• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Prosecutor who questioned Ford Shreds her case

RJKarl said:
I never thought go this way. Each one of those is totally substantiated.

"I was not involved in handling his nomination,” Kavanaugh said. “I am familiar generally with Mr. Pryor, but that was not one that I worked on personally.”

But emails showed that Kavanaugh was consulted on Pryor’s nomination.

“How did the Pryor interview go?” Kyle Sampson, a Bush-era Justice Department staffer, emailed Kavanaugh in 2002. “Call me.”

__________________

“My first question is this,” then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) asked Kavanaugh. “Did you know that Judge Pickering planned to solicit letters of support in this manner before he did so? And if not, when did you become aware that Judge Pickering had solicited these letters of support?”

“The answer to the first question, Senator, is no,” Kavanaugh replied. “This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.”

But recently disclosed emails show that Kavanaugh played a significant role in Pickering’s nomination process, which dragged on into 2004 because of a Democratic Party filibuster. Kavanaugh was often the only person included on emails about Pickering"

__________________________

He also lied not knowing anything about Ramirez's accusation before it appeared in The Atlantic when he sent texts about it days before the publication.

But no amount of documentation will change your mind.
Click to expand...

Nothing there that would disqualify a nominee that I interviewed with a background/career as strong as BK.
Now cite the number of discrepancies that his Accuser has testified to, under oath.
I'll wait...…..
 
what % of sexual assault accusations are false?
 
Milhouse said:
what % of sexual assault accusations are false?
Click to expand...

I posted academic literature on this the other day. Rape specicifally is less than 10% definitely, and more likely closer to 2%. Many "false" rape reports are categorized as false because they are actually technically some other kind of sexual assault and the accuser miscategorized the situation. So, simply, between 2% and 10% of rape accusations turn out to be false reports.
 
DeacsPop said:
Nothing there that would disqualify a nominee that I interviewed with a background/career as strong as BK.
Now cite the number of discrepancies that his Accuser has testified to, under oath.
I'll wait...…..
Click to expand...

There's no reason to. The fact you can't admit that lying to get his first Senate approval and lying in every subsequent hearing would be disqualifying shows a wanton disregard for the law.
 
RJKarl said:
There's no reason to. The fact you can't admit that lying to get his first Senate approval and lying in every subsequent hearing would be disqualifying shows a wanton disregard for the law.
Click to expand...

:circlejerk:
 
DeacsPop said:
:circlejerk:
Click to expand...

He's lied to EVERY Senate committee.

He called the hearing an "embarrassment". That sounds judicial.

He talked about Clinton and LW conspiracies. That's disqualifying by itself.

He chided the committee saying "what goes around comes around" when he was pushed. Threatening senators is the last thing a Justice of the Supreme Court should EVER do.

He threatened Dems on the committee with The Bible- reaping and sowing. Again, this should be disqualifying in of itself.

But you'll come up with an excuse or change the subject away from Kavanaugh's own words and deeds.
 
DeaconSig said:
Member when creamy was leaving the Tunnels?
Click to expand...

I’m here to fight the good fight long term.

I member a day that every good,
Red blooded, heterosexual American man wasn’t accused of sexual assault for political gain.
 
CreamyGoodness said:
I’m here to fight the good fight long term.

I member a day that every good,
Red blooded, heterosexual American man wasn’t accused of sexual assault for political gain.
Click to expand...

Wow, like all the way back to...our entire history up to the present. Impressive.
 
RJKarl said:
He's lied to EVERY Senate committee.

He called the hearing an "embarrassment". That sounds judicial.

He talked about Clinton and LW conspiracies. That's disqualifying by itself.

He chided the committee saying "what goes around comes around" when he was pushed. Threatening senators is the last thing a Justice of the Supreme Court should EVER do.

He threatened Dems on the committee with The Bible- reaping and sowing. Again, this should be disqualifying in of itself.

But you'll come up with an excuse or change the subject away from Kavanaugh's own words and deeds.
Click to expand...

Just sitting back, looking forward to hearing your rage when this fine US Jurist gets confirmed to the highest Court in the Land and leaves all the haters in his rear view mirror.
 
DeacsPop said:
Just sitting back, looking forward to hearing your rage when this fine US Jurist gets confirmed to the highest Court in the Land and leaves all the haters in his rear view mirror.
Click to expand...

Yep, he's a fine jurist who wants to limit women's rights, has written that some indigenous Americans aren't really Americans and aren't covered by the Constitution; a fine jurist looking forward to "what goes around comes around.

You are completely transparent in neglecting his irrational and illegal behavior.

I can't wait to see your reaction to the Senate expanding the SC to 11 or even 15 in 2021.
 
ConnorEl said:
Yep. Liberal tears are worth any cost.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's abundantly clear that all most right-wingers care about is pissing off liberals. Kavanaugh's qualifications don't really matter, all they know is that he pisses off LibDems and gives them a chance to taunt and trash-talk on message boards and social media, so it's all good. It's why they're coming out of hiding to post here and elsewhere. For them, this is 2016 all over again. Never mind that their party of "traditional family and moral values" will have the distinction of having appointed two men credibly accused of sexual harassment and/or assault to the Supreme Court. What an accomplishment to be proud of!
 
DeacsPop said:
Nothing there that would disqualify a nominee that I interviewed with a background/career as strong as BK.
Now cite the number of discrepancies that his Accuser has testified to, under oath.
I'll wait...…..
Click to expand...

Trump’s only true skill is the con, his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them.
Click to expand...
 
CreamyGoodness said:
I’m here to fight the good fight long term.

I member a day that every good,
Red blooded, heterosexual American man wasn’t accused of sexual assault for political gain.
Click to expand...

Congrats on the good memory, that was like three weeks ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top