# American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations



## Wry Catcher

American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics

*Good for them!*


----------



## Oddball

I'll take "Shit that isn't going to happen" for $1,000, Alex.


----------



## Billy_Bob

A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...


----------



## Billy_Bob




----------



## Wry Catcher

Oddball said:


> I'll take "Shit that isn't going to happen" for $1,000, Alex.



You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.

Misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance seem to be the regular order of Trump&Co.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Wry Catcher said:


> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*


delay? nobody wants a delay do they?


----------



## Windparadox

`
Very smart move. There are way too many unanswered questions here.


----------



## Oddball

Wry Catcher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take "Shit that isn't going to happen" for $1,000, Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.
> 
> Misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance seem to be the regular order of Trump&Co.
Click to expand...

Your ongoing lack of introspection is duly noted.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 218956



American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations

Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) | Twitter


----------



## hunarcy

Windparadox said:


> `
> Very smart move. There are way too many unanswered questions here.



Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh


----------



## Billy_Bob

Windparadox said:


> `
> Very smart move. There are way too many unanswered questions here.


Sadly they are all in Fords lack of facts and corroborating evidence...  How about you file these allegations with the proper authorities and see where they go...  The FBI isn't it..


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Wry Catcher said:


> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.



Says the party who held onto these allegations for two months until it became politically opportunistic to reveal them. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourselves


----------



## Windparadox

hunarcy said:


> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh


`
What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????


----------



## Wry Catcher

Oddball said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take "Shit that isn't going to happen" for $1,000, Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.
> 
> Misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance seem to be the regular order of Trump&Co.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ongoing lack of introspection is duly noted.
Click to expand...


[BTW, you never responded to my question, when did you get paroled?]

BTW2, your halfwit become became quite dim during you stay in stir.


----------



## Billy_Bob

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 218956
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations
> 
> Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) | Twitter
Click to expand...

And then you us a CNN reporter... to damn funny..

How about you file these baseless claims with the proper Maryland authorities who have jurisdiction and see where your lack of facts go...

When the American Bar association advocates Salem witch trial rules of the defendant must prove he didn't do it, that tells me where a bunch of left wing attorneys are and how they have disdain for our Constitution.


----------



## Billy_Bob

Windparadox said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
Click to expand...

Its called FACTS THAT CAN BE VERIFIED!


----------



## OKTexas

Wry Catcher said:


> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*




The ABA can go to hell, committee vote will be tomorrow, with a floor vote early next week, the commies have lost again. Justice Kavanaugh will take his seat on the court by Friday the 5th. LMAO

.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the party who held onto these allegations for two months until it became politically opportunistic to reveal them. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourselves
Click to expand...


That ^^^ has zero to do with the issue at hand.

Kavanaugh has been accused of a crime, a crime against a child; the day before or 36 years in the past, matters not.  It must be investigated by Law Enforcement.


----------



## Billy_Bob

Wry Catcher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the party who held onto these allegations for two months until it became politically opportunistic to reveal them. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ^^^ has zero to do with the issue at hand.
> 
> Kavanaugh has been accused of a crime, a crime against a child; the day before or 36 years in the past, matters not.  It must be investigated by Law Enforcement.
Click to expand...

BULL SHIT!

Has a charge been filed with the proper STATE authorities which have jurisdiction?   Nope... You got nothing fucktard..


----------



## Oddball

Wry Catcher said:


> [BTW, you never responded to my question, when did you get paroled?]
> 
> BTW2, your halfwit become became quite dim during you stay in stir.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billy_Bob said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Very smart move. There are way too many unanswered questions here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly they are all in Fords lack of facts and corroborating evidence...  How about you file these allegations with the proper authorities and see where they go...  The FBI isn't it..
Click to expand...


So you say.  A crime has been alleged, a crime against a child.  Local LE has a duty to investigate the allegation, and is able to request assistance from the State AG's Office or the FBI.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Oddball said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [BTW, you never responded to my question, when did you get paroled?]
> 
> BTW2, your halfwit become became quite dim during your stay in stir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 218957
Click to expand...


You and finger boy have much in common.


----------



## OKTexas

Wry Catcher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take "Shit that isn't going to happen" for $1,000, Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.
> 
> Misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance seem to be the regular order of Trump&Co.
Click to expand...


Step away from the bong. The commies blew up the process, now they'll reap what they sowed. And hopefully get their collective heads kicked in the process.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Very smart move. There are way too many unanswered questions here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly they are all in Fords lack of facts and corroborating evidence...  How about you file these allegations with the proper authorities and see where they go...  The FBI isn't it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say.  A crime has been alleged, a crime against a child.  Local LE has a duty to investigate the allegation, and is able to request assistance from the State AG's Office or the FBI.
Click to expand...

"is able to request assistance"

Which means the STATE AUTHORITIES MUST REQUEST IT.  Which means the STATE must have an open investigation it believes is credible....   Again the STATE has no such investigation ongoing..  

No credible story, no credible witnesses, you got nothing! the state will not investigate this..


----------



## Oddball

Wry Catcher said:


> You and finger boy have much in common.


You and Francis Soyer have everything in common.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billy_Bob said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the party who held onto these allegations for two months until it became politically opportunistic to reveal them. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ^^^ has zero to do with the issue at hand.
> 
> Kavanaugh has been accused of a crime, a crime against a child; the day before or 36 years in the past, matters not.  It must be investigated by Law Enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULL SHIT!
> 
> Has a charge been filed with the proper STATE authorities which have jurisdiction?   Nope... You got nothing fucktard..
Click to expand...


The allegation is now in the public domain.  The local LE authority will evaluate a crime against a child.

Doubt it, you might want to review the case of  Martha Moxley and other cold cases.  

Calling me a "fucktard" is childish and typical of your kind, those who are ignorant and cannot write an expository rebuttal.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

right now it looks like the liberals have nothing to lose and are reacting like a group in the death throes. lashing out like a possessed soul in the middle of an exorcism. Andrea Mitchell said Fords credibility was "unparalleled", meaning it was the most credible in the history of mankind...lol...trump needs to really just keep piling it on now.


----------



## Oddball

Wry Catcher said:


> The allegation is now in the public domain.  The local LE authority will evaluate a crime against a child.
> 
> Doubt it, you might want to review the case of  Martha Moxley and other cold cases.
> 
> Calling me a "fucktard" is childish and typical of your kind, those who are ignorant and cannot write an expository rebuttal.


The allegation has been in public domain long enough for the reputed witnesses to have denied the claim.

Calling you a "fucktard", while apropos, isn't exactly accurate....I'd lean more in the direction of "psychotic".


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Windparadox said:


> `
> Very smart move. There are way too many unanswered questions here.



The only unanswered question is how stupid you are willing to be to believe this horseshit.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Windparadox said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
Click to expand...


The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?


----------



## Nosmo King

Billy_Bob said:


> A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...


And yet the ABA assessment of Kavanaugh was cited multiple times today by Republicans!  Weird ain't it?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OKTexas said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ABA can go to hell, committee vote will be tomorrow, with a floor vote early next week, the commies have lost again. Justice Kavanaugh will take his seat on the court by Friday the 5th. LMAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nope!  It won't be that long!  I think McConnell should have the vote on the floor as fast as he can. 

Kavanaugh gets confirmed or any Republican voting "no" should gets quickly and permanently removed from the party.  They should be considered persona non grata.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Nosmo King said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the ABA assessment of Kavanaugh was cited multiple times today by Republicans!  Weird ain't it?
Click to expand...


That is how psycho the ABA is acting.


----------



## Nosmo King

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
Click to expand...

But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?


----------



## Nosmo King

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the ABA assessment of Kavanaugh was cited multiple times today by Republicans!  Weird ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is how psycho the ABA is acting.
Click to expand...

So both the FBI and the ABA are suspect now!  How many more institutions can the Right Wing denounce?  All of them as long as the information they bring does not comport with the climate of alternative facts and truth isn't truth.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Nosmo King said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
Click to expand...


Mark Judge has already sworn an affidavit.  Did you miss that part?  He says that Ford is lying.

What part aren't you people getting?  There is not a single intelligent person on this earth that backs Ford's version of events because it has more holes that a one ton block of Swiss cheese!  Her own friend whom she claimed was in the room basically said, "I have no idea what the fuck she is talking about!"


----------



## OKTexas

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ABA can go to hell, committee vote will be tomorrow, with a floor vote early next week, the commies have lost again. Justice Kavanaugh will take his seat on the court by Friday the 5th. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope!  It won't be that long!  I think McConnell should have the vote on the floor as fast as he can.
> 
> Kavanaugh gets confirmed or any Republican voting "no" should gets quickly and permanently removed from the party.  They should be considered persona non grata.
Click to expand...



By rule they are required a vote to open debate, they're saying that will happen Sunday, and I think a floor vote for confirmation can't happen before Wednesday or Thursday. Kavanaugh should sit in on any cases heard at SCOTUS next week so he can vote on them when seated.

.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

It looks to me like the ABA is making this request knowing full well it would not be granted and then plan on using it as a pretext for disbarment hearings against Kavanaugh, remember that clinton was disbarred, this looks like the next step to me.


----------



## Nosmo King

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark Judge has already sworn an affidavit.  Did you miss that part?  He says that Ford is lying.
> 
> What part aren't you people getting?  There is not a single intelligent person on this earth that backs Ford's version of events because it has more holes that a one ton block of Swiss cheese!  Her own friend whom she claimed was in the room basically said, "I have no idea what the fuck she is talking about!"
Click to expand...

Her friend said that due to her health problems her lawyer wrote that statement without her approval.  The Arizona,prosecutor reveled that bon mot!  Judge has never testified under oath nor has he been interviewed by an FBI investigator.

Dr. Ford is credible.  Kavanaugh threw a fit in the afternoon.  Partisan, bitter and obfuscurial.  He has neither the temperamentnor the credibility to have a seat on the bench.  Are there no other jurists Conservative enough to serve as associate justice?  Why this particular guy?


----------



## Windparadox

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?


`
What you don't understand about law is encyclopedic and humorous. I'll stick with the ABA, now hush.


----------



## Windparadox

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The only unanswered question is how stupid you are willing to be to believe this horseshit.


`
Like most of your ilk, you didn't read the article, just the headline. How can one carry on an intelligent conversation with a person has absolutely no idea what they are commenting on? To wit;
`
_In a strongly worded letter obtained by CNN Thursday, the organization said it is making the extraordinary request "because of the ABA's respect for the rule of law and due process under law," siding with concerns voiced by Senate Democrats since Christine Blasey Ford's decades-old allegations became public._

_"The basic principles that underscore the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI," said Robert Carlson, president of the organization, in a Thursday night letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein._

_"Each appointment to our nation's Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote," Carlson wrote. "Deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court."_​`
If you can make rational argument against what the ABA said, then go for it. But you can't. So hush.
`


----------



## OKTexas

Windparadox said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What you don't understand about law is encyclopedic and humorous. I'll stick with the ABA, now hush.
Click to expand...



Just for the grins and giggles let's say the FBI did the little investigation everyone is demanding and they come back and say they could find nothing to substantiate Fords claims.

Would you or any of your commie senators on the committee vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation?

.


----------



## Windparadox

OKTexas said:


> Just for the grins and giggles let's say the FBI did the little investigation everyone is demanding and they come back and say they could find nothing to substantiate Fords claims. Would you or any of your commie senators on the committee vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation?


`
A "commie senator". Aren't you an anachronism, straight from the 50's. I don't do_ Let's Pretend_ games. I prefer adult discussions.


----------



## OKTexas

Windparadox said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unanswered question is how stupid you are willing to be to believe this horseshit.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Like most of your ilk, you didn't read the article, just the headline. How can one carry on an intelligent conversation with a person has absolutely no idea what they are commenting on? To wit;
> `
> _In a strongly worded letter obtained by CNN Thursday, the organization said it is making the extraordinary request "because of the ABA's respect for the rule of law and due process under law," siding with concerns voiced by Senate Democrats since Christine Blasey Ford's decades-old allegations became public._
> 
> _"The basic principles that underscore the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI," said Robert Carlson, president of the organization, in a Thursday night letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein._
> 
> _"Each appointment to our nation's Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote," Carlson wrote. "Deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court."_​`
> If you can make rational argument against what the ABA said, then go for it. But you can't. So hush.
> `
Click to expand...



How about it won't make a damn difference, no one is going to change their minds, the vote will be 56-44 no matter what. The FBI could say Kavanaugh is Jesus reincarnated with the wisdom of God himself and the majority of the commies will vote no.

.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Nosmo King said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark Judge has already sworn an affidavit.  Did you miss that part?  He says that Ford is lying.
> 
> What part aren't you people getting?  There is not a single intelligent person on this earth that backs Ford's version of events because it has more holes that a one ton block of Swiss cheese!  Her own friend whom she claimed was in the room basically said, "I have no idea what the fuck she is talking about!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her friend said that due to her health problems her lawyer wrote that statement without her approval.  The Arizona,prosecutor reveled that bon mot!  Judge has never testified under oath nor has he been interviewed by an FBI investigator.
> 
> Dr. Ford is credible.  Kavanaugh threw a fit in the afternoon.  Partisan, bitter and obfuscurial.  He has neither the temperamentnor the credibility to have a seat on the bench.  Are there no other jurists Conservative enough to serve as associate justice?  Why this particular guy?
Click to expand...


You are such an idiot.  Grassley made that statement of fact during the introduction, dumbass!



Windparadox said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What you don't understand about law is encyclopedic and humorous. I'll stick with the ABA, now hush.
Click to expand...


So how many government and law courses have you taught?  The ABA is well known for being incredibly leftist.  They even gave him a "well qualified rating" and then cot their nose off just to spit their face by making the grossly inept recommendation that the FBI should investigate.

Come on ABA!  Which is it?

You are such a pompous arrogant yet ignorant douche canoe!

You probably think that the ABA merged with the NBA!


----------



## OKTexas

Windparadox said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the grins and giggles let's say the FBI did the little investigation everyone is demanding and they come back and say they could find nothing to substantiate Fords claims. Would you or any of your commie senators on the committee vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> A "commie senator". Aren't you an anachronism, straight from the 50's. I don't do_ Let's Pretend_ games. I prefer adult discussions.
Click to expand...



Deflection, how fucking cute.

.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Windparadox said:


> If you can make rational argument against what the ABA said, then go for it. But you can't. So hush.


It is no more important to investigate this now than it was in july and/or august unless of course the goal is to delay the nomination in which case it then becomes absolutely necessary and the ABA becomes the willing buffer to deflect from that fact...the left is about to go down for a third time, they are drowning and cannot help themselves, if the ABA wants to save them they will have to disbar Kavanaugh on even the flimsiest grounds.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Windparadox said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unanswered question is how stupid you are willing to be to believe this horseshit.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Like most of your ilk, you didn't read the article, just the headline. How can one carry on an intelligent conversation with a person has absolutely no idea what they are commenting on? To wit;
> `
> _In a strongly worded letter obtained by CNN Thursday, the organization said it is making the extraordinary request "because of the ABA's respect for the rule of law and due process under law," siding with concerns voiced by Senate Democrats since Christine Blasey Ford's decades-old allegations became public._
> 
> _"The basic principles that underscore the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI," said Robert Carlson, president of the organization, in a Thursday night letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein._
> 
> _"Each appointment to our nation's Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote," Carlson wrote. "Deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court."_​`
> If you can make rational argument against what the ABA said, then go for it. But you can't. So hush.
> `
Click to expand...


I already did, but you are such a libtard you cannot read above a third grade level. They have no jurisdiction, PERIOD!

Besides, there is no evidence.  None. Zilch. Nada.


----------



## Windparadox

OKTexas said:


> How about it won't make a damn difference, no one is going to change their minds, the vote will be 56-44 no matter what. The FBI could say Kavanaugh is Jesus reincarnated with the wisdom of God himself and the majority of the commies will vote no.


`
I'm not arguing whether it will make a difference, it's obvious it wouldn't with you, I'm saying that the ABA's request for an FBI investigation is completely legal and legitimate. However, only trump can request that and he already said he would not do it.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Frankeneinstein said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can make rational argument against what the ABA said, then go for it. But you can't. So hush.
> 
> 
> 
> It is no more important to investigate this now than it was in july and/or august unless of course the goal is to delay the nomination in which case it then becomes absolutely necessary and the ABA becomes the willing buffer to deflect from that fact...the left is about to go down for a third time, they are drowning and cannot help themselves, if the ABA wants to save them they will have to disbar Kavanaugh on even the flimsiest grounds.
Click to expand...


They can disbar him tomorrow if they wish.  There is no requirement that a justice even has to be a lawyer!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Windparadox said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it won't make a damn difference, no one is going to change their minds, the vote will be 56-44 no matter what. The FBI could say Kavanaugh is Jesus reincarnated with the wisdom of God himself and the majority of the commies will vote no.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> I'm not arguing whether it will make a difference, it's obvious it wouldn't with you, I'm saying that the ABA's request for an FBI investigation is completely legal and legitimate. However, only trump can request that and he already said he would not do it.
Click to expand...


They can request anything they want, dumbass, but it doesn't make it legal in any way shape or form.  If they found any evidence to charge him criminally, the court would have to throw it out because they have no jurisdiction in a Maryland juvenile case.


----------



## OKTexas

Frankeneinstein said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can make rational argument against what the ABA said, then go for it. But you can't. So hush.
> 
> 
> 
> It is no more important to investigate this now than it was in july and/or august unless of course the goal is to delay the nomination in which case it then becomes absolutely necessary and the ABA becomes the willing buffer to deflect from that fact...the left is about to go down for a third time, they are drowning and cannot help themselves, if the ABA wants to save them they will have to disbar Kavanaugh on even the flimsiest grounds.
Click to expand...



The ABA is a professional association, they don't have the power to disbar anyone.

.


----------



## BoSoxGal

Billy_Bob said:


> A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...


The ABA is actually quite conservative, in the original meaning of the word.

This is very, very huge. I am impressed with an organization I normally had little admiration for - they are putting reverence for the Court above all else.


*I am a lawyer, a one time member of the ABA, and I interned there during my law school years in DC. It’s a very white shoe, large law firm oriented place (NOT liberal) with well appointed offices among the lobbyists of K Street.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The ABA can disbar him tomorrow if they wish. There is no requirement that a justice even has to be a lawyer!


It's not a matter of him being a lawyer at that point, the disbarment itself would be the disqualifier...i.e. if he isn't fit to be a lawyer in our lowest courts he certainly isn't fit to sit on the highest court will be the argument.


----------



## Windparadox

Frankeneinstein said:


> It is no more important to investigate this now than it was in july and/or august unless of course the goal is to delay the nomination in which case it then becomes absolutely necessary and the ABA becomes the willing buffer to deflect from that fact...the left is about to go down for a third time, they are drowning and cannot help themselves, if the ABA wants to save them they will have to disbar Kavanaugh on even the flimsiest grounds.


`
You may be right but that's not the point. First, where are your grounds or evidence that the ABA is involved with any attempt to delay the vote? Can the FBI investigate Kavanaugh again? Of course they can - *Source*. trump will not allow that though. Will such an investigation change any minds? I'm not a clairvoyant but I'd say yes, one way or another.


----------



## OKTexas

Windparadox said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it won't make a damn difference, no one is going to change their minds, the vote will be 56-44 no matter what. The FBI could say Kavanaugh is Jesus reincarnated with the wisdom of God himself and the majority of the commies will vote no.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> I'm not arguing whether it will make a difference, it's obvious it wouldn't with you, I'm saying that the ABA's request for an FBI investigation is completely legal and legitimate. However, only trump can request that and he already said he would not do it.
Click to expand...



Then just shut up about it already, if it won't change a thing. Every commiecrat on the judiciary committee said they would never vote for Kavanaugh and that was the day he was nominated, nothing has changed. The completed FBI report has already been submitted to the WH.

.


----------



## Windparadox

OKTexas said:


> Then just shut up about it already, if it won't change a thing. Every commiecrat on the judiciary committee said they would never vote for Kavanaugh and that was the day he was nominated, nothing has changed. The completed FBI report has already been submitted to the WH.


`
I'm sorry you don't like my opinion (not really). Since you cannot see into the future anymore than I can, you have no idea what will happen when/if the FBI conducts such an investigation. As you have no proof it will not change anything, I rest my case.


----------



## BoSoxGal

Frankeneinstein said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ABA can disbar him tomorrow if they wish. There is no requirement that a justice even has to be a lawyer!
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of him being a lawyer at that point, the disbarment itself would be the disqualifier...i.e. if he isn't fit to be a lawyer in our lowest courts he certainly isn't fit to sit on the highest court will be the argument.
Click to expand...

The ABA is a professional organization, membership is voluntary, they don’t disbar anybody because they don’t control bar admission. Kavanaugh could only be disbarred by the state and/or federal bars to which he has admission.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Windparadox said:


> You may be right but that's not the point. First, where are your grounds or evidence that the ABA is involved with any attempt to delay the vote?


Is that how you want to do this? fine, but be warned, you will need to do the pee-pee dance with the language to keep trying to prove what these words really mean do not really mean that, in which case I will let you go play soemwhere else:
From the OP who you did not see fit to ask him for proof:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> 
> 
> Is that proof enough? do feel the need to ask the OP to prove it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can the FBI investigate Kavanaugh again? Of course they can - *Source*. trump will not allow that though. Will such an investigation change any minds? I'm not a clairvoyant but I'd say yes, one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, it is no more important to investigate them now than it was back in july and august unless delay is the goal and then it becomes an absolute imperative to investigate.
Click to expand...


----------



## BoSoxGal

It is very likely that as a matter of politics the FBI investigation won’t change votes, especially if it finds nothing to corroborate the now multiple allegations against Kavanaugh. But the ABA is concerned solely with the long term health of the judiciary and the American people’s trust in it.

They are notoriously apolitical, although they trend conservative. This is really, really huge - however the Senate responds. I’m actually a bit stunned and hugely impressed with this development. Whatever your political beliefs, confidence in the courts IS critical to the functioning of a society based in the rule of the law. I admire the ABA for acknowledging the damage that was done today and that would be irreparably done by a rush to confirm Kavanaugh absent an investigation of the new allegations brought against him.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

BoSoxGal said:


> The ABA is a professional organization, membership is voluntary, they don’t disbar anybody because they don’t control bar admission. Kavanaugh could only be disbarred by the state and/or federal bars to which he has admission.


You are correct, I was making the point that the reason they are taking this route is to have Kavanaugh disbarred, in fact my son is a law student at GW [sorry I love to brag about that] and I was discussing this with him today and he explained to me how it works [he met with Ruth Bader Ginsburg for 2 hours, something else I love to brag about]...but thank you for the heads up


----------



## Windparadox

Frankeneinstein said:


> Is that how you want to do this? fine, but be warned, you will need to do the pee-pee dance with the language to keep trying to prove what these words really mean do not really mean that, in which case I will let you go play soemwhere else:


`
In other words, you don't have an intelligent or rational answer.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Windparadox said:


> In other words, you don't have an intelligent or rational answer.


I answered the question and gave you proof, so your only response can be a subjective one where you decided what is rational and intelligent, in other words....a cop out...would you like the OP to prove the same thing you asked me to prove...or do you find that irrational and unintelligent?


----------



## BoSoxGal

Frankeneinstein said:


> BoSoxGal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ABA is a professional organization, membership is voluntary, they don’t disbar anybody because they don’t control bar admission. Kavanaugh could only be disbarred by the state and/or federal bars to which he has admission.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, I was making the point that the reason they are taking this route is to have Kavanaugh disbarred, in fact my son is a law student at GW [sorry I love to brag about that] and I was discussing this with him today and he explained to me how it works [he met with Ruth Bader Ginsburg for 2 hours, something else I love to brag about]...but thank you for the heads up
Click to expand...

Congrats to your son; I am a GULC alum.

But with respect, you are incorrect. The ABA does not have a role in initiating disbarment proceedings against any lawyer. And I assure you that after giving Kavanaugh the highest possible rating upon his nomination, they are not now suggesting he is unfit to practice law. 

They merely want to preserve confidence in the judiciary by slowing the rush to confirmation and seeing a full investigation that would assuage the concerns of the majority of Americans regarding this process.


----------



## OKTexas

Windparadox said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then just shut up about it already, if it won't change a thing. Every commiecrat on the judiciary committee said they would never vote for Kavanaugh and that was the day he was nominated, nothing has changed. The completed FBI report has already been submitted to the WH.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> I'm sorry you don't like my opinion (not really). Since you cannot see into the future anymore than I can, you have no idea what will happen when/if the FBI conducts such an investigation. As you have no proof it will not change anything, I rest my case.
Click to expand...



Well little girl, the FBI has completed it's background check on Kavanaugh including the Ford information. What comes next is the committee vote tomorrow. A floor vote to begin debate on Sunday and a floor vote to confirm mid week. He'll be seated by Thursday or Friday, with a bipartisan vote of 56-44. I'd bet $10. on it.

.


----------



## Jerico

Wry Catcher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the party who held onto these allegations for two months until it became politically opportunistic to reveal them. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ^^^ has zero to do with the issue at hand.
> 
> Kavanaugh has been accused of a crime, a crime against a child; the day before or 36 years in the past, matters not.  It must be investigated by Law Enforcement.
Click to expand...


What kind of mental gymnastics is this? Kavanaugh, too, was a child. He was one year her senior.

By Constitutional right, a person is innocent until found guilty. Kavanaugh has done nothing wrong until PROVEN otherwise. Accusations matter not at all without evidence of a crime.

Furthermore, the FBI already ruled that there isn't even a case to open or close because no crime was described.

If a crime were described, the statute of limitations forbids investigation.

If the statue of limitations weren't expired, the FBI STILL, would not have jurisdiction.

even if all of the above were NOT true, and everything was just as you say, the investigation can continue after he is voted in. Considering that such an investigation would be incredibly damaging to republicans should it be true, democrats should be happy to have him confirmed. They aren't though. The Democrats don't think he's guilty. The argument is faulty.


The Democrats had weeks to file to the FBI. They didn't. 

She could have filed with her local law enforcement. She didn't. 

The Democrats refused to take part in the investigation. They asked no questions during the depositions.


That bitch was flanked by 2 lawyers at all times. Her statement was given to her. A lawyer was paid or given something under the table by shiela Jackson.

She can't remember any details other than Kavanaugh and Judge. Knows she had one beer but can't even remember where she was or how she got there.

She literally got caught lying about no fewer than a dozen story line details, the most egregious of which is that she can't fly to make the hearing date because she's afraid to fly, but has no problems flying 3000 miles to meet strangers for a polygraph test BEFORE claiming she doesn't fly.

No reasonable human being can look at this situation, apply the laws of our land, and come out assuming Kavanaugh is guilty of anything. To even suggest anything else is indicative of pure malice or complete idiocy. Take your pick.


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

Well, I'm an attorney, and I think Kavanaugh will still be confirmed. But liberals won't listen to me since I'm a legal immigrant, Asian, and I have a mind of my own. Also, the ABA has no authority or power to hold up the confirmation. Sorry.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

BoSoxGal said:


> Congrats to your son; I am a GULC alum.


Thank you, we are yankee fans as well, you guys have some team up there, I hope we get to play you guys but I think you win it all this year


----------



## Windparadox

Frankeneinstein said:


> I answered the question and gave you proof, so your only response can be a subjective one where you decided what is rational and intelligent, in other words....a cop out...would you like the OP to prove the same thing you asked me to prove...or do you find that irrational and unintelligent?


`
You gave no answer, no proof. Your OPINIONS are not facts; just a reminder.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Windparadox said:


> You gave no answer, no proof. Your OPINIONS are not facts; just a reminder.


I think you just accidentally posted your E-mail to Dr. Ford


----------



## Windparadox

OKTexas said:


> _Well little girl, the FBI has completed it's background check on Kavanaugh including the Ford information. What comes next is the committee vote tomorrow. A floor vote to begin debate on Sunday and a floor vote to confirm mid week. He'll be seated by Thursday or Friday, with a bipartisan vote of 56-44. I'd bet $10. on it._


`
You are welcome to your opinions. There is no law preventing the FBI from doing another background check based on the claims of these three women but as I said before, trump will not allow it. What happens after that, remains to be seen.


----------



## Jerico

Windparadox said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well little girl, the FBI has completed it's background check on Kavanaugh including the Ford information. What comes next is the committee vote tomorrow. A floor vote to begin debate on Sunday and a floor vote to confirm mid week. He'll be seated by Thursday or Friday, with a bipartisan vote of 56-44. I'd bet $10. on it._
> 
> 
> 
> `
> You are welcome to your opinions. There is no law preventing the FBI from doing another background check based on the claims of these three women but as I said before, trump will not allow it. What happens after that, remains to be seen.
Click to expand...


So a 7th background check then. Yeah that will clear up a lot.

What evidence was presented that warrants a criminal investigation? Is there a single substantiated piece of evidence? A witness that doesn't outright refute her claims perhaps would be a start.

What exactly about this whole thing, in your mind, justifies an investigation? The FBI itself said there was nothing to investigate. Allegations don't warrant investigations. Evidence of a crime does. You seem confident of a crime having been committed. Please share your evidence with us so we can agree with you and prevent a predator from going on the supreme court.

Hopefully you read the post I just posted so I don't have to repeat myself, but in it I didn't state opinions. I stated facts.  Perhaps you could address those.


----------



## Windparadox

Jerico said:


> So a 7th background check then. Yeah that will clear up a lot.
> What evidence was presented that warrants a criminal investigation? Is there a single substantiated piece of evidence? A witness that doesn't outright refute her claims perhaps would be a start.What exactly about this whole thing, in your mind, justifies an investigation? The FBI itself said there was nothing to investigate. Allegations don't warrant investigations. Evidence of a crime does. You seem confident of a crime having been committed. Please share your evidence with us so we can agree with you and prevent a predator from going on the supreme court.Hopefully you read the post I just posted so I don't have to repeat myself, but in it I didn't state opinions. I stated facts.  Perhaps you could address those.


`
`
Boy oh boy, are you confused. First off, I'm dealing with the topic which is the ABA asking for the FBI to investigate the assault allegations, which I agree with. I can't answer your questions because I'm not the topic here, the article here is. Please stay on topic, it's not hard. You might want to actually read the article while you are at it.

Secondly, your opinion that allegations don't warrant an FBI investigation is your opinion, not a fact. Perhaps you need some enlightenment, such as a) *Sen. Joe Donnelly: FBI should investigate allegations against Brett Kavanaugh*, b)  *Kavanaugh allegations multiply, as do calls for FBI investigation*, c) *Brett Kavanaugh pressured to ask White House for FBI investigation of assault allegations * Of course the FBI investigates allegations. Whomever told you otherwise was lying to you.

Thirdly, where on earth did you get the idea that I claimed a crime was committed? Could you point that out please.

Fourth, it seems you cannot tell the difference between facts and opinions. Please allow me to add this handy little chart that describes the difference between the two:
`




`​Fifth, goodness, where did I mention anything about a sexual predator? I looked through my posts here and could not find one. Can you find it? I sure can't.

You might want to slow down a bit and compose yourself before going any further. Simply put, I agree with the American Bar Association that this process should be delayed until the FBI investigates the allegations (claims, accusations, whatever). You obvious don't agree, which is your right.

I hope this clears up some of your confusion.
`


----------



## Jerico

Windparadox said:


> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a 7th background check then. Yeah that will clear up a lot.
> What evidence was presented that warrants a criminal investigation? Is there a single substantiated piece of evidence? A witness that doesn't outright refute her claims perhaps would be a start.What exactly about this whole thing, in your mind, justifies an investigation? The FBI itself said there was nothing to investigate. Allegations don't warrant investigations. Evidence of a crime does. You seem confident of a crime having been committed. Please share your evidence with us so we can agree with you and prevent a predator from going on the supreme court.Hopefully you read the post I just posted so I don't have to repeat myself, but in it I didn't state opinions. I stated facts.  Perhaps you could address those.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> `
> Boy oh boy, are you confused. First off, I'm dealing with the topic which is the ABA asking for the FBI to investigate the assault allegations, which I agree with. I can't answer your questions because I'm not the topic here, the article here is. Please stay on topic, it's not hard. You might want to actually read the article while you are at it.
Click to expand...


Ok. So can I request an FBI investigation, into say, you without anything more than an allegation? You're basically proposing that one woman's uncorroborated testimony should stall a man's career indefinitely, forcing him to lose out on the opportunity of a life time. If you are ok with that happening to him, you're ok with it happening to you. Would it be fair for your professional and personal life be put on hold, legal fees forced upon you as a defense, and shamed in the public square without anything other than someone's words?

Think about what you are saying. You're ok with this man losing his bid to join the supreme court because of he said she said. Good luck convincing anybody of the judicial integrity of such a position.



> Secondly, your opinion that allegations don't warrant an FBI investigation is your opinion





Not true. according to brennancenter (sorry, I'm too new to post links), the FBI must have evidence to open up a full investigation. A preliminary investigation was already undertaken and no warrant for further FBI involvement deemed necessary. They need evidence that a crime happened to investigate the crime. It's pretty simple. That's why missing people stay missing until there is proof of their death or tangible reason for assuming it. You can't legally charge someone with murder without evidence or admission of a murder.

Also, ( I had to remove your links) your links don't prove anything. They're just democrat senators calling for a fictitious investigation. Kind of like the Russian Collusion investigation. You should watch the senate hearing today. The republicans make it very clear and very convincing about just how full of shit the democrats are on this.



> Thirdly, where on earth did you get the idea that I claimed a crime was committed? Could you point that out please.



You're implying some semblance of guilt on the man by even corroborating  what is happening here. Kavanaugh has done nothing, I repeat nothing, to warrant this scrutiny. We have far more evidence that Ford is a liar and /or wrong than we do Kavanaugh so much as has ever met her. Even so, you think he should lose his once in a lifetime opportunity for heresay only.

You know full well that this is the only chance he will get. Don't be coy. If he isn't voted on tomorrow, he will never again be considered no matter what comes of an investigation 1+ years from now. Even if the investigation yielded nothing, and the republicans maintained the senate and house, he would be glossed over due to political baggage.

You are advocating for law by accusation. Very dangerous. Completely Un American.

If you wanted to be consistent, you could, for example support what Kavanaugh says with equal fervor as that of Ford. What makes her words so damning and his so unconvincing?



> Fourth, it seems you cannot tell the difference between facts and opinions. Please allow me to add this handy little chart that describes the difference between the two:



Oh common. Put more effort into this. You haven't countered any of my facts. You just dismiss them.


`

`


​


> Fifth, goodness, where did I mention anything about a sexual predator? I looked through my posts here and could not find one. Can you find it? I sure can't.



The thought crossed your mind I'm sure. Why else would you doubt Kavanaugh enough to tank his career over words one refuted woman says?

An analogy.
"Maybe she isn't a witch. Shall we burn her first then call her what she is? I'm not saying she's a witch. I'm just saying that witches burn in fire is all. Maybe we could test this?"

I mean how is what you say any different? Let's just put Kavanaugh over the fire and see if he burns. If he isn't guilty, he has nothing to worry about! teehee!

Honestly, you just want to forever delay him for no reason. Sorry, but you want him to go through all the motions of a sexual predator, except prison, without any evidence that he is a sexual predator and plenty stipulating that he is not.

What frightens me about your rhetoric is how casually you can dance on the thin line between the literal and the implied. I mean, what about Ford making false accusations? Can we drag her through an investigation requiring legal council and a sacrifice of her privacy for the next year too? Would that be ok with you if we apply your logic both ways? Let's put both of them under investigation. Fair?

I also want the Senate democrats investigated for possible sedition and obstruction. I don't have much proof, but I do allege it and I got more evidence of that than you do of Kavanaugh(see my first post), so this shouldn't be an unfair request to you.



> You might want to slow down a bit and compose yourself before going any further. Simply put, I agree with the American Bar Association that this process should be delayed until the FBI investigates the allegations (claims, accusations, whatever). You obvious don't agree, which is your right.
> 
> I hope this clears up some of your confusion.
> `



I'll just go ahead and admit that I came here with my sleeves rolled up, but I can't help thinking you're just being facetious here. We can sum this whole thing up as me considering him innocent until evidence is given to the contrary. You, on the other hand, are ok with having him dragged through legal hell, having his reputation ruined, his chance of a life time stolen from him,all because some woman made a claim despite more women refuting it and even more still giving counter statements.

You also didn't really address any of my points.

I will tone down my tone a bit. You are right about that. I was a bit combative, but I don't see how you can claim that you aren't implying that Kavanaugh is unsuited for the supreme court because of unsubstantiated allegations.

Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Windparadox said:


> First, where are your grounds or evidence that the ABA is involved with any attempt to delay the vote?





Windparadox said:


> Simply put, I agree with the American Bar Association that this process should be delayed



Lemme guess, you see no contradiction?


----------



## Windparadox

Frankeneinstein said:


> Lemme guess, you see no contradiction?


`
Touche!


----------



## Frankeneinstein

We're good, thank you


----------



## Windparadox

Jerico said:


> <snip/unsnip>Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?


`
All those words and all you did was double down on your own confusion. I tried at least.


----------



## Vastator

Nosmo King said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark Judge has already sworn an affidavit.  Did you miss that part?  He says that Ford is lying.
> 
> What part aren't you people getting?  There is not a single intelligent person on this earth that backs Ford's version of events because it has more holes that a one ton block of Swiss cheese!  Her own friend whom she claimed was in the room basically said, "I have no idea what the fuck she is talking about!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her friend said that due to her health problems her lawyer wrote that statement without her approval.  The Arizona,prosecutor reveled that bon mot!  Judge has never testified under oath nor has he been interviewed by an FBI investigator.
> 
> Dr. Ford is credible.  Kavanaugh threw a fit in the afternoon.  Partisan, bitter and obfuscurial.  He has neither the temperamentnor the credibility to have a seat on the bench.  Are there no other jurists Conservative enough to serve as associate justice?  Why this particular guy?
Click to expand...

What makes her “credible”?


----------



## Jerico

Windparadox said:


> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip/unsnip>Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> All those words and all you did was double down on your own confusion. I tried at least.
Click to expand...



Oh I see. Deflection. yeah that's decent of you.

You're right. There's no point in questioning the bar assocation on this. Surely it's perfectly reasonable, legally, to expect Kavanaugh to defend his name, monetarily through legal fees, publicly against salacious articles, and privately through legal council, against the carte blanche FBI onslaught that comes with an investigation's access to his personal information all because one woman said something bad about his character.

What do you do? Completely ignore everything I stated, and automatically assume a position of authority and superiority.

Your refusal to debate your own statements doesn't help your case.

In doing so you pretty much validate my intuition, which is that you're just pretending to be a devil's advocate by claiming some semblance of impartiality despite having nothing of the sort. Your only defense seems to rest on the notion, not fact, that the ABA is definitely impartial here which is certainly not established.

What is clear is that nobody, man or woman, deserves to have happen to them what happened to Kavanaugh without evidence and without proper channels of investigation being undertaken, privately, once evidence is presented. The ABA and their idea be damned. The constitution doesn't support their desire.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Windparadox said:


> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip/unsnip>Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> All those words and all you did was double down on your own confusion. I tried at least.
Click to expand...


You really think the FBI is gonna say "oh, shit, Ford said he did what?  How'd we miss that the first six times?"

Hardly.


----------



## Jerico

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip/unsnip>Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> All those words and all you did was double down on your own confusion. I tried at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think the FBI is gonna say "oh, shit, Ford said he did what?  How'd we miss that the first six times?"
> 
> Hardly.
Click to expand...


I don't think she thinks that at all. I think she wants to convince you of it though. I don't get the feeling that she (he w/e) is stupid. Perhaps trollish. Perhaps not. Either way, there's no convincing someone who won't debate their own statements. 

It's called gaslighting. When called out on it, they resort to more standard tactics like deflection, strawman arguments, or assuming the conclusion.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Jerico said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip/unsnip>Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> All those words and all you did was double down on your own confusion. I tried at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think the FBI is gonna say "oh, shit, Ford said he did what?  How'd we miss that the first six times?"
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think she thinks that at all. I think she wants to convince you of it though. I don't get the feeling that she (he w/e) is stupid. Perhaps trollish. Perhaps not. Either way, there's no convincing someone who won't debate their own statements.
> 
> It's called gaslighting. When called out on it, they resort to more standard tactics like deflection, strawman arguments, or assuming the conclusion.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I think you are correct.  The FBI has already declined to investigate due to lack of jurisdiction.  It's all just a stall tactic.


----------



## Jerico

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip/unsnip>Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> All those words and all you did was double down on your own confusion. I tried at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think the FBI is gonna say "oh, shit, Ford said he did what?  How'd we miss that the first six times?"
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think she thinks that at all. I think she wants to convince you of it though. I don't get the feeling that she (he w/e) is stupid. Perhaps trollish. Perhaps not. Either way, there's no convincing someone who won't debate their own statements.
> 
> It's called gaslighting. When called out on it, they resort to more standard tactics like deflection, strawman arguments, or assuming the conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think you are correct.  The FBI has already declined to investigate due to lack of jurisdiction.  It's all just a stall tactic.
Click to expand...


Exactly, so really what more needs to be said? I mean if Paradox wants to pretend like the hearing today never happened, and those arguments were never addressed, not much else can really be stated.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Wry Catcher said:


> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*


why would the fbi investigate something that isn't in their jurisdiction and if something happened, the statute of limitations has run out?


give a logical, fact base answer plz.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wry Catcher said:


> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*


Perfectly reasonable and appropriate to do so.


----------



## SweetSue92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly reasonable and appropriate to do so.
Click to expand...


It's their new RUSSIA!!! Stupid and unfounded, a delay tactic and nothing more. Transparently political. Even THEY don't believe it.

The ABA is a liberal organization front to back.


----------



## Windparadox

Soggy in NOLA said:


> You really think the FBI is gonna say "oh, shit, Ford said he did what?  How'd we miss that the first six times?"Hardly.


`
I don't care what the FBI thinks. They are at the behest of the president who will not allow them to do it. I'm merely agreeing with the ABA's suggestion that they do.


----------



## Windparadox

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Yeah, I think you are correct.  The FBI has already declined to investigate due to lack of jurisdiction.  It's all just a stall tactic.


`
Can you show me proof (a link) that the FBI stated they cannot do an investigation because it's out of their jurisdiction?


----------



## Jerico

Windparadox said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think you are correct.  The FBI has already declined to investigate due to lack of jurisdiction.  It's all just a stall tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Can you show me proof (a link) that the FBI stated they cannot do an investigation because it's out of their jurisdiction?
Click to expand...


If you don't need proof that kavanaugh raped Ford to pretend like her statements is true enough to warrant ruining his life, why can't you extend that same courtesy to our allegations? Double standards dear!

 All of the sudden you want evidence now. This is good progress atleast.

 First, go watch the hearing, Kavanaugh's in particular. Then follow up by going to the committee website for more info as mentioned during the hearings. Something tells me you haven't actually watched them, instead resorting on 2nd or 3rd hand sources to either tell you or show you the sizzle reel.

  This is a closed case, no pun intended. It's done. He's going to be voted in because no Republican wants to go down with the dumpster fire that is the Democrat party right now. Some democrats might even jump ship. The only way his confirmation is tanked is if a RINO breaks rank, but I don't see how they would considering the political damage it would do.

I'd link it, really but I can't without being atleast another day or so old on the acct so you're on your own. Suffice it to say, the FBI didn't warrant further inquiry. Why would you trust that anyways? You're claiming that Trump would just stall it so there's very little point in siding with the ABA unless to virtue signal alongside them. No matter what comes of this, nothing short of Kavanaugh being removed from the roster will make you happy. You will make up some excuse for any outcome short of that.

My original post (which you didn't address yet) made it clear that the democrats literally refused to partake in any investigation and were never forbidden from contacting the FBI themselves. neither was Ford.

Nobody has stopped or impeded the process of investigating this as far as they're willing to take it. Neither Ford, nor the Democrats actually want to do it. They just want to blame Republicans, and Kavanaugh for not doing it themselves. There's literally a quote of Booker or Kamela Harris requesting that Kavanaugh call for opening an investigation against himself. He correctly states that it wouldn't be possible to do so based on the lack of evidence.

If you can't see the double standard, kangaroo court nature of this whole sham, I don't know what one link he provides will do for you. Still, I'm giving you benefit of the doubt that you don't actually believe what you say and might just be gas lighting.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Windparadox said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think the FBI is gonna say "oh, shit, Ford said he did what?  How'd we miss that the first six times?"Hardly.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> I don't care what the FBI thinks. They are at the behest of the president who will not allow them to do it. I'm merely agreeing with the ABA's suggestion that they do.
Click to expand...


Jesus, let it go.  If Kav were such a heinous creature, it would have been uncovered the first six times.


----------



## SweetSue92

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think the FBI is gonna say "oh, shit, Ford said he did what?  How'd we miss that the first six times?"Hardly.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> I don't care what the FBI thinks. They are at the behest of the president who will not allow them to do it. I'm merely agreeing with the ABA's suggestion that they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus, let it go.  If Kav were such a heinous creature, it would have been uncovered the first six times.
Click to expand...


The Dems have circled 'round their talking point. "FBI investigation". They don't want it, they don't need it. They just want the delay. It's patently political.


----------



## Windparadox

Jerico said:


> If you don't need proof that kavanaugh raped Ford to pretend like her statements is true, why can't you extend that same courtesy to our allegations?


`
First off, you don't know what you are talking about nor have you linked to anything that might give your opinions any credibility. Here is a statement as reported;
`






*Source*
`


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

That conservatives are frightened to learn the truth comes as no surprise; most on the right are indeed cowards.


----------



## Two Thumbs

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That conservatives are frightened to learn the truth comes as no surprise; most on the right are indeed cowards.


the irony


----------



## Windparadox

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Jesus, let it go.  If Kav were such a heinous creature, it would have been uncovered the first six times.


`
That isn't my point. My point is that the FBI can reopen the investigation only at the request of the president. See above post.


----------



## Jerico

Windparadox said:


> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't need proof that kavanaugh raped Ford to pretend like her statements is true, why can't you extend that same courtesy to our allegations?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> First off, you don't know what you are talking about nor have you linked to anything that might give your opinions any credibility. Here is a statement as reported;
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


I don't think you're understanding the difference between the whim of the president and the application of criminal law.

If the FBI had any reasonable evidence suggesting Kavinaugh was guilty of a crime, they do not need the president's permission to investigate.  The very article you posted literally states this, in plain ink second from the bottom paragraph.

It says and I quote *" And in this case, even assuming Ford's allegation to be true, there's no suggestion of a federal crime, quite apart from the statue of limitations issue.The FBI has no independent authority to open a criminal investigation."* End of story.

You want Trump to willingly call for the FBI to do a 7th background check to find what exactly? What do you want them to look for? A crime? That's not how it works. The FBI does not and should not be used take a person and find a crime to fit the person. That is literally anathema to everything our nation is built upon. Your bias blinds you to this. Just because Obama did this to Trump with the Russia investigation doesn't make it less damning nor unconstitutional.

You think somehow some way, it is ok to just put the FBI on some crime hunting trail when there is no evidence of a crime having occurred. What kind of Minority Report level garbage is that? You want them to investigate a crime that didn't happen. Should they just investigate crimes before they happen next ?Maybe he will rape someone in 5 years. Let's stop him before anybody is hurt!

 Where do you draw this line? What does innocent until proven guilty mean to you?

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean "innocent until suspected of guilt." Give proof this crime happened, then I will agree that the FBI should open an investigation. Until then what you request is the total destruction of this man's life on a whim.

Investigations are costly. VERY costly. It requires a ton of time, interviewing, depositions, lawyer hours etc. You are completely out of the water on this.

You have nothing to warrant an investigation. Nothing but words. There is enough counter evidence to guarantee a mistrial as it stands. Her entire premise is utterly refuted. It is done. Your expectations are unreasonable and baseless, and still you haven't addressed my original points. I don't think this is the sword you want to fall on.


----------



## Windparadox

Jerico said:


> <snip/unsnip>You have nothing to warrant an investigation. Nothing but words. There is enough counter evidence to guarantee a mistrial as it stands. Her entire premise is utterly refuted. It is done. Your expectations are unreasonable and baseless, and still you haven't addressed my original points.


`
The only thing you have convinced me of is that either you can't read or can't understand the written word. Oh, you are stubborn too, despite all the proof and evidence I've presented you just keep going back and harping on your erroneous and confused opinions.


----------



## Jerico

Windparadox said:


> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip/unsnip>You have nothing to warrant an investigation. Nothing but words. There is enough counter evidence to guarantee a mistrial as it stands. Her entire premise is utterly refuted. It is done. Your expectations are unreasonable and baseless, and still you haven't addressed my original points.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The only thing you have convinced me of is that either you can't read or can't understand the written word. Oh, you are stubborn too, despite all the proof and evidence I've presented you just keep going back and harping on your erroneous and confused opinions.
Click to expand...



You can ignore everything I post all you want, but you can't take this back

It says and I quote* " And in this case, even assuming Ford's allegation to be true, there's no suggestion of a federal crime, quite apart from the statue of limitations issue.The FBI has no independent authority to open a criminal investigation."* End of story.

From the very article you posted.

You disproved your entire point. You want a witch trial. Plain and simple. You want that which our systems of Justice explicitly forbid. The same thing the democrats want.


----------



## Jerico

Windparadox said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, let it go.  If Kav were such a heinous creature, it would have been uncovered the first six times.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That isn't my point. My point is that the FBI can reopen the investigation only at the request of the president. See above post.
Click to expand...


It can open a criminal investigation at any point it wants to, regardless of what the president wants. You know very well why that hasn't happened.

Also, if Trump would just shut down the whole thing, why push so hard for it? Seems sort of inevitable doesn't it?

Let's get him confirmed first, then you can muster whatever investigation you think will work. Something tells me the democrats will abandon this like a hot potato just one day from now though just like the Moore accusers, or Trump's accusers.

 Kava...? naugh never heard of him! - Spartacus!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Windparadox said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, let it go.  If Kav were such a heinous creature, it would have been uncovered the first six times.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That isn't my point. My point is that the FBI can reopen the investigation only at the request of the president. See above post.
Click to expand...


They're not going to _investigate _an alleged 36 year-old non federal crime.  If they want to re-vet him, fine, I don't care.  But they're not going to come up with anything they din't uncover the first six times; they're quite thorough.


----------



## martybegan

Wry Catcher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the party who held onto these allegations for two months until it became politically opportunistic to reveal them. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ^^^ has zero to do with the issue at hand.
> 
> Kavanaugh has been accused of a crime, a crime against a child; the day before or 36 years in the past, matters not.  It must be investigated by Law Enforcement.
Click to expand...


Um, you imply via the whole "crime against a child" that he wasn't a child himself when this allegedly happened.

So again you have to lie to make things sound worse than they supposedly were. 

What a fucking useless hack you are.


----------



## petro

The FBI doesn't reach a conclusion.
The reports would be useless.
They do not make recommendations. 

Joe Bidens own words.

How Joe Biden’s comments about the FBI and Anita Hill are now being used against Democrats

Typical hypocrites of the DFL.


----------



## Billy_Bob

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the party who held onto these allegations for two months until it became politically opportunistic to reveal them. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ^^^ has zero to do with the issue at hand.
> 
> Kavanaugh has been accused of a crime, a crime against a child; the day before or 36 years in the past, matters not.  It must be investigated by Law Enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULL SHIT!
> 
> Has a charge been filed with the proper STATE authorities which have jurisdiction?   Nope... You got nothing fucktard..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The allegation is now in the public domain.  The local LE authority will evaluate a crime against a child.
> 
> Doubt it, you might want to review the case of  Martha Moxley and other cold cases.
> 
> Calling me a "fucktard" is childish and typical of your kind, those who are ignorant and cannot write an expository rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Bring them on...!  You have no credible witnesses or corroborating evidence..  Good Luck...Your going to need it!  I have talked with three well known District Attorneys and not one would ask for a search warrant based on the facts or file any charge.


----------



## Billy_Bob

Nosmo King said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
Click to expand...

Judge gave a written response under oath and under penalty of felony perjury.   You lose!  Its a matter of congressional record.


----------



## Billy_Bob

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip/unsnip>Do you support him being confirmed first, then having an investigation afterwards? If not, why not? What difference would that make?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> All those words and all you did was double down on your own confusion. I tried at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think the FBI is gonna say "oh, shit, Ford said he did what?  How'd we miss that the first six times?"
> 
> Hardly.
Click to expand...

Something this sever would have been found the FIRST time. Any one who has had an FBI investigate their backgrounds knows they LOOK for negative things on purpose. IF there had been even a hint of any of allegation they would have ripped his world apart.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Oddball said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegation is now in the public domain.  The local LE authority will evaluate a crime against a child.
> 
> Doubt it, you might want to review the case of  Martha Moxley and other cold cases.
> 
> Calling me a "fucktard" is childish and typical of your kind, those who are ignorant and cannot write an expository rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> The allegation has been in public domain long enough for the reputed witnesses to have denied the claim.
> 
> Calling you a "fucktard", while apropos, isn't exactly accurate....I'd lean more in the direction of "psychotic".
Click to expand...


LOL, you've always been a punk.  Do you still communicate with your prison buddy?


----------



## deanrd

Grassley just lied to America.

He said Dr. Ford stated there were four boys at the party where she was and she named three.  There is a place on the calendar that lists a beer party with the names of the three boys she named.  The number of boys listed is seven.  Grassley said since there were seven boys listed, then she was wrong.

Only she said there were AT LEAST four, not "four".  He knew that and yet he lied.  

That's all Republicans do, lie.

Lies is all they have.

Kenya, child sex ring anyone?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Windparadox said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that how you want to do this? fine, but be warned, you will need to do the pee-pee dance with the language to keep trying to prove what these words really mean do not really mean that, in which case I will let you go play soemwhere else:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> In other words, you don't have an intelligent or rational answer.
Click to expand...


All you seem to provide is emotional and unintelligent answers.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ABA can go to hell, committee vote will be tomorrow, with a floor vote early next week, the commies have lost again. Justice Kavanaugh will take his seat on the court by Friday the 5th. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope!  It won't be that long!  I think McConnell should have the vote on the floor as fast as he can.
> 
> Kavanaugh gets confirmed or any Republican voting "no" should gets quickly and permanently removed from the party.  They should be considered persona non grata.
Click to expand...


A senator who votes no will be labeled a RINO.  It's clearer now that the Republican members of Congress are the RINO's, cowed and in support of The President who abhors the genius of a Separation of Powers; A President who seeks to protect himself when he pulls a Nixon, and "legally" fires those who are investigating him.

Trump seeks one party power!  Those who support this not so well hidden agenda, are collaborates in what we are seeing happen today, a bloodless (at the moment) coup.

Be proud of your self, you've supported what our Founders feared.  Let's not pretend you fellow travelers, who support Trump and vote for the current iteration of Republicans, are patriots.  You are not!  Your are *at best* fools and cowards!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Windparadox said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well little girl, the FBI has completed it's background check on Kavanaugh including the Ford information. What comes next is the committee vote tomorrow. A floor vote to begin debate on Sunday and a floor vote to confirm mid week. He'll be seated by Thursday or Friday, with a bipartisan vote of 56-44. I'd bet $10. on it._
> 
> 
> 
> `
> You are welcome to your opinions. There is no law preventing the FBI from doing another background check based on the claims of these three women but as I said before, trump will not allow it. What happens after that, remains to be seen.
Click to expand...


Why should the FBI do another background check?  Is he being nominated to be God?  There is absolutely no reason for the FBI to investigate a crime that she cannot prove, was allegedly committed by a juvenile in Maryland, and occurred 36 years ago, give or take Ford's inaccurate memory.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Windparadox said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think the FBI is gonna say "oh, shit, Ford said he did what?  How'd we miss that the first six times?"Hardly.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> I don't care what the FBI thinks. They are at the behest of the president who will not allow them to do it. I'm merely agreeing with the ABA's suggestion that they do.
Click to expand...


The FBI cannot even get a warrant to investigate, so how do you propose they do so, even if they had jurisdiction?  There is zero evidence of any crime ever having occurred.


----------



## Windparadox

Soggy in NOLA said:


> They're not going to _investigate _an alleged 36 year-old non federal crime.  If they want to re-vet him, fine, I don't care.  But they're not going to come up with anything they din't uncover the first six times; they're quite thorough.


`
You don't read much, do you? It has already been thoroughly explained how this system works, yet you insist on falling back to your false, partisan beliefs. The introduction of Julie Swetnick, Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez represent *new* information that was not vetted or investigated by the FBI, information that the nations top attorneys, legal experts, senators, representatives, et al, consider absolutely pertinent in selecting a supreme court just justice.

You just don't know what you are talking about. There is just no other way to state this. While I understand your hyper partisan political beliefs has hampered your ability to discern facts from fiction, despite the reams of evidence presented, you just continue to rehash the same thing, over and over.


----------



## Windparadox

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> All you seem to provide is emotional and unintelligent answers.


`
Says the person who is always 100% opinion and 0% facts.


----------



## Nosmo King

Vastator said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark Judge has already sworn an affidavit.  Did you miss that part?  He says that Ford is lying.
> 
> What part aren't you people getting?  There is not a single intelligent person on this earth that backs Ford's version of events because it has more holes that a one ton block of Swiss cheese!  Her own friend whom she claimed was in the room basically said, "I have no idea what the fuck she is talking about!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her friend said that due to her health problems her lawyer wrote that statement without her approval.  The Arizona,prosecutor reveled that bon mot!  Judge has never testified under oath nor has he been interviewed by an FBI investigator.
> 
> Dr. Ford is credible.  Kavanaugh threw a fit in the afternoon.  Partisan, bitter and obfuscurial.  He has neither the temperamentnor the credibility to have a seat on the bench.  Are there no other jurists Conservative enough to serve as associate justice?  Why this particular guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes her “credible”?
Click to expand...

Her detailed memories, the fact she had talked about the incident in regard to Kavanaugh years before his nomination, Kavanaugh's reputation as a frat boy, a brat boy in his youth, Kavanaugh' reaction and hissy fit thrown yesterday afternoon.


----------



## Nosmo King

Billy_Bob said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judge gave a written response under oath and under penalty of felony perjury.   You lose!  Its a matter of congressional record.
Click to expand...

Not good enough!  Subpoena him and have him publically testify!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Wry Catcher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be correct; the current iteration of the Republican Party has no respect for the rule of law or respect for traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the party who held onto these allegations for two months until it became politically opportunistic to reveal them. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ^^^ has zero to do with the issue at hand.
Click to expand...


It has everything to do with the issue at hand.  If your party was so concerned about this woman they'd have brought it forward right from the beginning instead of waiting until the last minute when they could possibly derail the entire appointment before the midterms.  The whole lot of you are dishonest and dishonorable people and American saw it on display yesterday.



> Kavanaugh has been accused of a crime, a crime against a child; the day before or 36 years in the past, matters not.  It must be investigated by Law Enforcement.



Well, Ford would need to file a police report in order for that to happen and she has done no such thing.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Wry Catcher said:


> A senator who votes no will be labeled a RINO.  It's clearer now that the Republican members of Congress are the RINO's, cowed and in support of The President who abhors the genius of a Separation of Powers; A President who seeks to protect himself when he pulls a Nixon, and "legally" fires those who are investigating him.
> 
> Trump seeks one party power!  Those who support this not so well hidden agenda, are collaborates in what we are seeing happen today, a bloodless (at the moment) coup.
> 
> Be proud of your self, you've supported what our Founders feared.  Let's not pretend you fellow travelers, who support Trump and vote for the current iteration of Republicans, are patriots.  You are not!  Your are *at best* fools and cowards!



You don't give a shit about the Constitution and you don't give a shit about sexual abuse towards women.  All you and your despicable ilk care about is preventing the Supreme Court from having a conservative majority because that's the only way you clowns have been able to get your radical agendas approved for decades and you're willing to destroy a man and his family in order to keep that power.  You're sick in the head.

I used to be a Democrat and never have I been more disgusted with the Democratic Party than I am today.


----------



## hunarcy

Windparadox said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
Click to expand...


It shows that the American Bar Association's request is unnecessary.


----------



## hunarcy

Nosmo King said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judge gave a written response under oath and under penalty of felony perjury.   You lose!  Its a matter of congressional record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not good enough!  Subpoena him and have him publically testify!
Click to expand...


Not up to you to decide.  And, you've shown yourself so partisan that it's obvious that no matter what happens, you'll be stamping your little foot saying "Not good enough!"


----------



## Nosmo King

hunarcy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judge gave a written response under oath and under penalty of felony perjury.   You lose!  Its a matter of congressional record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not good enough!  Subpoena him and have him publically testify!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not up to you to decide.  And, you've shown yourself so partisan that it's obvious that no matter what happens, you'll be stamping your little foot saying "Not good enough!"
Click to expand...

The win at any cost tactics of the Republicans might seem to be great for rabid partisans, but consider this: if you like the partisan politics and the results of it brought about in congress, what will be the result when a political operative is seated on the Supreme Court?  Will there be justice, or will we slip into Authoritarian one party rule?


----------



## miketx

Wry Catcher said:


> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*


Those libtards can pound sand.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Windparadox said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not going to _investigate _an alleged 36 year-old non federal crime.  If they want to re-vet him, fine, I don't care.  But they're not going to come up with anything they din't uncover the first six times; they're quite thorough.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> You don't read much, do you? It has already been thoroughly explained how this system works, yet you insist on falling back to your false, partisan beliefs. The introduction of Julie Swetnick, Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez represent *new* information that was not vetted or investigated by the FBI, information that the nations top attorneys, legal experts, senators, representatives, et al, consider absolutely pertinent in selecting a supreme court just justice.
> 
> You just don't know what you are talking about. There is just no other way to state this. While I understand your hyper partisan political beliefs has hampered your ability to discern facts from fiction, despite the reams of evidence presented, you just continue to rehash the same thing, over and over.
Click to expand...


What reams of evidence? You have NOTHING.


----------



## McRocket

Billy_Bob said:


> A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...



The American Bar Association is a 'far left wing group'? That's about the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a while.

_'One function of the ABA is its creation and maintenance of a code of ethical standards for lawyers. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1969) and/or the newer Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983) have been adopted in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the United States Virgin Islands. The exception is the State Bar of California; however, a few sections of the California Rules of Professional Conduct were drawn from the ABA models.'_

American Bar Association - Wikipedia


*Where is your link to unbiased factual proof that the AMA is a 'far left wing group'?

I GUARANTEE that you can provide no such link.*


----------



## hunarcy

Nosmo King said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> 
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judge gave a written response under oath and under penalty of felony perjury.   You lose!  Its a matter of congressional record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not good enough!  Subpoena him and have him publically testify!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not up to you to decide.  And, you've shown yourself so partisan that it's obvious that no matter what happens, you'll be stamping your little foot saying "Not good enough!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The win at any cost tactics of the Republicans might seem to be great for rabid partisans, but consider this: if you like the partisan politics and the results of it brought about in congress, what will be the result when a political operative is seated on the Supreme Court?  Will there be justice, or will we slip into Authoritarian one party rule?
Click to expand...


Isn't that the exact reason that the win at any cost tactics of the Democrats be rejected?  You clowns accuse the Republicans of behaving like you because you feel it's a way to distract from the evil that dwells at the core of the Democratic Party.  I am not a Republican nor a Democrat.  I am a Progressive who feels that associating myself with the Democrats weakens my cause and diminishes my voice.  I can't be heard over the corrupt and wicked voices of the Hillarybots and their allies.  I hope Bernie runs as an Independent so he will have a FAIR opportunity to be elected and won't have to face the disgusting machinations and cheating of the Democratic Party again.  If he does not, I will find another candidate...not a Democrat or a Republican.


----------



## hunarcy

McRocket said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association is a 'far left wing group'? That's about the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a while.
> 
> _'One function of the ABA is its creation and maintenance of a code of ethical standards for lawyers. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1969) and/or the newer Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983) have been adopted in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the United States Virgin Islands. The exception is the State Bar of California; however, a few sections of the California Rules of Professional Conduct were drawn from the ABA models.'_
> 
> American Bar Association - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> *Where is your link to unbiased factual proof that the AMA is a 'far left wing group'?
> 
> I GUARANTEE that you can provide no such link.*
Click to expand...


The American Bar Association's History of Liberal Advocacy


----------



## McRocket

hunarcy said:


> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association is a 'far left wing group'? That's about the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a while.
> 
> _'One function of the ABA is its creation and maintenance of a code of ethical standards for lawyers. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1969) and/or the newer Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983) have been adopted in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the United States Virgin Islands. The exception is the State Bar of California; however, a few sections of the California Rules of Professional Conduct were drawn from the ABA models.'_
> 
> American Bar Association - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> *Where is your link to unbiased factual proof that the AMA is a 'far left wing group'?
> 
> I GUARANTEE that you can provide no such link.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association's History of Liberal Advocacy
Click to expand...


A) the author of your link is HARDLY 'unbiased' on this. He is a very conservative guy.

B) Besides which - he said (that I saw) NOTHING about the ABA being a 'FAR left wing group'. He just said they were left of center...which I might tend to agree with.
 But calling them 'FAR left wing' is flat out ridiculous.


'Far Left
_Also known as the extreme left, ultra left or radical left. *The Far Left most often includes anarchists and communists.* The Far Left refers to the highest degree of leftism in politics, and seeks perfect or near perfect equality.'

Urban Dictionary: Far Left_


----------



## Wry Catcher

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well little girl, the FBI has completed it's background check on Kavanaugh including the Ford information. What comes next is the committee vote tomorrow. A floor vote to begin debate on Sunday and a floor vote to confirm mid week. He'll be seated by Thursday or Friday, with a bipartisan vote of 56-44. I'd bet $10. on it._
> 
> 
> 
> `
> You are welcome to your opinions. There is no law preventing the FBI from doing another background check based on the claims of these three women but as I said before, trump will not allow it. What happens after that, remains to be seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the FBI do another background check?  Is he being nominated to be God?  There is absolutely no reason for the FBI to investigate a crime that she cannot prove, was allegedly committed by a juvenile in Maryland, and occurred 36 years ago, give or take Ford's inaccurate memory.
Click to expand...


Are you fearful that an investigation of a sex crime against a child is not warranted?  The victim has identified a person as the perp.; any other allegation against someone accused with this crime will be investigated and the perp. can be culpable, tried and imprisoned even 36 years later.

Read and try to comprehend:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-civil-statutes-of-limitations-in-child-sexua.aspx


----------



## hunarcy

McRocket said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association is a 'far left wing group'? That's about the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a while.
> 
> _'One function of the ABA is its creation and maintenance of a code of ethical standards for lawyers. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1969) and/or the newer Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983) have been adopted in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the United States Virgin Islands. The exception is the State Bar of California; however, a few sections of the California Rules of Professional Conduct were drawn from the ABA models.'_
> 
> American Bar Association - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> *Where is your link to unbiased factual proof that the AMA is a 'far left wing group'?
> 
> I GUARANTEE that you can provide no such link.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association's History of Liberal Advocacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) the author of your link is HARDLY 'unbiased' on this. He is a very conservative guy.
> 
> B) Besides which - he said (that I saw) NOTHING about the ABA being a 'FAR left wing group'. He just said they were left of center...which I might tend to agree with.
> But calling them 'FAR left wing' is flat out ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 'Far Left
> _Also known as the extreme left, ultra left or radical left. *The Far Left most often includes anarchists and communists.* The Far Left refers to the highest degree of leftism in politics, and seeks perfect or near perfect equality.'
> 
> Urban Dictionary: Far Left_
Click to expand...


I didn't realize that y'all had rules about bias..  I was just trying to help.


----------



## McRocket

hunarcy said:


> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association is a 'far left wing group'? That's about the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a while.
> 
> _'One function of the ABA is its creation and maintenance of a code of ethical standards for lawyers. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1969) and/or the newer Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983) have been adopted in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the United States Virgin Islands. The exception is the State Bar of California; however, a few sections of the California Rules of Professional Conduct were drawn from the ABA models.'_
> 
> American Bar Association - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> *Where is your link to unbiased factual proof that the AMA is a 'far left wing group'?
> 
> I GUARANTEE that you can provide no such link.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association's History of Liberal Advocacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) the author of your link is HARDLY 'unbiased' on this. He is a very conservative guy.
> 
> B) Besides which - he said (that I saw) NOTHING about the ABA being a 'FAR left wing group'. He just said they were left of center...which I might tend to agree with.
> But calling them 'FAR left wing' is flat out ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 'Far Left
> _Also known as the extreme left, ultra left or radical left. *The Far Left most often includes anarchists and communists.* The Far Left refers to the highest degree of leftism in politics, and seeks perfect or near perfect equality.'
> 
> Urban Dictionary: Far Left_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that y'all had rules about bias..  I was just trying to help.
Click to expand...


Well, thanks for trying. But I did put right in my request 'unbiased' in bold letters.


----------



## hunarcy

McRocket said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> A far left wing group parroting a baseless claim....  how unoriginal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association is a 'far left wing group'? That's about the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a while.
> 
> _'One function of the ABA is its creation and maintenance of a code of ethical standards for lawyers. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1969) and/or the newer Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983) have been adopted in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the United States Virgin Islands. The exception is the State Bar of California; however, a few sections of the California Rules of Professional Conduct were drawn from the ABA models.'_
> 
> American Bar Association - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> *Where is your link to unbiased factual proof that the AMA is a 'far left wing group'?
> 
> I GUARANTEE that you can provide no such link.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association's History of Liberal Advocacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) the author of your link is HARDLY 'unbiased' on this. He is a very conservative guy.
> 
> B) Besides which - he said (that I saw) NOTHING about the ABA being a 'FAR left wing group'. He just said they were left of center...which I might tend to agree with.
> But calling them 'FAR left wing' is flat out ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 'Far Left
> _Also known as the extreme left, ultra left or radical left. *The Far Left most often includes anarchists and communists.* The Far Left refers to the highest degree of leftism in politics, and seeks perfect or near perfect equality.'
> 
> Urban Dictionary: Far Left_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that y'all had rules about bias..  I was just trying to help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for trying. But I did put right in my request 'unbiased' in bold letters.
Click to expand...


Ah, I just read the last line, not the giant bold line.  LOL!


----------



## Wry Catcher

OKTexas said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ABA can go to hell, committee vote will be tomorrow, with a floor vote early next week, the commies have lost again. Justice Kavanaugh will take his seat on the court by Friday the 5th. LMAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Truly, you seem to be out of touch with reality,.  You clearly don't care about truth, justice or the American Way of Jurisprudence.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billy_Bob said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Very smart move. There are way too many unanswered questions here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly they are all in Fords lack of facts and corroborating evidence...  How about you file these allegations with the proper authorities and see where they go...  The FBI isn't it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say.  A crime has been alleged, a crime against a child.  Local LE has a duty to investigate the allegation, and is able to request assistance from the State AG's Office or the FBI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "is able to request assistance"
> 
> Which means the STATE AUTHORITIES MUST REQUEST IT.  Which means the STATE must have an open investigation it believes is credible....   Again the STATE has no such investigation ongoing..
> 
> No credible story, no credible witnesses, you got nothing! the state will not investigate this..
Click to expand...


You have no clue, and pretend you do.  Why don't you check facts before you post?  Not doing so is why you have no credibility.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
Click to expand...


And you do know this to be a fact?  Prove it, for I know differently.  The DOJ has a wide range of resources, show us the policy which denies them the authority to aid local authority.


----------



## beautress

Nosmo King said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> 
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judge gave a written response under oath and under penalty of felony perjury.   You lose!  Its a matter of congressional record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not good enough!  Subpoena him and have him publically testify!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not up to you to decide.  And, you've shown yourself so partisan that it's obvious that no matter what happens, you'll be stamping your little foot saying "Not good enough!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The win at any cost tactics of the Republicans might seem to be great for rabid partisans, but consider this: if you like the partisan politics and the results of it brought about in congress, what will be the result when a political operative is seated on the Supreme Court?  Will there be justice, or will we slip into Authoritarian one party rule?
Click to expand...

Project much?


----------



## McRocket

hunarcy said:


> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association is a 'far left wing group'? That's about the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a while.
> 
> _'One function of the ABA is its creation and maintenance of a code of ethical standards for lawyers. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1969) and/or the newer Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983) have been adopted in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the United States Virgin Islands. The exception is the State Bar of California; however, a few sections of the California Rules of Professional Conduct were drawn from the ABA models.'_
> 
> American Bar Association - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> *Where is your link to unbiased factual proof that the AMA is a 'far left wing group'?
> 
> I GUARANTEE that you can provide no such link.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association's History of Liberal Advocacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) the author of your link is HARDLY 'unbiased' on this. He is a very conservative guy.
> 
> B) Besides which - he said (that I saw) NOTHING about the ABA being a 'FAR left wing group'. He just said they were left of center...which I might tend to agree with.
> But calling them 'FAR left wing' is flat out ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 'Far Left
> _Also known as the extreme left, ultra left or radical left. *The Far Left most often includes anarchists and communists.* The Far Left refers to the highest degree of leftism in politics, and seeks perfect or near perfect equality.'
> 
> Urban Dictionary: Far Left_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that y'all had rules about bias..  I was just trying to help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for trying. But I did put right in my request 'unbiased' in bold letters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I just read the last line, not the giant bold line.  LOL!
Click to expand...


Fair enough.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Assaulted Christine Ford, Not Kavanaugh
> 
> 
> 
> `
> What does that have to do with the American Bar Associations request????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you do know this to be a fact?  Prove it, for I know differently.  The DOJ has a wide range of resources, show us the policy which denies them the authority to aid local authority.
Click to expand...


There is no proof that anything happened.
The accuser gave her "evidence" in front of the Senate and it is nothing but vague memories of a drunken evening no doubt eroded in some places and exaggerated in others by the passage of time (36 years worth of time to be exact)


----------



## Nosmo King

beautress said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> 
> 
> Judge gave a written response under oath and under penalty of felony perjury.   You lose!  Its a matter of congressional record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not good enough!  Subpoena him and have him publically testify!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not up to you to decide.  And, you've shown yourself so partisan that it's obvious that no matter what happens, you'll be stamping your little foot saying "Not good enough!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The win at any cost tactics of the Republicans might seem to be great for rabid partisans, but consider this: if you like the partisan politics and the results of it brought about in congress, what will be the result when a political operative is seated on the Supreme Court?  Will there be justice, or will we slip into Authoritarian one party rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Project much?
Click to expand...

It's tough to slip into Authoritarian one party rule when your opposition controls both houses of congress, the White House and, it appears, the Supreme Court.


----------



## beautress

Nosmo King said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judge gave a written response under oath and under penalty of felony perjury.   You lose!  Its a matter of congressional record.
> 
> 
> 
> Not good enough!  Subpoena him and have him publically testify!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not up to you to decide.  And, you've shown yourself so partisan that it's obvious that no matter what happens, you'll be stamping your little foot saying "Not good enough!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The win at any cost tactics of the Republicans might seem to be great for rabid partisans, but consider this: if you like the partisan politics and the results of it brought about in congress, what will be the result when a political operative is seated on the Supreme Court?  Will there be justice, or will we slip into Authoritarian one party rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Project much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's tough to slip into Authoritarian one party rule when your opposition controls both houses of congress, the White House and, it appears, the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

With all due respect to your heartfelt loyalty to a party that some of us feel has been dealing from the bottom of the deck when nobody is watching, I cannot respect the flagrant unsubstantiated testimony and myriad acts of obfuscation therein that was brought to the public attention at the Kavanaugh roast, disguised as a hearing for fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. Dr. Ford needs some serious care for an extended time from now on. How could the Democrats do such a heinous thing to a person who was hurt, but can't remember any details except for one: her perpetrator was the most important Republican nominee, and her extremism puts her in the unique position of actually hating any and all Republicans, especially if they are just in her road to which a victim entitles only themselves while everybody else is just in the rear view mirror. That's why they should have hospitalized her, not pushed her into the national political arena where demands on her memory must be quite clear enough to convince skeptics like me who thinks the event may not have taken place until she decided on someone she hated as much as the real perpetrator, and it just happens to be somebody she assumes is evil as her perpetrator was because of her own brainwashing by party controllers who reward her for doing certain deeds she does well.

I'm sorry for my skepticism, but I have higher standards for proof when it comes to blatantly pillorying the innocent. And those whose mastery is of borderline persuasion to achieve a political end who have serious mental issues should not be called upon to destroy reputations of their opponents. It's too close to criminality for comfort. Do you see what I mean? Federal judge Kavanaugh claimed he was a virgin in his high school years and never harmed anybody in the way that Dr. Ford described. His focus was future career at the time of this happening, and nobody she claims was present was present, and they said so with the knowledge they were giving legal testimony punishable by perjury if found untruthful. Her 2 friends of the four did not remember being at a gathering of the people she mentioned, the same as the two active perpetrators she claimed assaulted/observed her in a traumatic way. IOW, all four of them said the same thing--they were not there and she says she did not tell anything to anyone of the two friends who could and would have supported her in a clinch. It also seemed very sleazy to me to waive Judge Kavanaugh's rights as a citizen to face his accuser. Our forefathers advised this to prevent the accuser from engaging in lying as was done in 1692 in Salem, Massachusetts. That makes that entire procedure no different from the Salem atrocity. You'd expect a Senate hearing to insist upon protection for the accused, who is innocent until proven guilty. Have our Senators gone nuts to put up with such proceedings as that one? If you're going to allow somebody to assassinate another's character, you better pay attention to human rights of the accused. Otherwise, you let an accuser hang the person who may or may not be guilty as charged. This incident was not a circus, it was a travest of justice against a person who has at all times in his life strived to do the right thing.


----------



## Jerico

Windparadox said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not going to _investigate _an alleged 36 year-old non federal crime.  If they want to re-vet him, fine, I don't care.  But they're not going to come up with anything they din't uncover the first six times; they're quite thorough.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> You don't read much, do you? It has already been thoroughly explained how this system works, yet you insist on falling back to your false, partisan beliefs. The introduction of Julie Swetnick, Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez represent *new* information that was not vetted or investigated by the FBI, information that the nations top attorneys, legal experts, senators, representatives, et al, consider absolutely pertinent in selecting a supreme court just justice.
> 
> You just don't know what you are talking about. There is just no other way to state this. While I understand your hyper partisan political beliefs has hampered your ability to discern facts from fiction, despite the reams of evidence presented, you just continue to rehash the same thing, over and over.
Click to expand...


Hey, Paradox, are you happy yet?

Trump is allowing the FBI to do another preliminary investigation.

I'm already wondering how this will be painted as a negative by you considering you're getting exactly what you wanted. Perhaps when Kavanaugh is finally confirmed, you will appreciate the fact that he is truly innocent. All of this is smoke and mirrors though. The FBI will quite quickly report that there is no merit for a full investigation because there's no corroborating evidence that a crime to investigate even happened. Something you and I already know.

Possible excuses:

A) 1 week isn't long enough. It was long enough to go through 650,000 Clinton emails. I think they got this!

B)Trump will taint the investigation. Obama did that so fair is fair I suppose.

C)Republicans will confirm him regardless. Democrats wouldn't?

D) Russian bots. RUSKY2000 reporting for duty!

Not that I am accusing you of being so stereotypical since accusations are so incredibly powerful now a days, but I have a hard time thinking that you will give Republicans any credit for this despite it being what you wanted not even 20 hours ago. If I am wrong, and you do infact give them credit, then kudos to you! Forgive my snarky skepticism in such a case. I'm used to having to keep my guard up at all times due to the frothing at the mouth TDS infested zombies I run into literally everywhere online.


----------



## OKTexas

beautress said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> 
> 
> Judge gave a written response under oath and under penalty of felony perjury.   You lose!  Its a matter of congressional record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not good enough!  Subpoena him and have him publically testify!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not up to you to decide.  And, you've shown yourself so partisan that it's obvious that no matter what happens, you'll be stamping your little foot saying "Not good enough!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The win at any cost tactics of the Republicans might seem to be great for rabid partisans, but consider this: if you like the partisan politics and the results of it brought about in congress, what will be the result when a political operative is seated on the Supreme Court?  Will there be justice, or will we slip into Authoritarian one party rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Project much?
Click to expand...



Exactly, and welcome.

.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Nosmo King said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Bar Association should know that the FBI doesn't get involved in local juvenile crimes.  They have no jurisdiction.  After all, they are supposedly lawyers, right?
> 
> 
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark Judge has already sworn an affidavit.  Did you miss that part?  He says that Ford is lying.
> 
> What part aren't you people getting?  There is not a single intelligent person on this earth that backs Ford's version of events because it has more holes that a one ton block of Swiss cheese!  Her own friend whom she claimed was in the room basically said, "I have no idea what the fuck she is talking about!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her friend said that due to her health problems her lawyer wrote that statement without her approval.  The Arizona,prosecutor reveled that bon mot!  Judge has never testified under oath nor has he been interviewed by an FBI investigator.
> 
> Dr. Ford is credible.  Kavanaugh threw a fit in the afternoon.  Partisan, bitter and obfuscurial.  He has neither the temperamentnor the credibility to have a seat on the bench.  Are there no other jurists Conservative enough to serve as associate justice?  Why this particular guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes her “credible”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her detailed memories, the fact she had talked about the incident in regard to Kavanaugh years before his nomination, Kavanaugh's reputation as a frat boy, a brat boy in his youth, Kavanaugh' reaction and hissy fit thrown yesterday afternoon.
Click to expand...



Too bad she has zero evidence.


----------



## Nosmo King

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the FBI conducts background searches.  They just have to chase down a few more leads.  Where's Mark Judge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Judge has already sworn an affidavit.  Did you miss that part?  He says that Ford is lying.
> 
> What part aren't you people getting?  There is not a single intelligent person on this earth that backs Ford's version of events because it has more holes that a one ton block of Swiss cheese!  Her own friend whom she claimed was in the room basically said, "I have no idea what the fuck she is talking about!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her friend said that due to her health problems her lawyer wrote that statement without her approval.  The Arizona,prosecutor reveled that bon mot!  Judge has never testified under oath nor has he been interviewed by an FBI investigator.
> 
> Dr. Ford is credible.  Kavanaugh threw a fit in the afternoon.  Partisan, bitter and obfuscurial.  He has neither the temperamentnor the credibility to have a seat on the bench.  Are there no other jurists Conservative enough to serve as associate justice?  Why this particular guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes her “credible”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her detailed memories, the fact she had talked about the incident in regard to Kavanaugh years before his nomination, Kavanaugh's reputation as a frat boy, a brat boy in his youth, Kavanaugh' reaction and hissy fit thrown yesterday afternoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad she has zero evidence.
Click to expand...

No evidence pending an investigation.  Denied the capacity to have other  witnesses callled to testify.  Denied an investigation at the outset.

It's easy to frame someone when due process and even due diligence is withdrawn.  The fix is in at the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary committee.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Nosmo King said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Judge has already sworn an affidavit.  Did you miss that part?  He says that Ford is lying.
> 
> What part aren't you people getting?  There is not a single intelligent person on this earth that backs Ford's version of events because it has more holes that a one ton block of Swiss cheese!  Her own friend whom she claimed was in the room basically said, "I have no idea what the fuck she is talking about!"
> 
> 
> 
> Her friend said that due to her health problems her lawyer wrote that statement without her approval.  The Arizona,prosecutor reveled that bon mot!  Judge has never testified under oath nor has he been interviewed by an FBI investigator.
> 
> Dr. Ford is credible.  Kavanaugh threw a fit in the afternoon.  Partisan, bitter and obfuscurial.  He has neither the temperamentnor the credibility to have a seat on the bench.  Are there no other jurists Conservative enough to serve as associate justice?  Why this particular guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes her “credible”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her detailed memories, the fact she had talked about the incident in regard to Kavanaugh years before his nomination, Kavanaugh's reputation as a frat boy, a brat boy in his youth, Kavanaugh' reaction and hissy fit thrown yesterday afternoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad she has zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evidence pending an investigation.  Denied the capacity to have other  witnesses callled to testify.  Denied an investigation at the outset.
> 
> It's easy to frame someone when due process and even due diligence is withdrawn.  The fix is in at the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary committee.
Click to expand...


There are no other witnesses and that is why you are an incredible dumbass!

Who exactly do you think the FBI is going to interview?  The so-called witnesses named in these allegations have already stated that Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick are all off their rockers!  Do you think they will suddenly come clean because an FBI agent asks them as opposed to anyone else?


----------



## Nosmo King

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her friend said that due to her health problems her lawyer wrote that statement without her approval.  The Arizona,prosecutor reveled that bon mot!  Judge has never testified under oath nor has he been interviewed by an FBI investigator.
> 
> Dr. Ford is credible.  Kavanaugh threw a fit in the afternoon.  Partisan, bitter and obfuscurial.  He has neither the temperamentnor the credibility to have a seat on the bench.  Are there no other jurists Conservative enough to serve as associate justice?  Why this particular guy?
> 
> 
> 
> What makes her “credible”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her detailed memories, the fact she had talked about the incident in regard to Kavanaugh years before his nomination, Kavanaugh's reputation as a frat boy, a brat boy in his youth, Kavanaugh' reaction and hissy fit thrown yesterday afternoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad she has zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evidence pending an investigation.  Denied the capacity to have other  witnesses callled to testify.  Denied an investigation at the outset.
> 
> It's easy to frame someone when due process and even due diligence is withdrawn.  The fix is in at the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary committee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no other witnesses and that is why you are an incredible dumbass!
> 
> Who exactly do you think the FBI is going to interview?  The so-called witnesses named in these allegations have already stated that Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick are all off their rockers!  Do you think they will suddenly come clean because an FBI agent asks them as opposed to anyone else?
Click to expand...

Yes


----------



## Jerico

Nosmo King said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Judge has already sworn an affidavit.  Did you miss that part?  He says that Ford is lying.
> 
> What part aren't you people getting?  There is not a single intelligent person on this earth that backs Ford's version of events because it has more holes that a one ton block of Swiss cheese!  Her own friend whom she claimed was in the room basically said, "I have no idea what the fuck she is talking about!"
> 
> 
> 
> Her friend said that due to her health problems her lawyer wrote that statement without her approval.  The Arizona,prosecutor reveled that bon mot!  Judge has never testified under oath nor has he been interviewed by an FBI investigator.
> 
> Dr. Ford is credible.  Kavanaugh threw a fit in the afternoon.  Partisan, bitter and obfuscurial.  He has neither the temperamentnor the credibility to have a seat on the bench.  Are there no other jurists Conservative enough to serve as associate justice?  Why this particular guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes her “credible”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her detailed memories, the fact she had talked about the incident in regard to Kavanaugh years before his nomination, Kavanaugh's reputation as a frat boy, a brat boy in his youth, Kavanaugh' reaction and hissy fit thrown yesterday afternoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad she has zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evidence pending an investigation.  Denied the capacity to have other  witnesses callled to testify.  Denied an investigation at the outset.
> 
> It's easy to frame someone when due process and even due diligence is withdrawn.  The fix is in at the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary committee.
Click to expand...


You are living on another planet where truth is a lie, the sun is made of cheese, and the sky is whatever color someone wants it to be.

The democrats are on record as having completely stonewalled every investigation that was offered. On Record. As in, you can't slither out from that fact. The SJC delayed the hearing no fewer than twice to accommodate Ford/Democrats. She lied when she said she didn't fly and that she'd have to drive.

As of right now, Trump even gave them the FBI investigation they claimed to want. Too bad none of the democrats are screaming for joy. They immediately turn it into a problem despite bitching about wanting that for weeks.

You people are dangerously delusional. I mean dangerously. It's clear from posts like this just how horrific the propaganda has become. You people are literally siding with whatever is the precise opposite of the truth. It's to that point.

Get help. Find new sources of information. Save yourself, and your sanity before it's too late. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history to the degree that you are. If only you'd look in the mirror long enough, you'd realize it too.

The hypocrisy on the left is beyond comical at this point. It's horrific. Whether it be the media, hollywood or congressional democrats, I cannot believe the depths to which they will sink to fool this country into electing its own destruction. It is the most disgusting thing I think this country has ever borne witness to politically speaking.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Nosmo King said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes her “credible”?
> 
> 
> 
> Her detailed memories, the fact she had talked about the incident in regard to Kavanaugh years before his nomination, Kavanaugh's reputation as a frat boy, a brat boy in his youth, Kavanaugh' reaction and hissy fit thrown yesterday afternoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad she has zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evidence pending an investigation.  Denied the capacity to have other  witnesses callled to testify.  Denied an investigation at the outset.
> 
> It's easy to frame someone when due process and even due diligence is withdrawn.  The fix is in at the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary committee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no other witnesses and that is why you are an incredible dumbass!
> 
> Who exactly do you think the FBI is going to interview?  The so-called witnesses named in these allegations have already stated that Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick are all off their rockers!  Do you think they will suddenly come clean because an FBI agent asks them as opposed to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...


OMG, you are the dumbest libtard on this board!

BTW, did you see that Swetnick was sued for sexual harassment by two coworkers?  That's some pot calling the kettle black!


----------



## beautress

Well, Mr. NoSmoKing, I've slept on this and only one thing has changed in my mind. I can accept a week extra to wait on the FBI investigation, whilst I have been told it already took place, my dear Republican Party does have a lot of power, which was earned on a blow-by-blow win. The balance of power is in our favor. If we use it properly, we deserve to remain in power so long as we keep our noses clean. I can concede one week to insure that the SECOND inquiry confirms the FIRST provided there be a cut off of more unconfirmed DNC demagogues coming forward with only one intention: to prolong this matter beyond a week, and that the DNC controls the number of lies that have already come out to destroy this candidacy of Brett Kavanaugh, whose sterling character has been smudged by professional game changers such as a psychologist female who AFTER Judge Kavanaugh had been a Federal Judge for 6 years, decided to tell someone else other than herself who damaged her 30-year-old memory of what took place and following her radicalized adherence to creating scenarios in her profession about how to persuade anybody of anything simply by controlling the environment with information from any kind of source to produce any kind of results the perpetrators of this persuasion decided would achieve the best results. That's basically my understanding of experimental psychology, and trust me, it differs from the old timey obtaining of facts that prove something to be true or false based on what is found rather than what may be created to achieve such an agenda as changing Constitutional provisions including amendments directed at keeping stuff fair..

So I concede, I can live with but don't like yielding one more week for the specific purpose that the spirit of party retaliation is contained and discarded in order to confirm a person who is qualified to settle the disputes of Americans. Provided there will be no more unsubstantiated claims against President Trump and his learned staff who provided this well-credentialed man of letters, not to mention laws, as the best candidate. The DNC must agree to no more dirty tricks for the same full week. Period.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Oddball said:


> I'll take "Shit that isn't going to happen" for $1,000, Alex.



Looks like you and the six or so others who applauded your effort(?), Desire(?), Fantasy(?) or childish magical thinking(!) has evaporated by reality.

Seriously very oddball, you should grow up and be fined for your unintentional smearing of commuter screens, and justice; coffee spit out when the reader laughs out loud blurs the vision and leading the biddable with your boorish propaganda isn't nice.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her detailed memories, the fact she had talked about the incident in regard to Kavanaugh years before his nomination, Kavanaugh's reputation as a frat boy, a brat boy in his youth, Kavanaugh' reaction and hissy fit thrown yesterday afternoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad she has zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evidence pending an investigation.  Denied the capacity to have other  witnesses callled to testify.  Denied an investigation at the outset.
> 
> It's easy to frame someone when due process and even due diligence is withdrawn.  The fix is in at the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary committee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no other witnesses and that is why you are an incredible dumbass!
> 
> Who exactly do you think the FBI is going to interview?  The so-called witnesses named in these allegations have already stated that Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick are all off their rockers!  Do you think they will suddenly come clean because an FBI agent asks them as opposed to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, you are the dumbest libtard on this board!
> 
> BTW, did you see that Swetnick was sued for sexual harassment by two coworkers?  That's some pot calling the kettle black!
Click to expand...


Relevance?  Someone psychologically traumatized might engage in bizarre behavior; consider that children molested by same sex perverts often end up with pathological hate for homosexuals.


----------



## Billy_Bob

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her detailed memories, the fact she had talked about the incident in regard to Kavanaugh years before his nomination, Kavanaugh's reputation as a frat boy, a brat boy in his youth, Kavanaugh' reaction and hissy fit thrown yesterday afternoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad she has zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evidence pending an investigation.  Denied the capacity to have other  witnesses callled to testify.  Denied an investigation at the outset.
> 
> It's easy to frame someone when due process and even due diligence is withdrawn.  The fix is in at the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary committee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no other witnesses and that is why you are an incredible dumbass!
> 
> Who exactly do you think the FBI is going to interview?  The so-called witnesses named in these allegations have already stated that Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick are all off their rockers!  Do you think they will suddenly come clean because an FBI agent asks them as opposed to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, you are the dumbest libtard on this board!
> 
> BTW, did you see that Swetnick was sued for sexual harassment by two coworkers?  That's some pot calling the kettle black!
Click to expand...

Swetnick has also been sued for baseless sex assault claims... She has a significant history of lying and its a matter of court record. Creepy Porn Lawyer and this liar...  Two peas in a pod..


----------



## Billy_Bob

beautress said:


> Well, Mr. NoSmoKing, I've slept on this and only one thing has changed in my mind. I can accept a week extra to wait on the FBI investigation, whilst I have been told it already took place, my dear Republican Party does have a lot of power, which was earned on a blow-by-blow win. The balance of power is in our favor. If we use it properly, we deserve to remain in power so long as we keep our noses clean. I can concede one week to insure that the SECOND inquiry confirms the FIRST provided there be a cut off of more unconfirmed DNC demagogues coming forward with only one intention: to prolong this matter beyond a week, and that the DNC controls the number of lies that have already come out to destroy this candidacy of Brett Kavanaugh, whose sterling character has been smudged by professional game changers such as a psychologist female who AFTER Judge Kavanaugh had been a Federal Judge for 6 years, decided to tell someone else other than herself who damaged her 30-year-old memory of what took place and following her radicalized adherence to creating scenarios in her profession about how to persuade anybody of anything simply by controlling the environment with information from any kind of source to produce any kind of results the perpetrators of this persuasion decided would achieve the best results. That's basically my understanding of experimental psychology, and trust me, it differs from the old timey obtaining of facts that prove something to be true or false based on what is found rather than what may be created to achieve such an agenda as changing Constitutional provisions including amendments directed at keeping stuff fair..
> 
> So I concede, I can live with but don't like yielding one more week for the specific purpose that the spirit of party retaliation is contained and discarded in order to confirm a person who is qualified to settle the disputes of Americans. Provided there will be no more unsubstantiated claims against President Trump and his learned staff who provided this well-credentialed man of letters, not to mention laws, as the best candidate. The DNC must agree to no more dirty tricks for the same full week. Period.


There is a silver lining to the FBI investigation.  Trump, in his order, instructed the FBI to refer all crimes they find to proper local authorities. So they have been tasked with not only evidence collection for the senate but they have been tasked with looking into the veracity of claims and referring them to proper authorities.  While congress will not get any recommendations, only the interview information, the FBI will be giving that information to local authorities for prosecutions if they feel they are warranted..

So if they find that the accusations are frivolous and defamatory the left is going to get serious blow back by being charged...   Now that is damn funny to me...  The Sword of Justice has cutting edges on both sides of the blade and it cuts both ways..

I think the left got a whole lot more than they wanted...


----------



## Jerico

Wry Catcher said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad she has zero evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence pending an investigation.  Denied the capacity to have other  witnesses callled to testify.  Denied an investigation at the outset.
> 
> It's easy to frame someone when due process and even due diligence is withdrawn.  The fix is in at the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary committee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no other witnesses and that is why you are an incredible dumbass!
> 
> Who exactly do you think the FBI is going to interview?  The so-called witnesses named in these allegations have already stated that Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick are all off their rockers!  Do you think they will suddenly come clean because an FBI agent asks them as opposed to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, you are the dumbest libtard on this board!
> 
> BTW, did you see that Swetnick was sued for sexual harassment by two coworkers?  That's some pot calling the kettle black!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Relevance?  Someone psychologically traumatized might engage in bizarre behavior; consider that children molested by same sex perverts often end up with pathological hate for homosexuals.
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is bizarre behavior.  Often victims of such trauma at an early age become homosexual because of it. There is a much higher rate of homosexuality in populations which have been abused because of that fact.

Not that I think your assessment is wrong. I'm sure it can go both ways(no pun intended). Someone molested by a homosexual might end up hating them just as much. I'm merely pointing out another likelihood. Originally, I misread your comment so I added this in as an edit.


----------



## Billy_Bob

And then to find out that it was only one person, The CFO, who made these claims and it was not the real Bar Association...

A lie from another far left wacko...


----------



## longknife

Wry Catcher said:


> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*



*As I posted before, THIS IS A LIE. A FAKE STORY*

*ABA Asking for Kavanaugh Delay a Fake*

Senate Judiciary on Twitter

In other words, the guy who wrote the letter didn’t have the authority to do so. But, that didn’t mean a thing to the NYT.

The article show the letters that state the ABA still considers him to be well-qualified for the Supreme Court.

More @ Wow. It turns out the American Bar Association story on Brett Kavanaugh was FAKE NEWS


----------



## The Purge

longknife said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As I posted before, THIS IS A LIE. A FAKE STORY*
> 
> *ABA Asking for Kavanaugh Delay a Fake*
> 
> Senate Judiciary on Twitter
> 
> In other words, the guy who wrote the letter didn’t have the authority to do so. But, that didn’t mean a thing to the NYT.
> 
> The article show the letters that state the ABA still considers him to be well-qualified for the Supreme Court.
> 
> More @ Wow. It turns out the American Bar Association story on Brett Kavanaugh was FAKE NEWS
Click to expand...


You mean the OP LIED to advance his agenda...shocking!


----------



## Jerico

longknife said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics
> 
> *Good for them!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As I posted before, THIS IS A LIE. A FAKE STORY*
> 
> *ABA Asking for Kavanaugh Delay a Fake*
> 
> Senate Judiciary on Twitter
> 
> In other words, the guy who wrote the letter didn’t have the authority to do so. But, that didn’t mean a thing to the NYT.
> 
> The article show the letters that state the ABA still considers him to be well-qualified for the Supreme Court.
> 
> More @ Wow. It turns out the American Bar Association story on Brett Kavanaugh was FAKE NEWS
Click to expand...



You mean to say that the left/democrats lied to further their agenda? I'm shocked! shocked I say!


----------



## Jerico

Report: Christine Blasey Ford's ex-boyfriend says she coached a friend on taking a polygraph, more

What do you know!

Where'd all the Ford defenders go?

Sure, he isn't under oath and has no evidence , but that hasn't stopped anybody from defending Ford so maybe the democrats can play fair for once and take this one at face value the same way they took Ford at face value.

Let's see if her ex BF will also file a sworn statement.

It's sort of a good thing Ford was lying about the Claustrophobia/one door thing, because I hear prison cells are very small and also have only one door.


----------

