• 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!

Report: Kavanaugh won’t commit to recusal from Trump/Mueller related matters

Some have made a great point that they should subpoena Judge and Ford (and you can throw in the therapist if you like) to require them to testify so this has some closure. Honestly would be smart by Pubs to insure there really isn't something that needs to be followed up on which could be used later if other evidence did come to light. Then after each of those testify our wonderful Reps can determine whether to investigate further (or in reality for Pubs give Kavanaugh the boot and move onto the next candidate).
 
relevant:
42136577_10214483387853410_7091796088725700608_n.jpg
 
"In a series of tweets earlier Thursday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee noted they had obtained statements, under penalty of perjury, from three people at the house party where the alleged assault occured, including Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge, and another individual.
Her attorneys say there needs to be an investigation, which is exactly what the committee has been doing all week. And we would love to hear from Dr. Ford. Democratic staff is invited to participate fully every step of the way.
— Senate Judiciary (@senjudiciary) September 20, 2018
Committee members also noted that they had reached out to a "fourth person allegedly at the party," as well as "a schoolmate who claimed on social media this week to have info related to Dr. Ford’s allegations" -- but had not heard back.
That was an apparent reference to a widely circulated online account by Cristina Miranda King, who claimed that she heard about the alleged assault at the time. King deleted her online post after questions emerged about apparent inconsistencies. "

Interesting to note that they at least went to the steps to get statements from the various parties with the understanding that penalty of perjury was at risk.
 
Colonel Angus said:
A New York Times fact check??? :bowrofl:

Where was the fact check when the self-proclaimed "newspaper of record" incorrectly reported Kavanaugh's high school friend (Mark Judge) was witness to and recalled the alleged incident?
Click to expand...

Link?
 
saltydeac said:
"In a series of tweets earlier Thursday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee noted they had obtained statements, under penalty of perjury, from three people at the house party where the alleged assault occured, including Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge, and another individual.
Her attorneys say there needs to be an investigation, which is exactly what the committee has been doing all week. And we would love to hear from Dr. Ford. Democratic staff is invited to participate fully every step of the way.
— Senate Judiciary (@senjudiciary) September 20, 2018
Committee members also noted that they had reached out to a "fourth person allegedly at the party," as well as "a schoolmate who claimed on social media this week to have info related to Dr. Ford’s allegations" -- but had not heard back.
That was an apparent reference to a widely circulated online account by Cristina Miranda King, who claimed that she heard about the alleged assault at the time. King deleted her online post after questions emerged about apparent inconsistencies. "

Interesting to note that they at least went to the steps to get statements from the various parties with the understanding that penalty of perjury was at risk.
Click to expand...

Why not let impartial law enforcement take the statements? fucking bizarre
 
WakeandBake said:
Why not let impartial law enforcement take the statements? fucking bizarre
Click to expand...

But law enforcement is racist according to many members of the Tunnels Left. And the "new Jim Crow" according to Beto O'Rourke.

Wait... does this lefty talking point not apply in this case???
 
WakeandBake said:
So they issued a correction you fuckstick
Click to expand...

LOL at this correction by the NYT.

It holds the same amount of credibility as when RJKarl claimed he meant no harm when he referred to Justice Thomas as Uncle Thomas.

It was just a simple oversight. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.
 
Colonel Angus said:
LOL at this correction by the NYT.

It holds the same amount of credibility as when RJKarl claimed he meant no harm when he referred to Justice Thomas as Uncle Thomas.

It was just a simple oversight.
Click to expand...

If it was malicious they wouldn't have corrected it, dumbass.
 
Colonel Angus said:
But law enforcement is racist according to many members of the Tunnels Left. And the "new Jim Crow" according to Beto O'Rourke.

Wait... does this lefty talking point not apply in this case???
Click to expand...

Neither Kavanaugh or Ford are black.
 
Colonel Angus said:
LOL at this correction by the NYT.

It holds the same amount of credibility as when RJKarl claimed he meant no harm when he referred to Justice Thomas as Uncle Thomas.

It was just a simple oversight. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.
Click to expand...

Its the fact check you wanted, dinglefritz.
 
Colonel Angus said:
LOL at this correction by the NYT.

It holds the same amount of credibility as when RJKarl claimed he meant no harm when he referred to Justice Thomas as Uncle Thomas.

It was just a simple oversight. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.
Click to expand...

You asked where the fact check was and then provided the link for the fact check. You are coming off as a bit of an idiot here.
 
Here's a novel concept... Why not correct it for accuracy before releasing the story? Do they not proofread at the NYT?

I can understand a USF sociology student making that mistake on his term paper for Ph's class. But the NYT?

I thought we were all about higher standards around these parts??? Obviously not when it's left leaning propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top