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

1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

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. 

I can honestly say I have never had cause to push another man's penis around.  I may have dick punched a guy or two if they were standing too close to me while I was seated or lying on a mat or field of play, but push around, no, never.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

People hearing about incidents do not make them true.  Besides, those incidents are more on the level of what Al Frankin did and are more College Shannanigans.  Strictly speaking they can be termed sexual asault, but really they are just stupid pranks not meant to harm.  Frankin did resign because it was the height of the Me-too movement and was forced to.  In hindsight most Democrats now feel it was an overreaction and he shouldn't have.  I think if it came out today, Frankin would not resign.  I don't think those shed much light on the more serious accusation which Ford seems to recall.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perjuring himself is much more relevant now than the act of doing it.  If it was "college shannanigans"....why didn't he just say so during his hearing?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 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.

 

The NYT is a great paper. But - correction or not - it can't have errors like this in the age of Trump. It just gives him and his supporters ammunition. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 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!!! 

About Ramirez - Kavanaugh's response when asked, under oath, was that if it had happened it would have been the talk of the campus.

The point of the 25 'witnesses' is that that these people did hear of the event in real time. It was the talk of the campus.

- Now let's say I agree with you that the Ramirez incident is unprovable. It clearly is. What continues to vex me is Kavanaugh lying about events around it, seemingly unnecessarily.

***

The Stier story to me also is interesting not because it :proves: Brett Kavanaugh did a bad thing and so he has no right to be on the USSC. The point to me is about BK misrepresenting what kind of person he was as a youth under oath.

- As I noted above the fact the alleged victim doesn't remember it is totally in keeping with the details of the kind of party we're talking about. The same is true of the Ford and Ramirez stories too. 

****

I'm not clamoring for impeachment here. What happened here? It seems to me that the most important evidence here is Mike Judge's book. Yes, I think these were young guys who got loaded and did wild, offensive things. Got hammered, threw up, did extremely offensive things to girls, which yeah in the extreme like these stories could be assault.

I think you've had some really good thoughtful informed posts on this topic. To me as has been said, right, it's true nothing has been proved. But what I do see between the Mike Judge book, the calendar, reports about Georgetown Prep independent of this, and the reports from Yale, paint a picture of a young man who would have very much been in the locations, places, situations described, and in a position and of a typical behavior to act the way described. I completely agree that's not proof. But personally I think he should have withdrawn and his behavior in confirmation and (as a prospective justcve) joining a partisan campaign to paint a different picture from the truth should have disqualified him. The hyperpartisan process has damaged the Court here.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jonessed said:

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

Fwiw I agree with you on this. It's not 'fixed'.

Share this post


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

Besides, those incidents are ... College Shannanigans.  Strictly speaking they can be termed sexual asault, but really they are just stupid pranks not meant to harm. 

You should probably stick to the “no eyewitness” argument and leave this one alone. 

Share this post


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

About Ramirez - Kavanaugh's response when asked, under oath, was that if it had happened it would have been the talk of the campus.

The point of the 25 'witnesses' is that that these people did hear of the event in real time. It was the talk of the campus.

This is not an accurate depiction. Not even close. The article states that 7 people had heard of it prior to kavanaugh being a federal judge. Not 25. 7. And only two were classmates. and one of the 7 was her mother. How is that a representation at all of the talk of the campus. 

The 25 number is being floated by her legal team. They say they gave the FBI a list of 25 people that may have had corroborating evidence. Coming from an atty that literally means nothing.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I can honestly say I have never had cause to push another man's penis around.  I may have dick punched a guy or two if they were standing to close to me while I was seated or lying on a mat or field of play, but push around, no, never.

I have so many questions I will never likely voice about the logistics of what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tonydead said:

:lmao:  Penis Pushers.

Supreme Court Drunken Penis Pushers may be my next fantasy football team name.

Share this post


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

This is not an accurate depiction. Not even close. The article states that 7 people had heard of it prior to kavanaugh being a federal judge. Not 25. 7. And only two were classmates. and one of the 7 was her mother. How is that a representation at all of the talk of the campus. 

The 25 number is being floated by her legal team. They say they gave the FBI a list of 25 people that may have had corroborating evidence. Coming from an atty that literally means nothing.  

 

Like I said..Here is the democratic party

"LOOK.....A SQUIRREL!!!"

Edited by supermike80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I can honestly say I have never had cause to push another man's penis around.  I may have dick punched a guy or two if they were standing to close to me while I was seated or lying on a mat or field of play, but push around, no, never.

What never?

No, never.

What, never? 

Hardly eveeeeeeerrrrrrrrrr.

- "Pushers of Penis-zance"

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

I have so many questions I will never likely voice about the logistics of what happened.

Our loss.  The comedy gold of your insightful questions, clothed in your sarcasm would have been a treat.  of course they may have also been cause for a long time out, so there is that.

Share this post


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

People hearing about incidents do not make them true.  Besides, those incidents are more on the level of what Al Frankin did and are more College Shannanigans.  Strictly speaking they can be termed sexual asault, but really they are just stupid pranks not meant to harm. 

They are college shenanigans if you are a dooshy college bro that enjoys whipping his #### out.

They are sexual assualt for everyone else

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but Antonio Brown is seen as innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger

but Kavanaugh is still in the news as guilty 

gotta love how people's views change in the wind huh ?  :(   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

but Antonio Brown is seen as innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger

but Kavanaugh is still in the news as guilty 

gotta love how people's views change in the wind huh ?  :(   

Really? By whom?  I probably haven't been paying enough attention, but it seems like the same people saying Ford is a liar and a political operative are the ones saying Brown couldn't possibly have done what is being said.

Share this post


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

but Antonio Brown is seen as innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger

but Kavanaugh is still in the news as guilty 

gotta love how people's views change in the wind huh ?  :(   

Do you know of a specific person that believes (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Do you know of a specific person that believes (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault?

:goodposting:

It kinda feels like there are people who believe the women who come forward and want real investigations to find out if these things happened as reported and people who don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

but Antonio Brown is seen as innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger

but Kavanaugh is still in the news as guilty 

gotta love how people's views change in the wind huh ?  :(   

WTF are you talking about?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Really? By whom?  I probably haven't been paying enough attention, but it seems like the same people saying Ford is a liar and a political operative are the ones saying Brown couldn't possibly have done what is being said.

I saw few that was saying Kavanaugh was innocent until proven guilty.

I'm seeing many say ABrown is innocent until proven guilty

 

Share this post


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

Do you know of a specific person that believes (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault?

read the threads - draw your own conclusions

Share this post


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

I saw few that was saying Kavanaugh was innocent until proven guilty.

I'm seeing many say ABrown is innocent until proven guilty

 

Unless you are seeing different opinions from the same people on these two subjects then I don't see what point you are trying to make here.

Share this post


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

Do you know of a specific person that believes (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault?

There are a bunch of them, sadly, in the SP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sheriff Bart said:

There are a bunch of them, sadly, in the SP. 

Specific individuals who believe and have expressed both opinions?  Seems odd to be discussing Kavanaugh in the Shark Pool but I'll take your word for it.

Share this post


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

read the threads - draw your own conclusions

That sounds like a lot of work.

Share this post


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

Specific individuals who believe and have expressed both opinions?  Seems odd to be discussing Kavanaugh in the Shark Pool but I'll take your word for it.

lol, Antonio Brown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

lol, Antonio Brown. 

Then I think you misunderstood my question, which was whether he was referring to a specific person who believed both (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) that Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault.

Edited by bigbottom

Share this post


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

 Seems odd to be discussing Kavanaugh in the Shark Pool 

It's a little esoteric, but IT=INFO, and there's no "expires by" date on it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Then I think you misunderstood my question, which was whether he was referring to a specific person who believed both (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault.

Yes sir, I misunderstood. 

Share this post


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

Then I think you misunderstood my question, which was whether he was referring to a specific person who believed both (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault.

I suspect it's the circles @Stealthycat is running in....being a Republican/Trump Supporter/GOP guy who's also a Pats fan (assuming because of the Pats helmet as his avatar) it's pretty simple to see where this might be his perception.  The challenge is getting him out of his cocoon to realize the rest of the world isn't in the same boat.  That's not going to happen.

Share this post


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

This is not an accurate depiction. Not even close. The article states that 7 people had heard of it prior to kavanaugh being a federal judge. Not 25. 7. And only two were classmates. and one of the 7 was her mother. How is that a representation at all of the talk of the campus. 

The 25 number is being floated by her legal team. They say they gave the FBI a list of 25 people that may have had corroborating evidence. Coming from an atty that literally means nothing.  

The quote is, “Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence.” Corroborating that this story came out after the event I take it. Two said they heard the story after it happened on campus. You can argue as to whether Ramirez’s lawyers submitting those names to the FBI is sufficient, but it certainly sounds to me like yeah it was a story on campus contrary to what Kavanaugh said.

Share this post


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

It's a little esoteric, but IT=INFO, and there's no "expires by" date on it.

It's amazing to me that Martavis Bryant has finished high school, played through college, played a four year NFL career and has been without a job for two years and this is still funny.

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

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. 

My experience with when you start asking questions like this, especially questions that start differently and then are rephrased, is that this discussion wont be very productive between us.

I am trying to not be rude to you and get into it less with you so I am going to take a pass on this. I stated(in the previous post) that what was paraphrased is not sexual assault. You can post a critique of that statement or disagreement and I wont be offended or post a retort. I am sure people would like to get your thoughts on the subject, legally or otherwise.  

Edited by parasaurolophus

Share this post


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

My experience with when you start asking questions like this, especially questions that start differently and then are rephrased, is that this discussion wont be very productive between us.

I am trying to not be rude to you and get into it less with you so I am going to take a pass on this. I stated(in the previous post) that what was paraphrased is not sexual assault. You can post a critique of that statement or disagreement and I wont be offended or post a retort. I am sure people would like to get your thoughts on the subject, legally or otherwise.  

If you don't want to discuss, that's fine.  You seemed to be making a definitive statement that is exactly the opposite of my understanding of what was alleged.  Just wanted clarification.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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 couldn't agree more that this article is a journalistic failure. I would love to know how the discussions went. They literally ran the same info that they passed on running last year. Is it because this got framed as some rich vs poor thing? 

The max stier thing is really weird too to publish considering how they passed on running the ramirez story last year. Wapo had this same stier info last year but refused to run it because they couldn't get stier on record or the alleged victim and couldn't get any witnesses.

The senators now calling for impeachment are just grandstanding since the stier allegation was known to them previously. This isn't new info to them...

Quote

Last year, The Washington Post independently confirmed that lawmakers and authorities knew of the claim

 

Share this post


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

My experience with when you start asking questions like this, especially questions that start differently and then are rephrased, is that this discussion wont be very productive between us.

I am trying to not be rude to you and get into it less with you so I am going to take a pass on this. I stated(in the previous post) that what was paraphrased is not sexual assault. You can post a critique of that statement or disagreement and I wont be offended or post a retort. I am sure people would like to get your thoughts on the subject, legally or otherwise.  

Have posts been removed from this thread?  I'm sort of lost here.  The post where you were talking about "not sexual assault" was the alleged event with Kavanaugh, his friend, his penis and some girl, no?  Is that what you are suggesting isn't sexual assault?  Or is there a newer allegation that have come to light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I joked about the Mom in the NYT story and made a crack about the other people being able to corroborate as being her cousins, which was meant completely as a joke, but now actually seems like such ridiculousness is incredibly possible.

From the original New Yorker story...

Quote

Ramirez told her mother and sister about an upsetting incident at the time, but did not describe the details to either due to her embarrassment.

That quote makes the new NYT piece look even worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things you don't expect to see and read in senate judiciary docs. 

Quote

Photograph of Delta Kappa Epsilon: A photograph of the DKE fraternity in the 1988 Yale Banner yearbook shows (redcated) (who was identified by a Yale graduate with whom the Committee spoke) with his pants down and his genitals exposed. (Redacted) was the classmate identified by as the individual known to drop his pants and expose himself at parties.50

The photo, blurred out, is attached...

The text messages between Karenx2 also illustrate just how thoroughly researched this story was. So many publications were after this. I liked how they made fun of buzzfeed and TMZ. Their range of emotions was interesting too.   

Share this post


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

Things you don't expect to see and read in senate judiciary docs. 

The photo, blurred out, is attached...

The text messages between Karenx2 also illustrate just how thoroughly researched this story was. So many publications were after this. I liked how they made fun of buzzfeed and TMZ. Their range of emotions was interesting too.   

You're suggesting there was only one DKE who would expose himself at parties?

Also, Kavanaugh wasn't an undergraduate in 1988.

Share this post


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

You're suggesting there was only one DKE who would expose himself at parties?

Also, Kavanaugh wasn't an undergraduate in 1988.

The guy mentioned in the docs was a year younger than kavanaugh and ramirez. 

Share this post


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

A photograph of the DKE fraternity in the 1988 Yale Banner yearbook

Funny when discussing this story this morning DKE at LSU came to mind. And here it is as Yalie form.

Share this post


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

I couldn't agree more that this article is a journalistic failure. I would love to know how the discussions went. They literally ran the same info that they passed on running last year. Is it because this got framed as some rich vs poor thing? 

I think what happened is this is actually a story about a forthcoming book, so the details are in the book. It's been a strange path for this story and it's been even stranger in the final unfurling, which is part of the problem. Frankly I think NYT has some editor problems and editors are one of those things like strings in action movies no one should ever see.

Share this post


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

The guy mentioned in the docs was a year younger than kavanaugh and ramirez. 

Right.  My point is that this guy was "the" guy who exposed himself at parties in 1988.  That's less relevant than one would hope to, for instance, Ramirez's allegation that he exposed himself to her in the 1983/84 school year at a freshman dorm party.

Edit: though I guess it does suggest that DKE was okay with young men pledging who would whip it out at parties.  That's something.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


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

The max stier thing is really weird too to publish considering how they passed on running the ramirez story last year. Wapo had this same stier info last year but refused to run it because they couldn't get stier on record or the alleged victim and couldn't get any witnesses.

The senators now calling for impeachment are just grandstanding since the stier allegation was known to them previously. This isn't new info to them...

Quote

Last year, The Washington Post independently confirmed that lawmakers and authorities knew of the claim

Quote

A classmate named Max Stier alleged that he saw Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different dorm party, where he said friends pushed Kavanaugh’s penis into the hand of a female student. The reporters wrote that senators and the FBI were aware of Stier’s claim but that the FBI did not investigate. (Last year, The Washington Post independently confirmed that lawmakers and authorities knew of the claim, but did not publish a story because the alleged witnesses were not identified and the woman said to be involved declined to comment.)

- I think elsewhere it's been reported that a Senator (Coons perhaps) reported it to the FBI.

It was GOP Sen Kennedy from the Great State of Louisiana who asked Kavanaugh about the Ramirez incident. That's whom BK was responding to when he said if it had happened it would have been talked about on campus.

It really wasn't FBI's job to settle this or do a criminal investigation. They were doing a background check. Stier was known and IMO the people not knowing all this was on the Senate Dems.

My feeling then like it is now is that this is not about "proof". Kavanaugh was not on trial. IMO I don't think it's too much to ask that our USSC Justices be Boy/Girl Scouts, that they have led exemplary lives. Not people who have mysterious debts handled by unknown patrons, who have stories about assault floating around them. The Stier issue is clearly important because the charge or claim was that Ford wildly made up a story or confused one into existence.... but then also Ramirez did the same..... and then Stier also did the same? I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about someone who is potentially subject to compromise, who appears to have lied about details surrounding the issues at question, and who may (may yes) have done some horrible things as a youth. I think really people want to talk about the third thing, when really it's the first two that could have been thoroughly run through by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

- I think elsewhere it's been reported that a Senator (Coons perhaps) reported it to the FBI.

It was GOP Sen Kennedy from the Great State of Louisiana who asked Kavanaugh about the Ramirez incident. That's whom BK was responding to when he said if it had happened it would have been talked about on campus.

It really wasn't FBI's job to settle this or do a criminal investigation. They were doing a background check. Stier was known and IMO the people not knowing all this was on the Senate Dems.

My feeling then like it is now is that this is not about "proof". Kavanaugh was not on trial. IMO I don't think it's too much to ask that our USSC Justices be Boy/Girl Scouts, that they have led exemplary lives. Not people who have mysterious debts handled by unknown patrons, who have stories about assault floating around them. The Stier issue is clearly important because the charge or claim was that Ford wildly made up a story or confused one into existence.... but then also Ramirez did the same..... and then Stier also did the same? I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about someone who is potentially subject to compromise, who appears to have lied about details surrounding the issues at question, and who may (may yes) have done some horrible things as a youth. I think really people want to talk about the thrid thing, when really it's the first two that could have been thoroughly run through by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Absolutely agree on the bolded. "Best of the best" should be a minimum requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

Have posts been removed from this thread?  I'm sort of lost here.  The post where you were talking about "not sexual assault" was the alleged event with Kavanaugh, his friend, his penis and some girl, no?  Is that what you are suggesting isn't sexual assault?  Or is there a newer allegation that have come to light?

I think the "not sexual assault" conversation started with this post:

6 hours 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. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I saw few that was saying Kavanaugh was innocent until proven guilty.

I'm seeing many say ABrown is innocent until proven guilty

 

But neither have been charged with a crime. 

  • Like 1

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.