Jump to content

President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

There's no evidence. 

 

It's unfair to him to demand he speak on an issue that could be 100% fabricated. It's all conjecture and it was purposefully mishandled by the dems. 

 

This is over. There's no reason to believe her. 

 

The Rs can't say Ford is credible enough to call before the Senate  and give her testimony about a sexual assault (which they did when they allowed this)...and then refuse to question the eyewitness

 

The Rs gave in and allowed this to happen. I don't see how they can proceed without doing some follow-up. Mitchell didn't produce DR's Twitter buddy's Gorsuch letter that he thinks is 50-50 true, and without a torpedo of that magnitude, they need to follow-up on what they heard. 

 

 

Edited by BeginnersMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Not raped. 

 

She will have been, just give it a few more hours.

5 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

The Rs can't say Ford is credible enough to call before the Senate  and give her testimony about a sexual assault (which they did when they allowed this)...and then refuse to question the eyewitness.

 

Would that be the eyewitness that has already said, in a statement sworn under oath, that he never witnessed such a thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BeginnersMind said:

 

The Rs can't say Ford is credible enough to call before the Senate  and give her testimony about a sexual assault (which they did when they allowed this)...and then refuse to question the eyewitness.

 

 

 

Yes they can. They can because she has produced no evidence and the eyewitnesses that she maintains were there categorically deny it. All of them. 

This hearing is to determine the validity of her claims. It didn't happen. It's over. 

 

The problem is that it wont be over, we all know that. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Not raped. 

 

https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/206641-president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-nominee/?do=findComment&comment=5348127

2 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

The Rs can't say Ford is credible enough to call before the Senate  and give her testimony about a sexual assault (which they did when they allowed this)...and then refuse to question the eyewitness.

 

 

 

Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

I refuse to refer to her as a rape victim because it cheapens rape victims everywhere. 

She is at most, someone who was sexually assaulted and who had an attempted rape happen to her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think Dr. Ford is exceptionally credible." - Judge Andrew Napolitano

 

"A lot of folks" are "viewing her as a very credible witness."  -Fox anchor Shannon Bream 

 

"This is a disaster for the Republicans." - Chris Wallace

 

Can these quotes be true or is this more FakeNews?

 

PPP is more hardcore than FoxNews. Nice!

Edited by BeginnersMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

"I think Dr. Ford is exceptionally credible." - Judge Andrew Napolitano

 

"A lot of folks" are "viewing her as a very credible witness."  -Fox anchor Shannon Bream 

 

"This is a disaster for the Republicans." - Chris Wallace

 

Can these quotes be true or is this more FakeNews?

 

PPP is more hardcore than FoxNews. Nice!

 

Credibility isn't worth jack. She was believable as a witness to her account of an incident that has no corroboration or definitive evidence that it even happened. 

 

I can give you a credible account of the time I was elected president, but unless i prove evidence of it it isn't worth anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/27/ford-kavanaugh-white-house-reaction-849231

Quote


White House officials were glued to their television screens throughout the building on Wednesday, watching the emotional testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee — and cringing over the decision by Senate Republicans to hire a female prosecutor to question her.

“That’s a disaster,” said one administration official. The official argued that Republican lawmakers had made a mistake by caving to the pressures of identity politics and hiring a woman to quiz Ford so as to avoid having an all-white male lineup of GOP Senators do the questioning. Trump allies also recognized the bad optics of a prosecutor seeming to interrogate a victim widely seen as sympathetic in a nationally-televised Senate hearing.

 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Credibility isn't worth jack. She was believable as a witness to her account of an incident that has no corroboration or definitive evidence that it even happened.  

 

Ford sounded confused too much of the time.  Over really simple things.  Does she have a lot of cats?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

But it was veteran news host Chris Wallace who dropped the hammer the hardest.

“This was extremely emotional, extremely raw and extremely credible," he said. "Nobody could listen to her deliver those words and talk about the assault and the impact it had on her life and not have your heart go out to her.”

“This is a disaster for Republicans,” Wallace said, referring to the format and sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell’s questioning. He later added, “The Democrats are landing haymakers.”

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/27/trump-kavanaugh-ford-hearing-fox-news-847899

Just now, PearlHowardman said:

 

Ford sounded confused too much of the time.  Over really simple things.  Does she have a lot of cats?

Image result for cats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Mitchell did a very good job of what she was tasked to do. she raised the spectre of doubt for many of her claims.

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

baloney. about the only thing the Democrats did was to grandstand.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford came off as credible even though there were quite a few inconsistencies and very little if any corroborating evidence to support her case.  But that most likely wont matter.  Flake, Murkowski and Collins will  very likely not vote for Kavanaugh unless he can put in a stellar performance, in which to be honest with you, I dont think he has it in him like Clarence Thomas.

 

That's unfortunate, because it appears performances are more important than actual evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Doesn't know if she took a polygraph on the day of her grandmother's funeral, or not.

 

Doesn't know if she paid for the polygraph.

In the grand scheme of things, these two events are uncommon occurrences for anyone in terms of frequency. One would think that if both happened on the same day it would be rather easy to recollect. 

Edited by RaoulDuke79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Magox said:

Flake, Murkowski and Collins will  very likely not vote for Kavanaugh unless he can put in a stellar performance, in which to be honest with you, I dont think he has it in him like Clarence Thomas.

 

I don't see that at all.  Ford provided nothing for any Republican to vote against Kavanaugh.  When Ford has "quite a few inconsistencies and very little if any corroborating evidence to support her case"  Kavanaugh should easily be confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Magox said:

Ford came off as credible even though there were quite a few inconsistencies and very little if any corroborating evidence to support her case.  But that most likely wont matter.  Flake, Murkowski and Collins will  very likely not vote for Kavanaugh unless he can put in a stellar performance, in which to be honest with you, I dont think he has it in him like Clarence Thomas.

 

That's unfortunate, because it appears performances are more important than actual evidence.

Not knowing who drove her home among other things like where or when begs to ask how intoxicated Mrs Ford was at the time of the alleged sexual misconduct IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said:

 

Agreed.  She raised enough doubt for any Republican to vote against Kavanaugh.  And that's what/all that matters.

 

1 minute ago, PearlHowardman said:

 

I don't see that at all.  Ford provided nothing for any Republican to vote against Kavanaugh.  When Ford has "quite a few inconsistencies and very little if any corroborating evidence to support her case"  Kavanaugh should easily be confirmed.

are these two post are direct odds with one another?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PearlHowardman said:

 

I don't see that at all.  Ford provided nothing for any Republican to vote against Kavanaugh.  When Ford has "quite a few inconsistencies and very little if any corroborating evidence to support her case"  Kavanaugh should easily be confirmed.

I'm not arguing the merits rather how I believe they'll vote.  I think they will tell McConnell that they just can't vote for him at this time.  And he will have to shelve the vote in which Trump will pull the nomination. 

 

Unless Kavanaugh can put in the performance of his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the Dems going to outsource their questioning or will they own it? 

 

And will the Rs question Kavanaugh or let Mitchell do it? (I keep asking this: I honestly don't know but it will look bad if they wouldn't talk to Ford but will talk to Kavanaugh.)

 

8 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said:

 

Mitchell raised enough doubt about Ford's claim that it would make it impossible for any Republican to vote against Kavanaugh.

 

Unless they want more information. 

Edited by BeginnersMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Magox said:

I'm not arguing the merits rather how I believe they'll vote.  I think they will tell McConnell that they just can't vote for him at this time.  And he will have to shelve the vote in which Trump will pull the nomination. 

 

Unless Kavanaugh can put in the performance of his life.

 

I fear this is accurate. It's pretty clear that there is literally NO corroboration. All her details are questionable. The Dems used her like a pawn. They got the show they wanted, because all Ford had to do was sound like someone you would sympathize with...and she apparently did that.

 

The facts won't matter here. The perception will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Magox said:

I think they will tell McConnell that they just can't vote for him at this time.  And he will have to shelve the vote in which Trump will pull the nomination.

 

Mitch McConnell is shrewd.  He'll just tell Flake, Murkowski, and Collins that they'll have to publicly state why they oppose Kavanaugh.  And it won't go over with the voting public.  

 

Your words:  "...quite a few inconsistencies and very little if any corroborating evidence to support her case..."  You are 100% correct.

 

No way any Republican can vote against Kavanaugh.  Not after today.  The upcoming testimony of Kavanaugh is irrelevant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You should try renting your insecurity before owning your bias. 

 

 

It has nothing to do with insecurity. I'm very comfortable with my own abilities and limitations.

 

I personally admire and respect those who overcome adversity and bust their a*s to achieve greatness. I'm not a fan of those born on third base who score on a passed ball and act like they hit a home run.

 

Not quite sure why that's controversial or noteworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

What a clueless !@#$......nonsense like this only helps the right.

 

But that's the position of the left in America. They have no need or respect for the military in any capacity. It's how they're able to so easily lie about what caused the deaths in Benghazi just as they are happy to say Peter Strzok should get a purple heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...