Kavanaugh is about to get the Merick Garland treatment!

Darth Omar said:
If I’m her lawyer and she’s given conflicting accounts my advice is to not appear before Congress lol. That’s bound to come up. All Kav needs to say is ‘I have no recollection of that’ which would be totally plausible.
Click to expand...

She hasn't given conflicting accounts of anything, and passed a lie detector test.

Time for Kavanaugh to step up and take a lie detector test of his own.

Or all of the "65 women" who the GOP claims will vouch for him.

Which begs the question; why didn't the GOP trot these 65 women out as character witnesses for Kavanaugh before? Probably because it's fake.


Most people can probably recount 3 vivid memories from 1982. That was a long time ago.
Click to expand...

If one of those memories is a sexual assault, they will probably remember it in great detail. Just like all the underage victims of Catholic Priests. Are they not to be believed either?
 
Thing1 said:
That's a pretty simplistic take.

If the accusations are serious, which they are, it should get a hearing in committee. Members can make up their own minds on the veracity without your biased recommendation.
Click to expand...

If the accusations were serious, they would not have taken 40 fucking years to come to light. I am amazed that you simple minded dullards on the left don't get that. Of course, you do, but you are dishonest and pretend to care.
 
LV426 said:
She hasn't given conflicting accounts of anything, and passed a lie detector test.

Time for Kavanaugh to step up and take a lie detector test of his own.

Or all of the "65 women" who the GOP claims will vouch for him.

Which begs the question; why didn't the GOP trot these 65 women out as character witnesses for Kavanaugh before? Probably because it's fake.

If one of those memories is a sexual assault, they will probably remember it in great detail. Just like all the underage victims of Catholic Priests. Are they not to be believed either?
Click to expand...

:lolup:Same moronic eruption, different day. :rofl2:
giphy.gif
 
Jarod said:
I believe her.
The records mention a high powered Washington person who went to an elite Prep School.
They say the time frame.
Nobody deny's it, only one said he does not remember it.
If she were trying to set him up, back in 2012, she would have mentioned his name.
Where did the media mention that Romney would have appointed him?
Click to expand...

jeff toobin from cnn was talking about it in 2012.

if you believe her, then why are you against the dems doing this? you contradict your own statements, you are scatterbrained and all over the place. It shows you type from emotion and feels rather than anything logical. get your act together

oh yeah and her mom had her house foreclosed on in 1996... guess which other persons mom was the presiding judge during that case?
 
LV426 said:
Actually Corker isn't on the Committee. But Flake and Sasse are. I think Flake is going to vote no.
Click to expand...

he as at least questioned his vote


he should not vote yes


there is no reason for this retiring politician to carry the stink of nominating a provable liar who is kicked off all courts for his felony of lying to congress


a yes vote will forever harm anyone who votes that way


Kav is a liar


now his little girls will hear about how he tried to rape a girl when he was in high school trying to win the honor of drinking 100 kegs in one year


Its in his yearbook

he had a club called the 100 keg club

that was its goal


yeah daddy you were sooo cool
 
Irthriuth said:
jeff toobin from cnn was talking about it in 2012.

if you believe her, then why are you against the dems doing this? you contradict your own statements, you are scatterbrained and all over the place. It shows you type from emotion and feels rather than anything logical. get your act together

oh yeah and her mom had her house foreclosed on in 1996... guess which other persons mom was the presiding judge during that case?
Click to expand...

link
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Great. It's good to know that your "principles" include the end justifies the means, and that anything goes as long as you "win" -- even if it means fucking over everyone else. You have many compatriots here who apparently are just as amoral.

Funny though how you think the rest of us are like you. We are not.
Click to expand...

you absolutely are or you wouldn't fall for this obvious bullshit. See, because I am a winner, I recognize when mouthbreathers like you are getting conned. You can't see it though.
 
Thing1 said:
That's a pretty simplistic take.

If the accusations are serious, which they are, it should get a hearing in committee. Members can make up their own minds on the veracity without your biased recommendation.
Click to expand...

My recommendation is based in common sense.

If the accuser has given conflicting accounts, you’re looking at a hung jury or acquittal if this were a trial. Which it very much is, in a sense. Kav is entitled to the same presumption of innocence.

TD is right: this should have been handled behind closed doors in committee. Why risk unnecessarily smearing an innocent man with a vile allegation unless you are pretty damned sure it’s true. You know this can destroy him, right?

How soon before well qualified jurists start saying ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to SCOTUS appointments on account of crap like this?
 
Irthriuth said:
you absolutely are or you wouldn't fall for this obvious bullshit. See, because I am a winner, I recognize when mouthbreathers like you are getting conned. You can't see it though.
Click to expand...

The bolded is great from a Trump guy.

And don't hit me w/ the "he's doing everything I want him to do." He's a textbook con man. That's really who he is, more than anything else.
 
Jarod said:
Thanks,

So the theory is that she read this, made up a story... went to a couples therapy session and gave made this up hoping the therapist would write it down, but neglected to get the name written down and then did not do anything else until now?
Click to expand...

That must be it! Pure genius!
 
evince said:
link
Click to expand...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...foreclosed-on-far-left-accusers-parents-home/

you can also look up the case yourself:

Go to the Maryland Judiciary Case Search Criteria page: http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/

In the “Case Number” search column, type 156006V and click “Get Case.”

But I am sure there is no conflict of interest at all. It's just a coincidence that kavanaughs mom foreclosed on the accusers mom's house and now she is trying to torpedo him!
 
Darth Omar said:
My recommendation is based in common sense.

If the accuser has given conflicting accounts, you’re looking at a hung jury or acquittal if this were a trial. Which it very much is, in a sense. Kav is entitled to the same presumption of innocence.

TD is right: this should have been handled behind closed doors in committee. Why risk unnecessarily smearing an innocent man with a vile allegation unless you are pretty damned sure it’s true. You know this can destroy him, right?

How soon before well qualified jurists start saying ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to SCOTUS appointments on account of crap like this?
Click to expand...

For starters, you still haven't given a credible cite for "conflicting accounts," and I have seen nothing reported on that yet.

And your recommendation is based on bias. She went public w/ this - you guys keep talking like it was a DNC decision or something that was politically orchestrated. This was her choice.
 
Threedee said:
Pretty sure there will be a vote, so, this seems more like the Thomas Treatment. I think that treatment fits this situation better than the Bork or Estrada treatments.
Click to expand...

and the republicans would not allow the other women to testify who corroborated the story then too
 
Thing1 said:
The bolded is great from a Trump guy.

And don't hit me w/ the "he's doing everything I want him to do." He's a textbook con man. That's really who he is, more than anything else.
Click to expand...

sorry, but those with TDS have a completely irrelevant opinion on anything. I don't care what a mouthbreather like you thinks. you were very wrong about 2016.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top