CutTheTVoff said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

"I'm all for it.

You really want an FBI investigation into this circus? How about finding out whose funding this hit job? Dr. Ford's phone records? Bank accounts? Who she met with during the month of August? What Senators knew about this beforehand?

Be careful what you wish for.

---

Let's call Bob Mueller; he will be looking for something to do soon.

I could care less what anyone finds out about Dr. Ford-she isn't a US Senator or SCOTUS nominee.

If a US Senator on either side of the aisle acted u ethically, we should know it.

If Brett Kavanaugh lied, we should know it.

Let the chips fall.

---

You don't care if she's the one lying? Only the others? I find your logic bizarre.

---

Its not bizarre at all. If she lied and if he lied in response, he should not be on the Supreme Court.

If there is a provable case that she intentionally lied in a way that satisfies the statute, prosecute her if you want. The verdict in that case won't change my life one bit; a vote by Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court very well could.

The GOP wants this all to be about her. Judge Kavanaugh is the nominee.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Don't ya'll just love how the Dems on here are so concerned about Kavanaugh's drinking in high school and college while simultaneously unconcerned with someone that actually tried to flee the scene of an accident while proven belligerently drunk.

Yet they will vote for that person next month.

---

You are one of the more persistent big lie tacticians I have ever run across.

Nobody cares if Judge Kavanaugh drank or got drunk in high school or college in a general sense.. I care whether he lied about it; others care if he tended to get abnormally aggressive while drunk.

I assume the GOP doesn't care if Beto drank, but does care that he drove drunk and allegedly tried to flee.

We all should care about both.

BTW, POTUS apparently agrees with me. From DJT his own self today

"I don't think you should lie to Congress and there are a lot of people over the past year who have lied to Congress," he said. "For me, that would not be acceptable."

Booray said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

K"I'm all for it.

You really want an FBI investigation into this circus? How about finding out whose funding this hit job? Dr. Ford's phone records? Bank accounts? Who she met with during the month of August? What Senators knew about this beforehand?

Be careful what you wish for.

---

Let's call Bob Mueller; he will be looking for something to do soon.

I could care less what anyone finds out about Dr. Ford-she isn't a US Senator or SCOTUS nominee.

If a US Senator on either side of the aisle acted u ethically, we should know it.

If Brett Kavanaugh lied, we should know it.

Let the chips fall.

---

You don't care if she's the one lying? Only the others? I find your logic bizarre.

---

Its not bizarre at all. If she lied and if he lied in response, he should not be on the Supreme Court.

If there is a provable case that she intentionally lied in a way that satisfies the statute, prosecute her if you want. The verdict in that case won't change my life one bit; a vote by Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court very well could.

The GOP wants this all to be about her. Judge Kavanaugh is the nominee.

---

Ok I understand. Though what if she's the only one lying?

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Booray said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

K"I'm all for it.

You really want an FBI investigation into this circus? How about finding out whose funding this hit job? Dr. Ford's phone records? Bank accounts? Who she met with during the month of August? What Senators knew about this beforehand?

Be careful what you wish for.

---

Let's call Bob Mueller; he will be looking for something to do soon.

I could care less what anyone finds out about Dr. Ford-she isn't a US Senator or SCOTUS nominee.

If a US Senator on either side of the aisle acted u ethically, we should know it.

If Brett Kavanaugh lied, we should know it.

Let the chips fall.

---

You don't care if she's the one lying? Only the others? I find your logic bizarre.

---

Its not bizarre at all. If she lied and if he lied in response, he should not be on the Supreme Court.

If there is a provable case that she intentionally lied in a way that satisfies the statute, prosecute her if you want. The verdict in that case won't change my life one bit; a vote by Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court very well could.

The GOP wants this all to be about her. Judge Kavanaugh is the nominee.

---

Ok I understand. Though what if she's the only one lying?

---

Confirm him, prosecute her.

BTW, if he should be kept of the bench by false accusations from her, he can always sue her and show the world the evidence.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Don't ya'll just love how the Dems on here are so concerned about Kavanaugh's drinking in high school and college while simultaneously unconcerned with someone that actually tried to flee the scene of an accident while proven belligerently drunk.

Yet they will vote for that person next month.

---

You are one of the more persistent big lie tacticians I have ever run across.

Nobody cares if Judge Kavanaugh drank or got drunk in high school or college in a general sense.. I care whether he lied about it; others care if he tended to get abnormally aggressive while drunk.

I assume the GOP doesn't care if Beto drank, but does care that he drove drunk and allegedly tried to flee.

We all should care about both.

---

You care about whether Kavanaugh lied about it? What is there to suspect he's lying?

You said allegedly O'Rourke tried to flee. NO.
He did try to flee.
He also lied about it.

O'Rourke lied about it in debates with Cruz...

"I did not try to leave the scene of the accident, though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense, and I will not try to provide one," - ROBERT O ROURKE

A witness told police officer Richard Carrera that then-26-year-old O'Rourke was driving a Volvo at roughly 75 mph before losing control and hitting another driver going in the same direction. "The defendant/driver then attempted to leave the scene," Carrera wrote in his report. "The reporter then turned on his overhead lights to warn oncoming traffic and try to get the defendant to stop."

So I fully expect you not to be voting for him since he is both a liar and has a history of driving while intoxicated and fleeing the scene?

Goodness. Well that accusation didn't last long. Now we know why she chose Avenatti to defend her. Sounds like his kind of girl.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Don't ya'll just love how the Dems on here are so concerned about Kavanaugh's drinking in high school and college while simultaneously unconcerned with someone that actually tried to flee the scene of an accident while proven belligerently drunk.

Yet they will vote for that person next month.

---

You are one of the more persistent big lie tacticians I have ever run across.

Nobody cares if Judge Kavanaugh drank or got drunk in high school or college in a general sense.. I care whether he lied about it; others care if he tended to get abnormally aggressive while drunk.

I assume the GOP doesn't care if Beto drank, but does care that he drove drunk and allegedly tried to flee.

We all should care about both.

---

You care about whether Kavanaugh lied about it? What is there to suspect he's lying?

You said allegedly O'Rourke tried to flee. NO.
He did try to flee.
He also lied about it.

O'Rourke lied about it in debates with Cruz...

"I did not try to leave the scene of the accident, though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense, and I will not try to provide one," - ROBERT O ROURKE

A witness told police officer Richard Carrera that then-26-year-old O'Rourke was driving a Volvo at roughly 75 mph before losing control and hitting another driver going in the same direction. "The defendant/driver then attempted to leave the scene," Carrera wrote in his report. "The reporter then turned on his overhead lights to warn oncoming traffic and try to get the defendant to stop."

So I fully expect you not to be voting for him since he is both a liar and has a history of driving while intoxicated and fleeing the scene?

---

What is the name of that witness?

Edit: Also, can you find for me where I said Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed?

It's redacted.

Where did I say that you said Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed?

Jack Bauer said:

---

Whoop - there it is. They know Kavanaugh won't be found guilty of anything. We just need to "raise questions" until November 7th.

---

Here's a helpful hint. Whenever you see a quotation being cited against the person who said it, and you see that the quotation has multiple ellipses that indicate something has been left out, go find the full quotation before you render a judgment.

bubbadog said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Whoop - there it is. They know Kavanaugh won't be found guilty of anything. We just need to "raise questions" until November 7th.

---

Here's a helpful hint. Whenever you see a quotation being cited against the person who said it, and you see that the quotation has multiple ellipses that indicate something has been left out, go find the full quotation before you render a judgment.

---

Here's a helpful hint.

Whenever you see a video (entire speech) attached to the quotation being cited, that indicates that the viewer is welcome to hear the entire thing and that twitter has a character limit in which the tweeter is trying to report the highlights of the speech...not mischaracterize what they're saying.

Doc Holliday said:

---

It's redacted.

---

So you are willing to flyspeck the story of a woman who testified under oath and in the harshest media glare, but will accept an anonymous report at face value. Depending on whose ox is being gored.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

It's redacted.

---

So you are willing to flyspeck the story of a woman who testified under oath and in the harshest media glare, but will accept an anonymous report at face value. Depending on whose ox is being gored.

---

Well it's very different with ORourke.

There were 2 reports against him that claimed he fled the scene.

A separate document, the incident and crime report, includes the same claim. It reads: "The driver attempted to leave the accident but was stopped by the reporter."

It's important to note that there are inconsistencies in the police documents. One version claims O'Rourke's Volvo was green, while another claims it was black...easy mix up at night. But the allegation that he tried to flee the scene of the crash is consistent throughout.

If contemporaneous accounts are to be taken seriously and they ought to be then these reports point to one simple conclusion: O'Rourke lied. He tried to flee the scene of the crime, and he's lying about it now.

With Kavanaugh, NONE of the witnesses can corroborate her claims.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

It's redacted.

---

So you are willing to flyspeck the story of a woman who testified under oath and in the harshest media glare, but will accept an anonymous report at face value. Depending on whose ox is being gored.

---

Well it's very different with ORourke.

There were 2 reports against him that claimed he fled the scene.

A separate document, the incident and crime report, includes the same claim. It reads: "The driver attempted to leave the accident but was stopped by the reporter."

It's important to note that there are inconsistencies in the police documents. One version claims O'Rourke's Volvo was green, while another claims it was black...easy mix up at night. But the allegation that he tried to flee the scene of the crash is consistent throughout.

If contemporaneous accounts are to be taken seriously and they ought to be then these reports point to one simple conclusion: O'Rourke lied. He tried to flee the scene of the crime, and he's lying about it now.

With Kavanaugh, NONE of the witnesses can corroborate her claims.

---

If you think that eye-witness accounts as recounted in police reports are automatically true, you have not been to many criminal trials.

What does flee mean? Was he running away? Walking toward a phone to report the accident? Trying to get out of harm's way in the traffic?

What we do know is that he did not flee. He was there when the officer arrived. I guess you say that is becuase someone flashed his lights at him? That does not seem like a slam dunk case.

I am all for investigating Beto just like we are investigating Judge Kavanaugh. But your treatment of the two is over the top partisan. Stunning, I know.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

Even Kagan or Sotomeyor?

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

I'm sure you expect accusers to be truthful as well.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

Even Kagan or Sotomeyor?

---

Yes.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

Even Kagan or Sotomeyor?

---

Yes.

---

Sorry, but I don't find you credible on that claim.

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

I'm sure you expect accusers to be truthful as well.

---

I do, but again-the accuser is not going to be appointed. So this or her veracity is less important, unless you are going to vote against the nominee on the basis of the accusation.

I said on the big thread from Thursday's testimony, that I would not vote against Kavanaugh based on that testimony. Nothing has changed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

Even Kagan or Sotomeyor?

---

Yes.

---

Sorry, but I don't find you credible on that claim.

---

Why not. What false testimony did either of them give? I honestly can't remember any dispute.

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

I'm sure you expect accusers to be truthful as well.

---

I do, but again-the accuser is not going to be appointed. So this or her veracity is less important, unless you are going to vote against the nominee on the basis of the accusation.

---

Yeah, but I think that's the point. The actual truth won't matter to many of the senators, but in the court of public opinion, whether or not people believe Ford is telling the truth is the decisive factor in whether they believe he should be confirmed or rejected. So I would expect and demand truthfulness from the accusers, because so much is riding on it.

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

I'm sure you expect accusers to be truthful as well.

---

I do, but again-the accuser is not going to be appointed. So this or her veracity is less important, unless you are going to vote against the nominee on the basis of the accusation.

I said on the big thread from Thursday's testimony, that I would not vote against Kavanaugh based on that testimony. Nothing has changed.

---

Apparently the future of the nominee depends on the credibility of a single accuser.

I waited to hear corroborating evidence. Still waiting

---

Not in my mind. If there is corroborating evidence, that hurts him obviously. But I have a hard time seeing how we could ever know what happened in the Summer of 82, if anything. In the absence of something unexpected, I say that Dr. Ford's accusation is not disqualifying.

But if he lied about matters collateral, it is disqualifying. Just like Jeff Flake said on 60 minutes and Donald trump said on the south lawn.

The GOP now wants this to be about whether she can be corroborated and stick your head into the sand on all other issues. I am not going to bite.

bubbadog said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

I'm sure you expect accusers to be truthful as well.

---

I do, but again-the accuser is not going to be appointed. So this or her veracity is less important, unless you are going to vote against the nominee on the basis of the accusation.

---

Yeah, but I think that's the point. The actual truth won't matter to many of the senators, but in the court of public opinion, whether or not people believe Ford is telling the truth is the decisive factor in whether they believe he should be confirmed or rejected. So I would expect and demand truthfulness from the accusers, because so much is riding on it.

---

I am a dissenter to the Court of Public Opinion.

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

I'm sure you expect accusers to be truthful as well.

---

I do, but again-the accuser is not going to be appointed. So this or her veracity is less important, unless you are going to vote against the nominee on the basis of the accusation.

I said on the big thread from Thursday's testimony, that I would not vote against Kavanaugh based on that testimony. Nothing has changed.

---

Apparently the future of the nominee depends on the credibility of a single accuser.

I waited to hear corroborating evidence. Still waiting

---

It shouldn't depend on just that. But there are also other accusers to hear from, as well as others who could shed some light on the accusations and the credibility of the accusers and of Ford.

I don't put much stock yet in the story of the accuser who went to Avenatti. But Debbie Ramirez's Yale classmates were talking about what happened to her online right after Kavanaugh was nominated and before she (reluctantly) forward. I'd like to hear more of what she has to say. And that wouldn't have happened had outside pressure forced Grassley to slow down.

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

I'm sure you expect accusers to be truthful as well.

---

I do, but again-the accuser is not going to be appointed. So this or her veracity is less important, unless you are going to vote against the nominee on the basis of the accusation.

I said on the big thread from Thursday's testimony, that I would not vote against Kavanaugh based on that testimony. Nothing has changed.

---

"the accuser is not going to be appointed"

You are conflating the qualification hearings, which determined Kavanaugh is well qualified, with a late accusation which was given a hearing. The burden of proof therefore rests squarely on the accuser to provide evidence and witnesses which corroborate the claim.

At this date, the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh are unsupported by corroboration.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goal posts moved, I notice

---

Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.

---

Even Kagan or Sotomeyor?

---

Yes.

---

Sorry, but I don't find you credible on that claim.

---

Why not. What false testimony did either of them give? I honestly can't remember any dispute.

---

No corroboration. A necessary and vital point.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

The ridiculous accusations, hair splitting, and flat out lies getting reported as fact or even semi important is ludicrous.

Which of you has the perfect life that could stand up to this microscope search and destroy type of national hysteria ?

---

It's all right. Kavanaugh will still get confirmed anyway, and a couple of absolutely fantastic consequences are going to grow out of this disgusting debacle:

One, as Justice Kennedy's replacement, he was likely going to be a rather moderate Justice, but now after these unhinged, repulsive attacks on him and his family by the Democrats, I'd wager he's going to spend the next 30 years on the bench making the libtards pay dearly.

And two, normal Americans are overwhelmingly disgusted by what they've seen from the Democrats through all this, and here in about 4 weeks they're going to make their displeasure known by punishing them harshly at the polls.

And I can't wait. So thanks, morons!

---

Those blue stars you got there? One of them is from me. And I have been sharpening my vote all week.