtracker wrote:
.
^ The iQ45 troll.
Give it up, brah.
Wow, big change NOT wrote:
Reith wrote:
It is obviously that Kavanaugh is a sociopath...but, let us be fair. Swetnick has backtracked in the sense that she stated in an affidavit that there was a line of boy rapists outside bedrooms and now she is saying the boys were huddled up.
The story "changed" from a line to a huddle.... wow..... what a huge backtrack.... seriously???????
They probably did both, lined up and huddled. What's the difference really, not much.
Of course she backtracked. If you cannot tell the line of demarcation between a line and a huddle you are too intellectually dishonest and/or stupid to offer anything meaningful here. Or maybe you are a sociopath like Kavanaugh...
Flagpole wrote:
Wow, big change NOT wrote:
The story "changed" from a line to a huddle.... wow..... what a huge backtrack.... seriously???????
They probably did both, lined up and huddled. What's the difference really, not much.
Yeah...I just watched the interview. Despite Snow saying that Swetnick said some things that were different than her written testimony, she didn't say what those were, and I didn't hear any backtracking at all, and I'm sure Avenatti would agree.
Who cares what Avenatti agrees with? Flags, she backtracked by first saying the boys were lined up to rape girls and now she says the boys were huddled up. Credibility matters. Kavanaugh is a lying sociopath and Swetnick is a liar. Case closed.
Sniffling wrote:
Now Cornyn is lying.
He said the NY Times would not print accuser #2's (Ramirez) accusation. What is fact happened was that Ramirez was being chased for an exclusive by the NY Times, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post. She picked The New Yorker.
I wouldn't say he's lying as its more complicated than you make it out to be and the NY Times wrote, "The New York Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/new-york-times-new-yorker-spar-over-kavanaugh-story.htmlAlso, and again although Kavanaugh has committed perjury, Swetnick is a terrible liar. Now Swetnick is saying that she saw Kavanaugh “near the punch bowl.” In her written statement, she said he made efforts to spike the punch bowl. It is a huge backtrack and shows she cannot be trusted.
Another Dem wrote:
Chris Dudley has already disputed the Democrat donor Ludington’s account of Kavanaugh. Not surprising all accusers are part of the Dem (dim?) resistance.
Not true.
"Two more Yale classmates granted interviews to CNN. "There were a lot of texts flying around that night about how he was lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee," Lynne Brookes, a college friend and registered Republican, told Chris Cuomo."
https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-liesIf you support Kavanaugh, please tell me how he told the truth about his drinking. It reminds me so much of bill clinton it's amazing. Update: I didn't do what joedirt says I should do in the post below so can someone do what he wants me to do.
joedirt wrote:
Actually, if you notice Kavanaugh's testimony, he is careful not to perjure himself (he will either delay or deflect the question while he considers his words, but he will not lie). As far as the letter from one of his classmates at Yale that Booker read, it would be inadmissible in court as she is stating that he must have blacked out (it would be impossible for another person to determine if someone else blacked out). She could say he drank a lot of beer (which he has already testified to), but she can't say what frame of mind he is in. If you want to talk about respect for the rule of law, he has it. Whereas the Democrats who are calling for the FBI investigation have no respect for the rule of law.
I agree the alcohol thing is deflecting or minimizing. I didn't doubt from his testimony that he drank a lot in college. People can dispute whether they blacked out.
But how do you explain the devil's triangle and boofing? You're going to argue the terms meant something else? I wasn't familiar with the terms and perhaps Devil's Triangle was also the name of their drinking game as well but unless someone else vouched for that I'd say he wasn't telling the truth there. And our legal system is based on telling the truth. Even if she made the whole thing up, he still should tell the truth.
As for Kavanaugh getting pissed, if this whole thing was made up I wouldn't really blame him for being pissed or calling people out. However, I still want him to tell the truth.
wejo wrote:
Sniffling wrote:
Now Cornyn is lying.
He said the NY Times would not print accuser #2's (Ramirez) accusation. What is fact happened was that Ramirez was being chased for an exclusive by the NY Times, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post. She picked The New Yorker.
I wouldn't say he's lying as its more complicated than you make it out to be and the NY Times wrote, "The New York Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself."
What really happened is that Team Trump was chasing around people who kn ew Ms. Ramirez BEFORE she was identified in the press in attempts discredit her. How is it that Team Trump knew who go after while the NY Times was claiming there was no one?
The texts between [Kerry] Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends [and Yale classmates] of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.
Berchem, 51, a graduate of Yale and a Connecticut resident, reached out to Sen. Richard Blumenthal's office last week. Blumenthal, a Democrat, sits on the Judiciary Committee.
“We heard from Kerry late on Thursday and submitted her summary to the Judiciary Committee early Friday,” a spokeswoman for Blumenthal said in a statement to NBC News. “After we were made to jump through several hoops that delayed our moving forward, it became clear that the majority Committee staff had not turned this summary over to the FBI and, in fact, had no intention of turning it over to the FBI. With our assistance, Kerry submitted her summary to the FBI herself.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566Reith wrote:
Of course she backtracked. If you cannot tell the line of demarcation between a line and a huddle you are too intellectually dishonest and/or stupid to offer anything meaningful here. Or maybe you are a sociopath like Kavanaugh...
Put a bunch of guys in a hallway outside of a bedroom.
Now tell me, are they in a line or a huddle???? And what freaking difference does it make.
Answer: No freaking difference.
wejo wrote:
I wouldn't say he's lying as its more complicated than you make it out to be and the NY Times wrote, "The New York Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself."
That's not what she said.
That's what some reporter with an agenda said that she said.
Come on, I thought you would be more discerning.