Page 85 of 199
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 9:16 pm
by BurtReynolds
McParadigm wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:I know we're moving on to the "ok, he didn't rape anybody, but he lied about drinking and he has a bad attitude" portion of the inquisition
I know we’re moving on to the “ok, he flagrantly lied about drinking and yearbook stuff, but he should still be believed about everything else because otherwise we can’t own the libs,” portion of the tribal meltdown, but why do you feel the need to also completely misrepresent non-conservatives as “moving on,” doubting the allegations of sexual assault that are currently under investigation?
I can own the libs either way. Either they are dumb enough to believe he's a rapist because he supposedly lied about drinking when there is no actual evidence of a crime, or they know there is no proof and have switched to technicalities to throw off his nomination. which would you prefer?
How is that the case against him has actually gotten
worse in less than a week? We started from a place of no witnesses, proof, or even dates, yet somehow they look even more clueless.
He shouldn't be believed. She shouldn't be believed. The evidence should be believed. There is none.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 9:23 pm
by BurtReynolds
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 9:33 pm
by McParadigm
Uh, Burt...the injustice in that book occurs because a bunch of dumb white conservatives side with the person they want to be right, even though that person is repeatedly caught lying.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 9:46 pm
by BurtReynolds
McParadigm wrote:Uh, Burt...the injustice in that book occurs because a bunch of dumb white conservatives side with the person they want to be right, even though that person is repeatedly caught lying.
And now we have a bunch of dumb white liberals siding with a person they want to be right, even though that person has offered no proof whatsoever.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 10:09 pm
by digster
I feel like it might be easier to find proof one way or the other regarding Ford's allegations about Kavanaugh if the FBI is allowed to talk to Ford. Or Kavanaugh. That seems pretty straightforward.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 10:19 pm
by tragabigzanda
FUCK ICE
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 10:35 pm
by BurtReynolds
Oh I think waiting to the last minute to drop an assault allegation has been an amazingly effective strategy, and might still work. People are creatures of their emotions. The democrats don't even need facts to pull it off.
As far as hail mary's go, its an powerful (if slimy) one.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 10:39 pm
by Superblood Wolfmoon
NBC is reporting that a mutual friend of BK and Deborah Ramirez has turned over text messages to the FBI that indicate BK was contacting friends directly and through reps as far back as July to provide cover on a potential Ramirez story. So at the very least that would be another instance of lying to the Judiciary Committee as he told Orrin Hatch the first time he heard of Ramirez's claim was September 24.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ce-n915566
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 10:40 pm
by tragabigzanda
FUCK ICE
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 10:48 pm
by verb_to_trust
tragabigzanda wrote:is there any real recourse for lying to the committee? he wasn't under oath, so...?
Not getting the job.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 10:49 pm
by Superblood Wolfmoon
tragabigzanda wrote:is there any real recourse for lying to the committee? he wasn't under oath, so...?
He was absolutely under oath.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 10:49 pm
by Superblood Wolfmoon
verb_to_trust wrote:tragabigzanda wrote:is there any real recourse for lying to the committee? he wasn't under oath, so...?
Not getting the job.
Disbarment?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 10:50 pm
by tragabigzanda
FUCK ICE
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 11:23 pm
by McParadigm
tragabigzanda wrote:is there any real recourse for lying to the committee? he wasn't under oath, so...?
If this is the end of it, possibly nothing. Depends on Flake, Collins, and Murkowski.
But it’s only Monday.
It’s worth remembering that at the start of all this, the reporting was that Grassley and McConnell wanted to get him passed expeditiously. Their concern was said to be that, over time, they’d lose control of the narrative. Then Ford stepped forward, and the reporting was that they wanted to deal with
her expeditiously, so they would be done before “other accusations“ could surface. Then other accusations appeared, and they tried to push through anyway. And when they couldn’t, they worked to limit the scope of the investigation because etc.
And now you have text messages from his friends, talking about a supposedly made up accusation
two months before it was supposedly made up...and well before he claimed to have learned of it. And you have former classmates issuing statements to the press or going on camera to accuse him of lying about his drinking habits.
And, again, it’s only Monday.
There’s clearly been a lot of work going on behind the scenes to limit the potential risk to the nomination, and he still has decent odds on surviving. But none of these behaviors at the party level are indicative of any kind of confidence that there’s no there, there.
It’s only Monday...
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 11:32 pm
by Strat
McParadigm wrote:tragabigzanda wrote:is there any real recourse for lying to the committee? he wasn't under oath, so...?
If this is the end of it, possibly nothing. Depends on Flake, Collins, and Murkowski.
But it’s only Monday.
It’s worth remembering that at the start of all this, the reporting was that Grassley and McConnell wanted to get him passed expeditiously. Their concern was said to be that, over time, they’d lose control of the narrative. Then Ford stepped forward, and the reporting was that they wanted to deal with
her expeditiously, so they would be done before “other accusations“ could surface. Then other accusations appeared, and they tried to push through anyway. And when they couldn’t, they worked to limit the scope of the investigation because etc.
And now you have text messages from his friends, talking about a supposedly made up accusation
two months before it was supposedly made up...and well before he claimed to have learned of it. And you have former classmates issuing statements to the press or going on camera to accuse him of lying about his drinking habits.
And, again, it’s only Monday.
There’s clearly been a lot of work going on behind the scenes to limit the potential risk to the nomination, and he still has decent odds on surviving. But none of these behaviors at the party level are indicative of any kind of confidence that there’s no there, there.
It’s only Monday...
Hmm. Guy was probably causing BK to be late for church. That’d piss off any good catholic
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon October 01, 2018 11:41 pm
by bart
"Throwing ice" should be slang for being decked out in jewelry.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue October 02, 2018 12:11 am
by McParadigm
The “due process is in terrible peril” crowd is chanting “lock her up” right now at the rally.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue October 02, 2018 12:39 am
by 96583UP
BurtReynolds wrote:A literal swamp monster.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue October 02, 2018 1:49 am
by B
BurtReynolds wrote:McParadigm wrote:Uh, Burt...the injustice in that book occurs because a bunch of dumb white conservatives side with the person they want to be right, even though that person is repeatedly caught lying.
And now we have a bunch of dumb white liberals siding with a person they want to be right, even though that person has offered no proof whatsoever.
That's not the same thing.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue October 02, 2018 1:50 am
by 96583UP
enough of this
white-bashing
