Kreepy Kavanaugh

[Que]

A whole slew of women can come forward and you wouldn’t care. Got it.

Now?

No.

Suck it.

There is a reason that the police seek help from the public on sensational cases. It brings a lot of attention-seekers out of the woodwork. Not a chance that "victims" all sat through weeks of him in the news and suddenly now when they can tilt the court and be heros of concern-,trolls such as yourself be credible.

You cannot even bring yourself to unequivocally condemn the Rapist in Chief and his Pantsuit-Clad Enabler post their buddy Weinstein (or Epstein for that matter) getting caught.

Show your crocodile tears to someone who might buy them.

 

[Rightguide]

A whole slew of women can come forward and you wouldn’t care. Got it.

As predicted, another woman is miraculously coming forward. Ford needs help.

 

[Oblimo]

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1044015961362305024?s=21

Oh my fucking God.

 

[Aglaopheme]

As predicted, another woman is miraculously coming forward. Ford needs help.

You’re a little slow on the uptake, kitten.

 

[Oblimo]

Now?

No.

Suck it.

Wow. Telling her to suck your dick, in this context.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Oh my fucking God.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/61670bde81416281d4ab1dcc23353efa/tenor.gif?itemid=4888417

 

[Oblimo]

Law and Order is probably where you got you legal education.

Boston University School of Law, Cum Laude.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You're garbage of Durbin and Leahy claiming he lied under oath has been refuted.

We'll see about that.

As an aside, you relying on WaPo for your "truth" is pretty fucking funny.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Wow. Telling her to suck your dick, in this context.

Class act, that one.

 

[Que]

Oh my fucking God.

Her unilateral request that he withhold pertinent information from the Public on something as important as this given that the accused has the absolute right to confront his accuser according to our system of jurisprudence. You know, that stuff they thought you and your fake Law School?

What part of a request in a letter is binding on the recipient of that letter did they teach you in your fake Law School?

That letter is certainly Jermaine to the committee and to the public since that's the entire reason they were holding up a nomination. No other reason. And she is not deign to come and give actual testimony. It's all we have. It needed to be released.

If she had bothered to testify it would still need to be released so that we can compare and contrast prior statements that are available.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

As predicted, another woman is miraculously coming forward. Ford needs help.

Others, like myself, interpret it as Kavanaugh being the one that needs help, both legal and psychological.

 

[KeithD]

You're garbage of Durbin and Leahy claiming he lied under oath has been refuted.

I think the word you meant to use is "rebuffed," not "refuted." "Refuted" means that those putting forward the charge/evidence/proof accept they are wrong. That's not true in this case. They are right and it's documented from what little background material on the email exchanges that was provided on Kavanaugh--in the 7 percent of the files on him that were released. God knows how indictable the information is in the 93 percent the Republicans won't release.

But the point is that you are full of gas--haven't even cited the falsely identified "refuting." And you obviously are a scared little rabbit on this point.

I'm happy to watch what happens. Thus far the Republicans have been wounding themselves left and right and are being jerked around by the nose by a woman from California. Must make you livid. Obviously has you hopping up and down on the basis of your rabid posting about this.

 

[Que]

Boston University School of Law, Cum Laude.

. . .and you practiced criminal law, when?

Never?

Thought so.

 

[Que]

I think the word you meant to use is "rebuffed," not "refuted." "Refuted" means that those putting forward the charge/evidence/proof accept they are wrong. That's not true in this case. They are right and it's documented from what little background material on the email exchanges that was provided on Kavanaugh--in the 7 percent of the files on him that were released. God knows how indictable the information is in the 93 percent the Republicans won't release.

But the point is that you are full of gas--haven't even cited the falsely identified "refuting." And you obviously are a scared little rabbit on this point.

I'm happy to watch what happens. Thus far the Republicans have been wounding themselves left and right and are being jerked around by the nose by a woman from California. Must make you livid. Obviously has you hopping up and down on the basis of your rabid posting about this.

You are hysterical.

When something's refuted it is not contingent upon some delusional person not accepting the obvious refutation.

Refutation is not contingent upon building consensus. It's not a committee decision. Either a narrative is refuted by facts presented, or it's not.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Yeah, it's "unremarkable" to hold a woman down against her will, attempt to take her clothes off, and clamp your hand over her mouth when she SCREAMS in obvious resistance.

That's why he put his hand over her mouth: because she was screaming = if you think that's mere "horseplay," you're a fucking asshole

So let's see--because he didn't actually rape her or smother her to death inadvertently or not, it's no big deal.

It's not like she felt terror for no reason from across the room. He was holding her down against her will, trying to remove her clothes, grinding on her, and clamping his hand over her mouth.

I can only hope the dim-witted GOP Senators say the same thing in public.

The story as she tells it would have been unremarkable to her so-called assailant whoever he was. It is not something that that person would have even been aware since her terror was happening inside her head. I'm not minimizing that to be the case but that is what happened. She was worried about what was about to happen not what did actually happen. More likely than not whoever it was would have considered it mere horseplay.

.

 

[IG_88]

Boston University School of Law, Cum Laude.

Well sure if there's nobody in the house and I'm really into it but mostly I keep my voice down. Never done it in Boston but I imagine the same rules would apply.

 

[Que]

Yeah, it's "unremarkable" to hold a woman down against her will, attempt to take her clothes off, and clamp your hand over her mouth when she SCREAMS in obvious resistance.

That's why he put his hand over her mouth: because she was screaming = if you think that's mere "horseplay," you're a fucking asshole

So let's see--because he didn't actually rape her or smother her to death inadvertently or not, it's no big deal.

It's not like she felt terror for no reason from across the room. He was holding her down against her will, trying to remove her clothes, grinding on her, and clamping his hand over her mouth.

I can only hope the dim-witted GOP Senators say the same thing in public.

You have no idea what happened thirty-six years ago, nor how her memory of those events has been shaped in three-and-a-half decades. You don't have any idea what she will remember in sworn testimony under direct examination when and if she testifies.

No one, including her, can reconstruct the events of that unspecified night with any degree of accuracy. Human minds are not video recorders.

I have no doubt she is being coached and rehearsed and that too will show. Those that want to believe the worst will still do so since you do now without any actual testimony. Those with doubts will see through the coaching. Unrehearsed testimony sounds unrehearsed which is why good lawyers use a light touch. She would have been much more effective if she had promptly appeared.

At this point. Its over except for the inevitable howls of protest.

 

[Luk]

"Page not found"

Ohhhh, snap!

Victory dance!!

I wonder if Rob is going to show up to give you a reach-around again like he did when you were so gleeful that I had a broken link which I fixed in less time than it takes to show the edit.

#Lukfail
#passiveagressivemisogynist
#cannotanswerforhismisogyny

I acknowledge you, Q-####.

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1044015961362305024?s=21

Thanks for that

 

[Oblimo]

)

Perjury was the LEAST of the included charges.

Do you mean the in the articles of impeachment? Wasn’t that just perjury and obstruction of justice? Or do you mean included in the Starr report? I haven’t read that in a long, long time, and confess to skimming it. So, I’m not sure what you mean by “included charges.”

Available charges not included run all the way up to multiple charges of various levels of sexual assault up to and including actual rape.

First you say “included charges,” and then you say “available charges not included.”

I'm pretty sure that most people would think that actual rape by an adult is more serious than juvenile groping.

If you look at the letter that Grassley released, you’ll see a cluster of the requirements of attempted first degree rape line up quite cleanly.

You make my point.

Which is?

Pretending you have NO IDEA about quite credible, corroborated ( they did teach you where corroborated means in law school didn't you or do I have to explain that as well) of an entire pattern of sexual misconduct while you extrapolate conduct not even alleged by Ford into something it was clearly not.

Are you talking about the totally inappopriate affair Clinton had with Lewinsky and all the reprehensible things he got up to with her? As detailed in the Starr report?

How the hell is that relevant?

You embarrass yourself.

You sure about that?

 

[phrodeau]

Hmmm... Brett Kavanaugh, terrorist.

 

[KeithD]

You are hysterical.

Ah, going here shows you have lost. Cite any evidence in my posts that I am being hysterical. I am being coldly analytical and have agreed with some points on both sides of the issue--especially on this sexual abuse issue that I hadn't seen enough supporting evidence on yet--and repeatedly said so. That's exactly what has you unhinged. You have to put the "other side" on hysterical and I just won't go there for you. You really must look at Rightguard and BB on this thread (and yourself from time to time) to see what hysterical looks like.

And:

Definition #1 of "refute" in Webster's dictionary is "to prove wrong by argument or evidence." Proving wrong requires acknowledgement by both sides. You really should take comfort in this definition--one quite carefully used in government and international affairs--or a lot of your cockamamy arguments would be leveled with the "refuted" word left and right.

Oh, and did someone up the line say another woman has come forward on Kavanaugh now? Just what the Ford lawyers and Dems on the committee where holding out for, right? You must be crushed--or refuted or something.

 

[Oblimo]

Well sure if there's nobody in the house and I'm really into it but mostly I keep my voice down. Never done it in Boston but I imagine the same rules would apply.

A roight cunning linguist you are, ain’tcha?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

That's bullshit. No man should suffer a career ending event on the simple accusation of a conflicted woman with a personal and political ax to grind against him without any evidence produced.

What part of "Unfortunately, he's on record as lying in testimony in his last court confirmation hearing" did you miss?

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

The Associated Press
@AP
·
33m
The Latest: The New Yorker magazine reports that Senate Democrats are investigating a second woman's accusation of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, this one from his college years



The Latest: 2nd woman claims sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh
apnews.com



8:38 PM · Sep 23, 2018


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...rett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez


Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Avenatti says Ramirez is not his client. Does that mean a third woman has come forward?

Someone may want to pass Kavanaugh the pudding pops.