New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Meadmaker said:
That's not really convincing.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, he need to lie about so many things during the hearing shows that he is not credible. He may or may not be guilty of trying to rape Ford. There probably isn't enough evidence to make a good determination about the attempted rape. He is guilty of telling lies to Congress under oath about many topics.
 
It is almost worth reading The Big Dog’s posts to see him pretend not to understand high school jocks wearing their gear to impress chicks or guys from a prep school going out in remnants of their uniform. This takes method, to stay in character like this post after post for hours on end. I almost admire it.
 
carlitos said:
It is almost worth reading The Big Dog’s posts to see him pretend not to understand high school jocks wearing their gear to impress chicks or guys from a prep school going out in remnants of their uniform. This takes method, to stay in character like this post after post for hours on end. I almost admire it.
Click to expand...

I admire that you supply an excuse for a complete and total phony who walked back every single claim that she made up without even addressing what she actually said or even coming near it.

Literally no one believed her, but there you are covering up for a total and complete fraud.

I don’t admire it at all.
 
BobTheCoward said:
All the stuff about drinking activity and terminology that would be lying under oath.
Click to expand...


The Senators can't make up their mind about the testimony? Isn't that why it was given? I thought we were supposed to investigate something, not have them review terms used during the testimony.

Be more specific on "All the stuff about drinking activity"

What questions would you like answered about drinking activity.
 
thaiboxerken said:
All of them, for real this time.
Click to expand...

Mueller 2.0? No restrictions or boundaries, a free check to investigate as long and as deep as democrats insist? Or limited in scope? Longer than a month? Be specific.
 
Last edited:
me thinks what they really mean is... long enough to delay until after the election in hopes they can get a majority.
 
smartcooky said:
You can try to slice this twelve different ways from Sunday, but the answer is always the same and very, very simple...

DON'T TELL LIES UNDER OATH!!
Click to expand...

River said:
The Senators can't make up their mind about the testimony? Isn't that why it was given? I thought we were supposed to investigate something, not have them review terms used during the testimony.

Be more specific on "All the stuff about drinking activity"

What questions would you like answered about drinking activity.
Click to expand...

Interviewing the several classmates and roommates who have contradicted Kav’s characterization of his drinking during HS and college.
 
Paul2 said:
Interviewing the several classmates and roommates who have contradicted Kav’s characterization of his drinking during HS and college.
Click to expand...

Alright, so lets say that do exactly that and come back and say yup, these people said Kavanaugh drank, heavily and was a dick when he was drunk.

Is it more he said she said? Or does it mean more because; the FBI asked the people instead of the same exact penalty of lying by submitting a sworn statement to the judiciary committee?
 
LSSBB said:
I'm picturing Alex Keaton...
Click to expand...


I'm picturing Michael Keaton

Keaton.jpg
 
River said:
Mueller 2.0? No restrictions or boundaries, a free check to investigate as long and as deep as democrats insist? Or limited in scope? Longer than a month? Be specific.
Click to expand...

1 month and as deep as necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom