Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Captain Cranks

Brett Kavanaugh

Regarding BK's testimony on Thursday  

244 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

After 36 years, it is not a matter of he said vs. She said, but who the #### knows.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

After 36 years, it is not a matter of he said vs. She said, but who the #### knows.  

Right... definite claims one way or the other are foolish

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY Times is trying to stir crap up again ... from a book I guess written by a Clinton supporter no less. Of course .... people will read the headline and start the Kavanaugh needs impeached again. Democrats ... if they lose, they slander and accuse and go dirtier than anyone should accept :(  

 

But the Times' article conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly's book also found that the female student in question denied any knowledge of the alleged episode.

"The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event,"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Commish said:
17 hours ago, whoknew said:

From the new article - 

 

Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her “credible.” But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. “‘We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,’” Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez’s lawyers, recalled the agents saying. “It was almost a little apologetic.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island and member of the Judiciary Committee, later said, “I would view the Ramirez allegations as not having been even remotely investigated.” Other Democrats agreed.

It will continue to be absolute crickets, but I figured given the posted above, I'll ask @Stealthycat again if this context matters at all since he's relying on it for the majority of his argument.

On 9/7/2019 at 9:29 PM, The Commish said:

Do you happen to remember the circumstances the judiciary committee created for that "investigation"? 

 

I see you are back @Stealthycat  Anything on this or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been “the talk of campus.” Our reporting suggests that it was.

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.

This story is very strange. I find the above to be incredibly odd. To contradict Kavanaugh saying it would have been the talk of the campus, they bring up how Ramirez's mother heard about it and two students? Who were the other 5 unnamed people? Her cousins? 

They bring up how the legal team provided a list of 25 people...

Let's not forget that when the ramirez story first broke it came out that the New York Times refused to run with the story because after interviewing dozens of people they couldn't find anybody with FIRSTHAND knowledge. Interesting that all of a sudden they are cool with running a story that also has no firsthand corroborating witnesses. It also took 6 days for ramirez, after consulting with attorneys, to be willing to say that it was kavanaugh that did it. 

The only thing new in this story is the allegation from Stier(kind of from him). It is important to note that Stier didn't actually speak to the NYT, the story was relayed by two unnamed officials. According this reporter the book written by these reporters mentions that the alleged victim has no recollection of this event. 

Also before we accuse the senate of stonewalling an investigation here, lets not forget that ramirez and her attorney refused to talk to the senate judiciary committee (at least according to Collins and Kennedy). If I was a senator and I was going to request an FBI investigation about an event in the 80's, I sure as hell would want to talk to the person making the accusation. Otherwise it sure seems like all they wanted to do was stall and get the FBI to interview 25 people that were already interviewed by the NYT and determined to have zero firsthand knowledge. 

This whole thing reads so ridiculous. The senate refused to let the FBI interview Debbie's mom!!! 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we ever find out who paid off Kavanaugh’s $92,000 country club fees plus his $200,000 credit card debt plus his $1.2 million mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

This story is very strange. I find the above to be incredibly odd. To contradict Kavanaugh saying it would have been the talk of the campus, they bring up how Ramirez's mother heard about it and two students? Who were the other 5 unnamed people? Her cousins? 

They bring up how the legal team provided a list of 25 people...

Let's not forget that when the ramirez story first broke it came out that the New York Times refused to run with the story because after interviewing dozens of people they couldn't find anybody with FIRSTHAND knowledge. Interesting that all of a sudden they are cool with running a story that also has no firsthand corroborating witnesses. It also took 6 days for ramirez, after consulting with attorneys, to be willing to say that it was kavanaugh that did it. 

The only thing new in this story is the allegation from Stier(kind of from him). It is important to note that Stier didn't actually speak to the NYT, the story was relayed by two unnamed officials. According this reporter the book written by these reporters mentions that the alleged victim has no recollection of this event. 

Also before we accuse the senate of stonewalling an investigation here, lets not forget that ramirez and her attorney refused to talk to the senate judiciary committee (at least according to Collins and Kennedy). If I was a senator and I was going to request an FBI investigation about an event in the 80's, I sure as hell would want to talk to the person making the accusation. Otherwise it sure seems like all they wanted to do was stall and get the FBI to interview 25 people that were already interviewed by the NYT and determined to have zero firsthand knowledge. 

This whole thing reads so ridiculous. The senate refused to let the FBI interview Debbie's mom!!! 

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on Kavanaugh’s testimony?  Devil’s Triangle a drinking game?  Boofing? FFFFF (which he used as a signature on group emails)?   Give me a break.

And Ramirez being hesitant to testify is hardly surprising.  I sure as #### would be.  What do they gain? 

It is easy to poke holes in each individual’s account, as it all happened so long ago.   But when you look at the totality of the evidence, coming up with everyone is lying or mistaken and Kavanaugh is a victim being wronged for political purposes is absolutely fantastical.  

the guy was cast member in Porky’s.  It is so obvious.  

It is more likely that there are more “victims” than it is that none of it happened at all and it is one big conspiracy.  

Edited by zoonation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, zoonation said:

What are your thoughts on Kavanaugh’s testimony?  Devil’s Triangle a drinking game?  Boofing? FFFFF (which he used as a signature on group emails)?   Give me a break. -pretty sure he lied about at least a couple things.

And Ramirez being hesitant to testify is hardly surprising.  I sure as #### would be.  What do they gain?-she did a story in the new yorker and she cant even give a statement to the senate? Regardless, that wasnt my point. You cant beat up the senate for not pushing for an fbi investigation into 30 year old hearsay that the accuser wont even talk to them.

It is easy to poke holes in each individual’s account, as it all happened so long ago.   But when you look at the totality of the evidence, coming up with everyone is lying or mistaken and Kavanaugh is a victim being wronged for political purposes is absolutely fantastical. -totality of evidence? There is basically a toothpick point of evidence. That is old. 

the guy was cast member in Porky’s.  It is so obvious.  -i would say he is mostly a typical guy that likes beer. 

It is more likely that there are more “victims” than it is that none of it happened at all and it is one big conspiracy.-victims is in quotes. I dont need to comment any further.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

totality of evidence? There is basically a toothpick point of evidence. That is old. 

 

And even that is being generous.  Yet progressives have this pipe dream to impeach Kavanaugh.  :lol::lol:

You have to believe women no matter what no matter how ridiculous and politically motivated it is.  Well unless it is a a Democrat Virginian Lt. Governor, then we will completely ignore it and oppose any hearings.   Oh you must love progressives. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And BTW, we have 25 people who heard a rumor that Kavanaugh stuck his penis in Rameriz's hand.  25 people!  It is in the New York Times!  Impeach! Impeach!  Impeach!

In non-news, no one person at the event including the alleged victim recalls anything like that happening.  You really can't make this clown show up.  

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Editors' Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

:lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jonessed said:

Editors' Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

:lol:

Had to have been catching heat for this hit piece. Especially on the heels of their whole journalistic integrity lip service from the last time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost comical at this point.  It's like the right is leaking or creating this stuff, just to watch the left lose their minds.  Which they do.  They take the bait like something I have never ever seen.

All while the election creeps closer and closer.   Who is running for the democrats? What's their position on things like the economy, healthcare, immigration....We don't know because IMPEACH!!!!!!(squirrel)

Edited by supermike80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

It's almost comical at this point.  It's like the right is leaking or creating this stuff, just to watch the left lose their minds.  Which they do.  They take the bait like something I have never ever seen.

All while the election creeps closer and closer.   Who is running for the democrats? What's their position on things like the economy, healthcare, immigration....We don't know becaquse IMPEACH!!!!!!(squirrel)

Huh?  If someone doesn't know where the candidates stand on those positions...they aren't paying attention.  And which one (since the election is what is being discussed in your post) is talking about impeach?

Also...this is about Kavanaugh...who exactly is calling for his impeachment?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

 

All while the election creeps closer and closer.   Who is running for the democrats? What's their position on things like the economy, healthcare, immigration....We don't know becaquse IMPEACH!!!!!!(squirrel)

If you dont know their positions on the economy, healthcare, immigration, etc. you clearly haven't been paying attention. 99% of the debates have been about those very things 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jon_mx said:

And BTW, we have 25 people who heard a rumor that Kavanaugh stuck his penis in Rameriz's hand.  25 people!  It is in the New York Times!  Impeach! Impeach!  Impeach!

In non-news, no one person at the event including the alleged victim recalls anything like that happening.  You really can't make this clown show up.  

Who are the 23 likely non yale students, since that is the logical deduction. 

This number comes from her legal team. And they covered their butts with "may" . At this point i think we have to assume airmen omalley and rodriguez are on that list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Huh?  If someone doesn't know where the candidates stand on those positions...they aren't paying attention.  And which one (since the election is what is being discussed in your post) is talking about impeach?

Also...this is about Kavanaugh...who exactly is calling for his impeachment?

 

You're right, they aren't paying attention.  I agree 100%.

Who is calling for his impeachment? Seriously?

When you do this Sho, you lose credibility. I know you like to harp on other posters 100% of the time, but come on man--spend a little more time actually paying attantion, rather than just commenting on everyone else

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/us/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-trump-impeach.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the moops said:

If you dont know their positions on the economy, healthcare, immigration, etc. you clearly haven't been paying attention. 99% of the debates have been about those very things 

This isn't me moops..this is the general population.  Look outside what you know.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

You're right, they aren't paying attention.  I agree 100%.

Who is calling for his impeachment? Seriously?

When you do this Sho, you lose credibility. I know you like to harp on other posters 100% of the time, but come on man--spend a little more time actually paying attantion, rather than just commenting on everyone else

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/us/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-trump-impeach.html

Thanks for the link...yes...a few talked about it (and likely thought this even before these allegations gained more steam and we see how little was done to investigate...do you agree possible witnesses should have been contacted?).  How is asking someone to back up what they claim making me lack credibility though?  Never mind...don't answer the personal BS.  All I did was ask you to back up your claim.  I had seen the article...I knew none of the candidates ignored their actual positions.  What I ask other posters to do is back up what they claim.  and I will continue to do so.  As I will also back up what I say...especially when asked.  

None of that article, however, says a thing about them ignoring all other things to talk impeachment.  It appears a few blurbs by the candidates compared to mounds of things talking about their positions.

If the public is only seeing these blurbs...its the publics fault for not caring.

I think its a very small minority who don't know where the candidates stand and only think impeach.

Seems they are the ones distracted by the "Squirrel!!!", and not the candidates.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Also...this is about Kavanaugh...who exactly is calling for his impeachment?

 

ANSWER:  “And on the left, Democratic presidential candidates former HUD Secretary Julián Castro, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, and Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California called for Kavanaugh's impeachment.”

FROM: Democratic presidential candidates want Kavanaugh impeached after newly surfaced sexual misconduct accusation

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Thanks for the link...yes...a few talked about it (and likely thought this even before these allegations gained more steam and we see how little was done to investigate...do you agree possible witnesses should have been contacted?).  How is asking someone to back up what they claim making me lack credibility though?  Never mind...don't answer the personal BS.  All I did was ask you to back up your claim.  I had seen the article...I knew none of the candidates ignored their actual positions.  What I ask other posters to do is back up what they claim.  and I will continue to do so.  As I will also back up what I say...especially when asked.  

None of that article, however, says a thing about them ignoring all other things to talk impeachment.  It appears a few blurbs by the candidates compared to mounds of things talking about their positions.

If the public is only seeing these blurbs...its the publics fault for not caring.

I think its a very small minority who don't know where the candidates stand and only think impeach.

Seems they are the ones distracted by the "Squirrel!!!", and not the candidates.

 

You lack credibility because you solidify my position that most people just aren't informed.  You blasted before you even knew the truth.  Typical in the world we live in now--you had your reply all ready to go before even checking if anything said was true.

I disagree so completely about your statement that a small minority of people don't know where the candidates stand.  So totally.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

You lack credibility because you solidify my position that most people just aren't informed.  You blasted before you even knew the truth.  Typical in the world we live in now--you had your reply all ready to go before even checking if anything said was true.

I disagree so completely about your statement that a small minority of people don't know where the candidates stand.  So totally.  

I did nothing to solidify your position that people don't know the candidates position on things.

 I blasted?  Asking for you to back your assertion is blasting? 

I don't think my posts says what you think it did.  The only blast was that any candidate was not putting out there positions and just impeach...which is still dead on accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

I did nothing to solidify your position that people don't know the candidates position on things.

 I blasted?  Asking for you to back your assertion is blasting? 

I don't think my posts says what you think it did.  The only blast was that any candidate was not putting out there positions and just impeach...which is still dead on accurate.

Dude..leave it alone now.  Move on OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

ANSWER:  “And on the left, Democratic presidential candidates former HUD Secretary Julián Castro, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, and Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California called for Kavanaugh's impeachment.”

FROM: Democratic presidential candidates want Kavanaugh impeached after newly surfaced sexual misconduct accusation

Now we're getting somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I can’t support his impeachment based on the information we have at this current time. I believed Ms Ford so I didn’t support his appointment, but it’s done now; impeaching him would require a larger threshold of proof than not appointing him in the first place. 

That being said, if forced to choose between the two alternatives of he never did any of this crap and he committed sexual assault in the past, I think the latter is far more likely than the former, and you’d have to be blind to what’s come out to assume otherwise. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Personally I can’t support his impeachment based on the information we have at this current time. I believed Ms Ford so I didn’t support his appointment, but it’s done now; impeaching him would require a larger threshold of proof than not appointing him in the first place. 

That being said, if forced to choose between the two alternatives of he never did any of this crap and he committed sexual assault in the past, I think the latter is far more likely than the former, and you’d have to be blind to what’s come out to assume otherwise. 

Blind to whats come out? 

The newest accusation isnt even an accusation of sexual assault. We literally have senators talking about impeaching a supreme court justice over  hearsay about something that wasnt even sexual assault. Actually we dont even have hearsay. We have reporters paraphrasing hearsay, and of course leaving out critical parts of it.

Thats the "new" info that we are blind to? Come on. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

It's almost comical at this point.  It's like the right is leaking or creating this stuff, just to watch the left lose their minds.  Which they do.  They take the bait like something I have never ever seen.

All while the election creeps closer and closer.   Who is running for the democrats? What's their position on things like the economy, healthcare, immigration....We don't know because IMPEACH!!!!!!(squirrel)

They just had a 3 hour debate all about the issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Blind to whats come out? 

The newest accusation isnt even an accusation of sexual assault. We literally have senators talking about impeaching a supreme court justice over  hearsay about something that wasnt even sexual assault. Actually we dont even have hearsay. We have reporters paraphrasing hearsay, and of course leaving out critical parts of it.

Thats the "new" info that we are blind to? Come on. 

 

 

Sorry, I’m confused.  Is your position that exposing yourself and forcing your genitals into a woman’s hand without her consent is not sexual assault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 11:56 AM, Henry Ford said:

Very kind of you to say. 

What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty.  In form and moving how express and admirable. In action how like an angel. In apprehension how like a God. The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals.

I forget, is that Hamlet or P. Diddy?

 

 I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Huh?  If someone doesn't know where the candidates stand on those positions...they aren't paying attention.  And which one (since the election is what is being discussed in your post) is talking about impeach?

Also...this is about Kavanaugh...who exactly is calling for his impeachment?

 

Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Elizabeth Warren,  Beto O'Rourke, Julian Castro, Sen. Cory Booker have all said he should be impeached, while Bernie Sanders has hinted it.  Also several progressive groups have also called for his impeachment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Personally I can’t support his impeachment based on the information we have at this current time. I believed Ms Ford so I didn’t support his appointment, but it’s done now; impeaching him would require a larger threshold of proof than not appointing him in the first place. 

I agree on both counts.  Kavanaugh shouldn't have been confirmed, but he also shouldn't be impeached over stuff that was litigated at the time of his confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bar for impeaching a conservative seems to be set at rumors and innuendos.  Awesome!  The left is trying to recreate a new Red Scare type era.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Sorry, I’m confused.  Is your position that exposing yourself and forcing your genitals into a woman’s hand without her consent is not sexual assault?

Can we agree that it is part of the process for seeking consent?  A way to clarify ambiguous responses? 

 

"I was uncertain that you meant no, but now, well now I just feel stupid and a bit exposed ."  "My faux pas."

 

I mean who among us has not found ourselves in that awkward situation?

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I agree on both counts.  Kavanaugh shouldn't have been confirmed, but he also shouldn't be impeached over stuff that was litigated at the time of his confirmation.

In general I would agree, but the FBI was limited in their investigation. New evidence on the same issue would open up impeachment in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Sorry, I’m confused.  Is your position that exposing yourself and forcing your genitals into a woman’s hand without her consent is not sexual assault?

You obviously didnt read the article. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Sorry, I’m confused.  Is your position that exposing yourself and forcing your genitals into a woman’s hand without her consent is not sexual assault?

I think it's ok if a friend does it on your behalf....then it's just a knee slapper of a joke that you tell the grandkids about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

I had the same question as Henry. What are we missing? 

I suspect it's the "nuance" that HE didn't do it rather a friend....allegedly of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

In general I would agree, but the FBI was limited in their investigation. New evidence on the same issue would open up impeachment in my mind.

Agree in principle but it would have to be much more than what we know now. Which I suppose is always possible, and the reason I wrote “at this time” in my previous post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The bar for impeaching a conservative seems to be set at rumors and innuendos.  Awesome!  The left is trying to recreate a new Red Scare type era.  

Posts like this suggest that you really misunderstand the two Red Scares. You might want to read more about it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

You obviously didnt read the article. 

I did, and the Stier allegation is that Kavanaugh exposed himself and his friend pushed Kavanaugh’s penis into a woman’s hand. I’m asking if you believe that’s not actually sexually assault, regardless of the issue of what kind of group of friends go around pushing each other’s penises around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Agree in principle but it would have to be much more than what we know now. Which I suppose is always possible, and the reason I wrote “at this time” in my previous post. 

meh....there's already plenty in his temperament (being that of a 10 year old in front of the nation), disrespecting the officials before him and making 100% political a position that shouldn't be.  And that's all recent material.  No number of #### in hand stories from 20 years ago is going to move the needle with the GOP.  Their consistent turning a blind eye to this sort of thing, here and in VA (this one more egregious given there is absolutely NOTHING preventing them from acting...they control all the positions to move forward and should) is who they are and apparently what they want to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

watch the left lose their minds

It's a drumbeat of mine, but yes Lib Tears, Fake News and defending Trump personally (cult of personality), along with nationalism, are the current drivers of the GOP.

This is an inevitable loop. Bad news critical of Trump triggers positive GOP reaction on 3 of those touchpoints almost automatically, so Trump is almost always inoculated. It's a very strange, antithetical principle to our history and antidemocratic. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonessed said:

Editors' Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

This was an absolute journalistic failure, but it's also professional to include the correction.

However the fact that is the woman by the terms of the story itself may have been too drunk to recall it, which is kind of the point. And being at such a party is very much in keeping with the history surrounding Kavanaugh.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, whoknew said:

They just had a 3 hour debate all about the issues.

But people didn't pay attention to that (or the many articles showing their positions or interviews)...they paid attention to the few blurbs about Kavanaugh apparently.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jon_mx said:

And BTW, we have 25 people who heard a rumor that Kavanaugh stuck his penis in Rameriz's hand.  25 people...

In non-news, no one person at the event including the alleged victim recalls anything like that happening. ...

As I understand it:

  • 2 people say they heard of the Ramirez incident right after it happened.
  • One person at least, and he apparently a known respected figure in DC government, says he personally witnessed BK do the same thing at another party.

These two incidents give some context to what might have been happening with Kavanaugh, Judge and Ford as well IMO.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, urbanhack said:

Did we ever find out who paid off Kavanaugh’s $92,000 country club fees plus his $200,000 credit card debt plus his $1.2 million mortgage?

Really this should be thoroughly answered by now.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This was an absolute journalistic failure, but it's also professional to include the correction.

However the fact that is the woman by the terms of the story itself may have been too drunk to recall it, which is kind of the point. And being at such a party is very much in keeping with the history surrounding Kavanaugh.

I’m sorry I sucker punched you and broke your nose, but I’ve got this band-aid here...

There is one person that claims to have witnessed this event.  One.  And it’s not even the victim.  There is no story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonessed said:

I’m sorry I sucker punched you and broke your nose, but I’ve got this band-aid here...

There is one person that claims to have witnessed this event.  One.  And it’s not even the victim.  There is no story.

Eh, underselling "witness" as "not the victim" and therefore negated isn't a real thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.