Kavanaugh Confirmation

[Obsessed]

I've heard that the FBI investigation will be done tonight or early tomorrow.

Yep

 

[volfanjustin]

I've heard that the FBI investigation will be done tonight or early tomorrow.

I sure the hell hope so, out an end to this circus put on my the far left. Of course they will reject it when it doesn't find anything

 

[Boston Vol]

No one listed is a witness to any of the alleged instances. This is a joke. Natural that you'd post it.

If I’m not mistaken, didn’t Ramirez originally tell the New Yorker that she couldn’t be for sure if it was Kavanaugh that flashed her?

 

[Obsessed]

After a careful review of all of the evidence put fourth by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in her accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has released a report which completely exonerates the judge.

Sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, a non-partisan third-party with more than 25 years’ experience prosecuting sex crimes in the state of Arizona, carefully reviewed the allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, including hours of testimony, and has released a report on the matter. In the report, Mitchell points out more than a dozen glaring inconsistencies in Dr. Ford’s account and paints the accusations as potentially fraudulent.

Mitchell’s points out several points, including:​

In perhaps her most damning finding, Rachel Mitchell writes that “The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorney’s likely affected her account”. Mitchell ostensibly alleges that the maneuvering of congressional Democrats, and the actions of her attorneys, who acted more like handlers, influenced her account of events, and perhaps even her truthfulness. This may have come out as Mitchell’s lines of questioning were repeatedly interrupted by her attorneys, namely Michael Bromwich, who also represents Andrew McCabe.​

 

[Grand Vol]

If I’m not mistaken, didn’t Ramirez originally tell the New Yorker that she couldn’t be for sure if it was Kavanaugh that flashed her?

If memory serves, she woke up out of a drunken stupor and remembered someone distinctly using his first and last name.

 

[Obsessed]

Let’s call this one a wrap boys...

 

[volfanjustin]

If I’m not mistaken, didn’t Ramirez originally tell the New Yorker that she couldn’t be for sure if it was Kavanaugh that flashed her?

I believe so, but after talking with her lawyers for 6 days she came to realize it was him

 

[volinbham]

If I’m not mistaken, didn’t Ramirez originally tell the New Yorker that she couldn’t be for sure if it was Kavanaugh that flashed her?

Yes - she called several friends to see if they could help with her memory. She spent six days with her lawyer doing something before she got to a point where she could "remember" it was him. People she said would confirm it were contacted by NYTs and none of them confirmed it. The NYTs contact "dozens" of people who should have known about it and an none did. As a result they refused to run the story.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, he's trying to deflect from the real situation. Deep down he knows how screwed up his party is and to deal with it he's trying to move the goalpost.

That's a given. Moreso. He has been exposed for what he personally is and it cut so deeply that his only recourse is to make everyone else as guilty as he has now been exposed to be.

His problem is that he lost as soon as he accepted Gods will and word as the objective source and standard for the discussion.

In Christian morality and ethics, the ends never justify the means, but motives can condemn otherwise neutral or good actions. OlIn other words, he is trying to get Christianity to call inhetentently immoral actions good, depending on their result.

It will never happen.

Christian ethics don't work from that direction.

But otherwise neutural things, liked looking at a woman or breaking someone's window, can become immoral depending on motive.

He doesn't appear to be nimble enough to recognize the difference, so he thinks he has a gotcha.

But again... He doesn't care about discussing for truth. He cares about justifying himself by making everyone as guilty as he is. So you get intellectual dishonesty on display as we have it here.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Let’s call this one a wrap boys...

Luth and evil say “hold my water pail”

 

[NorthDallas40]

I've heard that the FBI investigation will be done tonight or early tomorrow.

I’ll bet they do a closed door debrief with Flake, Collins, and Murkowski and ask “ok we’ve got 2/3/4 days left what else you want to see” first. Sadly they hold the cards.

 

[SLICKYINC]

​

After a careful review of all of the evidence put fourth by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in her accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has released a report which completely exonerates the judge.​

​

Sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, a non-partisan third-party with more than 25 years’ experience prosecuting sex crimes in the state of Arizona, carefully reviewed the allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, including hours of testimony, and has released a report on the matter. In the report, Mitchell points out more than a dozen glaring inconsistencies in Dr. Ford’s account and paints the accusations as potentially fraudulent.​

​

Mitchell’s points out several points, including:​

In perhaps her most damning finding, Rachel Mitchell writes that “The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorney’s likely affected her account”. Mitchell ostensibly alleges that the maneuvering of congressional Democrats, and the actions of her attorneys, who acted more like handlers, influenced her account of events, and perhaps even her truthfulness. This may have come out as Mitchell’s lines of questioning were repeatedly interrupted by her attorneys, namely Michael Bromwich, who also represents Andrew McCabe.​

View attachment 170667

You have the link for the whole report?

 

[Stew Cook]

If I’m not mistaken, didn’t Ramirez originally tell the New Yorker that she couldn’t be for sure if it was Kavanaugh that flashed her?

Without looking up the report of her account, I think stated that she wasn't certain who did the actual deed, but saw Brett apparently putting his pants on, or something along those lines.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Luth and evil say “hold my wine cooler”

Fyp

 

[Stew Cook]

So, the FBI has free reign over the investigation or not? Trump said so, I've heard other reports that the scope is limited to four people.

If the latter is the case, Is it any wonder that Dems are going to call this a sham?

 

[RikidyBones]

I dont know if yall know this... but the FBI isnt getting paid starting today. The funding approval hasnt been signed. Just fyi for some hilarity.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

So, the FBI has free reign over the investigation or not? Trump said so, I've heard other reports that the scope is limited to four people.

If the latter is the case, Is it any wonder that Dems are going to call this a sham?

They wont be happy no matter what or whom is investigated

 

[RikidyBones]

So, the FBI has free reign over the investigation or not? Trump said so, I've heard other reports that the scope is limited to four people.

If the latter is the case, Is it any wonder that Dems are going to call this a sham?

did they not agree to this on Friday?

 

[luthervol]

The question is a non sequiteur. You're asking to justify something that is not intently immoral. If you understood the issue, you would need asking completely different questions.

You are trying to deliver this baby from the wrong end.

The baby came out just fine.
Again, don't blame you for not answering.

 

[volfanjustin]

So, the FBI has free reign over the investigation or not? Trump said so, I've heard other reports that the scope is limited to four people.

If the latter is the case, Is it any wonder that Dems are going to call this a sham?

You all were going to scream "sham" and whine no matter what.

 

[SLICKYINC]

So, the FBI has free reign over the investigation or not? Trump said so, I've heard other reports that the scope is limited to four people.

If the latter is the case, Is it any wonder that Dems are going to call this a sham?

Pretty sure he tweeted about it.. Just kidding but, I'm also serious.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Wasn't Democratic Senator Al Franken from Minnesota forced out of the Senate within a month of a picture surfacing which showed him pretending to grab LeeAnn Tweeden's breasts? Weren't these calls for his resignation bi-partisan (including from Dianne Feinstein)? Wasn't a Republican Senator from Idaho named Larry Craig allowed to serve out his term in 2007 and 2008 after he pleaded guilty to soliciting an undercover male police officer for sex in an airport bathroom stall in June of 2007? Were there any calls for his resignation from Republicans following the disclosure of his guilty plea?

Didn't even know about that. And yes he should have been kicked straightaway.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Luth and evil say “hold my Zima”

Fyp

One better

 

[Stew Cook]

They wont be happy no matter what or whom is investigated

I get that, but when one of the four says I have another person that corroborates my account - if that person won't be followed up on, of course it looks like a sham.

 

[hog88]

So, the FBI has free reign over the investigation or not? Trump said so, I've heard other reports that the scope is limited to four people.

If the latter is the case, Is it any wonder that Dems are going to call this a sham?

They have a free reign to investigate the claims by Ford and Ramirez, they don't have free reign to go all Muelly.