Mark Judge, Key Witness To Alleged Brett Kavanaugh Assault, Refuses To Testify

[Ray From Cleveland]

He never denied handling them, he denied knowing where they came from and how. Big difference--no lie.

The subject line was "Spying" dunce

What subject line are you speaking of dope?

The subject line of the e-mails YOU were referring to friggin big mouthed moron

The subject line said stolen emails?

 

[hadit]

Doubt MSNBC will even mention this letter.


65 women who knew Brett Kavanaugh in high school defend his character
In light of allegations of sexual assault, 65 women say Kavanaugh always “treated women with respect.”

65 women who knew Brett Kavanaugh in high school defend his character

how convenient! In just a couple of days Kavanaugh's team found 65 girls he went to high school with and got these 65 women from 40 years ago to send this letter....

All 65 found all over the country, with different married last names, to sign this letter saying he was a gentleman to them?


LOOKS TO ME like this letter that Feinstein received, WAS NO SURPRISE to the Kavanaugh team and they EXPECTED IT!!!

And the last month or two, found these 65 WOMEN that he dated or knew in high school to get them to sign this letter...

this was NO SURPRISE to Kavanaugh....

THAT is for CERTAIN!!!

LOL, actually the surprise is that DIFI threw this hail mary to further wreck her crumbling career and reputation.

yeah yeah yeah....

THAT'S the right wing STORY....

But it is CLEARLY a lie, that Kavanaugh did NOT know about the woman's accusations made against him, to Feinstein.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for Kavenaugh to gather 65 high school sweethearts or friends from 40 years ago, with new married last names,

IN JUST 2 OR 3 DAYS!!!

IMPOSSIBLE!

Not If you've had deep background checks run on you. They knew the obsessive haters would dig for dirt in every stage of his life, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they have lists of everyone he's ever known.

I'm just surprised they haven't claimed he was flashing white power signs in the hospital nursery.

That is correct. A friend of mine has a son who wanted to be a state highway patrolman. They sent investigators to his parents house, to his neighbors within ten houses, interviewed every family member including cousins, aunts, uncles, went to all the schools he attended, visited every friend he ever had that they knew about.

I'm sure the background check for a judge is even more meticulous.

I agree. If there really was anything to this, it would have come out long ago.

 

[hadit]

I hope the GOP rushes this nomination. There is plenty left on the table to deal with Kavanaugh later. Meanwhile, the Senate will go Blue and the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves.

I hope they rush it through as well. Deal with him later? Deal what? It's her word against his. Apparently she never filed a police report, never filed charges, not one shred of evidence. So 35 years later, she decided to bring it up now; a leftist college professor?

If it's one thing about Democrats that's set in stone, it's they are liars and cheats. They can't stand losing fair and square.

Prediction: either way the vote goes, we hear nothing more from her. If the ploy works and he doesn't get confirmed, she outlives her usefulness and disappears. If it doesn't work, they don't want it really dug into and she disappears.

 

[Lesh]

Prediction: either way the vote goes, we hear nothing more from her. If the ploy works and he doesn't get confirmed, she outlives her usefulness and disappears. If it doesn't work, they don't want it really dug into and she disappears.

What a dumbass post

 

[hadit]

Prediction: either way the vote goes, we hear nothing more from her. If the ploy works and he doesn't get confirmed, she outlives her usefulness and disappears. If it doesn't work, they don't want it really dug into and she disappears.

What a dumbass post

It's inevitable given the history of these democrat smear attempts.

 

[Oldstyle]

If this turns out to be something made up...it will go down in American political history as one of the sleaziest attacks ever made upon someone.

If that's the case then it's doubly shameful because it's a woman, Diane Feinstein using the MeToo movement not against men who take advantage of women but as a political dirty trick.

How come to repubs all women molested assaulted raped ,,are liars and the scum ,like trump are innocent

Gee, Ed...why WOULD we be skeptical of Democrats these days? It's not like you used political dirty tricks in the last election! Oh, wait...that's right...you did! Well, at least the main stream media isn't biased! Oh, wait...that's right...they are!

Quite frankly...I'm growing tired of the same old game being played by the same old players.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I hope the GOP rushes this nomination. There is plenty left on the table to deal with Kavanaugh later. Meanwhile, the Senate will go Blue and the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves.

I hope they rush it through as well. Deal with him later? Deal what? It's her word against his. Apparently she never filed a police report, never filed charges, not one shred of evidence. So 35 years later, she decided to bring it up now; a leftist college professor?

If it's one thing about Democrats that's set in stone, it's they are liars and cheats. They can't stand losing fair and square.

Prediction: either way the vote goes, we hear nothing more from her. If the ploy works and he doesn't get confirmed, she outlives her usefulness and disappears. If it doesn't work, they don't want it really dug into and she disappears.

All they are trying to do is stall using this bimbo. If Kavanaugh is ousted, then they have to pick a new nominee and that could take them past the midterms before a final vote; their ultimate goal. If this doesn't work, it's the only shot they had at trying to stall this confirmation. They can then claim that the Kavanaugh nomination was done under scrutiny because they didn't do an investigation that lasted beyond midterms.

Democrats are born cheats and liars.

 

[hadit]

I hope the GOP rushes this nomination. There is plenty left on the table to deal with Kavanaugh later. Meanwhile, the Senate will go Blue and the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves.

I hope they rush it through as well. Deal with him later? Deal what? It's her word against his. Apparently she never filed a police report, never filed charges, not one shred of evidence. So 35 years later, she decided to bring it up now; a leftist college professor?

If it's one thing about Democrats that's set in stone, it's they are liars and cheats. They can't stand losing fair and square.

Prediction: either way the vote goes, we hear nothing more from her. If the ploy works and he doesn't get confirmed, she outlives her usefulness and disappears. If it doesn't work, they don't want it really dug into and she disappears.

All they are trying to do is stall using this bimbo. If Kavanaugh is ousted, then they have to pick a new nominee and that could take them past the midterms before a final vote; their ultimate goal. If this doesn't work, it's the only shot they had at trying to stall this confirmation. They can then claim that the Kavanaugh nomination was done under scrutiny because they didn't do an investigation that lasted beyond midterms.

Democrats are born cheats and liars.

They obviously didn't want to have another public Clarence Thomas type shut down of their smear attempt.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the record:

Read: Christine Blasey Ford’s letter detailing sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh

 

[DigitalDrifter]

When I started this thread, we had a vague and anonymous letter.
We now have a real person who has come out with the full story.

If she is telling the truth, do you excuse it ?

If he maintains his innocence, then just like with Clarence Thomas, the Senators should stick with their original yay or nay intention.

The day you given on to threats and accusations, is the day anarchists win. See you at the swearing in.

Let's get the truth.
She has said there was a third person in the room. We need that person, (if there really ever was one), to come forward and corroborate the story.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I started this thread, we had a vague and anonymous letter.
We now have a real person who has come out with the full story.

If she is telling the truth, do you excuse it ?

If he maintains his innocence, then just like with Clarence Thomas, the Senators should stick with their original yay or nay intention.

The day you given on to threats and accusations, is the day anarchists win. See you at the swearing in.

Let's get the truth.
She has said there was a third person in the room. We need that person, (if there really ever was one), to come forward and corroborate the story.

They may just have some other lib do that, you never know with crooks.

 

[Kilgore.t1]

says a lot, about your news sources, that you don't know that Bret was involved in using data stolen from dem senators during confirmation of bush appointees.
Then he testified under oath that he didn't.


Yep, the repugs are trying to seat a man on the SC who has no respect for the law.

That's why it should take 60 votes. We all know that this scumbag can't even get 51.

Wow - there are 65 women who can say that he didn't rape them.

No matter who he raped a few years back, he did most certainly lie while under oath - several times - all well documented

But you fake rule of law repugs turn a blind eye to putting someone on the SC who has no respect for the rule of law.

What did he lie about?

Really?

Using stolen data from dem senators

Involved in torture

Lied about roe v Wade being settled law


But it was mostly using the stolen data.


And there was way too many - I don't remember when it came to his pervert judge friend who had to step down

Everyone knew but little bret

What "stolen data" did he use? BTW, that wouldn't constitute lying.

Apparently you think being in the Bush administration means you were "involved in torture." That's how imbeciles think.

He expressed an opinion about Roe v. Wade. I know you think it should be illegal to disagree with the left, but nevertheless, it's not.

 

[hadit]

says a lot, about your news sources, that you don't know that Bret was involved in using data stolen from dem senators during confirmation of bush appointees.
Then he testified under oath that he didn't.


Yep, the repugs are trying to seat a man on the SC who has no respect for the law.

That's why it should take 60 votes. We all know that this scumbag can't even get 51.

Wow - there are 65 women who can say that he didn't rape them.

No matter who he raped a few years back, he did most certainly lie while under oath - several times - all well documented

But you fake rule of law repugs turn a blind eye to putting someone on the SC who has no respect for the rule of law.

What did he lie about?

Really?

Using stolen data from dem senators

Involved in torture

Lied about roe v Wade being settled law


But it was mostly using the stolen data.


And there was way too many - I don't remember when it came to his pervert judge friend who had to step down

Everyone knew but little bret

What "stolen data" did he use? BTW, that wouldn't constitute lying.

Apparently you think being in the Bush administration means you were "involved in torture." That's how imbeciles think.

He expressed an opinion about Roe v. Wade. I know you think it should be illegal to disagree with the left, but nevertheless, it's not.

You would think the opposition would have made something of that during the hearings, now wouldn't you? Guess they didn't think there was much there.

 

[edward37]

If this turns out to be something made up...it will go down in American political history as one of the sleaziest attacks ever made upon someone.

If that's the case then it's doubly shameful because it's a woman, Diane Feinstein using the MeToo movement not against men who take advantage of women but as a political dirty trick.

How come to repubs all women molested assaulted raped ,,are liars and the scum ,like trump are innocent

Gee, Ed...why WOULD we be skeptical of Democrats these days? It's not like you used political dirty tricks in the last election! Oh, wait...that's right...you did! Well, at least the main stream media isn't biased! Oh, wait...that's right...they are!

Quite frankly...I'm growing tired of the same old game being played by the same old players.

Old what you call bias couldn't just be the media with the support of business people see the hurt Trump is putting on America? And they're calling it like they see it ?? As for Trump I know you know what Perhaps you protest too much means and with all those ready to testify Trumps pants need changing

 

[edward37]

If this turns out to be something made up...it will go down in American political history as one of the sleaziest attacks ever made upon someone.

If that's the case then it's doubly shameful because it's a woman, Diane Feinstein using the MeToo movement not against men who take advantage of women but as a political dirty trick.

How come to repubs all women molested assaulted raped ,,are liars and the scum ,like trump are innocent

Gee, Ed...why WOULD we be skeptical of Democrats these days? It's not like you used political dirty tricks in the last election! Oh, wait...that's right...you did! Well, at least the main stream media isn't biased! Oh, wait...that's right...they are!

Quite frankly...I'm growing tired of the same old game being played by the same old players.

I'm a lot older than he is,,, I know 14 women This tripe knows 65?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If she testifies, everyone should just laugh and then confirm him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If she testifies, everyone should just laugh and then confirm him.

If she testifies, it will be under oath where she is facing a penalty of perjury if caught lying.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Kilgore.t1]

They did. Too bad republicans didn't care they have a person who lies under oath to Congress.

says a lot, about your news sources, that you don't know that Bret was involved in using data stolen from dem senators during confirmation of bush appointees.
Then he testified under oath that he didn't.


Yep, the repugs are trying to seat a man on the SC who has no respect for the law.

That's why it should take 60 votes. We all know that this scumbag can't even get 51.

Wow - there are 65 women who can say that he didn't rape them.

No matter who he raped a few years back, he did most certainly lie while under oath - several times - all well documented

But you fake rule of law repugs turn a blind eye to putting someone on the SC who has no respect for the rule of law.

What did he lie about?

Really?

Using stolen data from dem senators

Involved in torture

Lied about roe v Wade being settled law


But it was mostly using the stolen data.


And there was way too many - I don't remember when it came to his pervert judge friend who had to step down

Everyone knew but little bret

What "stolen data" did he use? BTW, that wouldn't constitute lying.

Apparently you think being in the Bush administration means you were "involved in torture." That's how imbeciles think.

He expressed an opinion about Roe v. Wade. I know you think it should be illegal to disagree with the left, but nevertheless, it's not.

You would think the opposition would have made something of that during the hearings, now wouldn't you? Guess they didn't think there was much there.

 

[Kilgore.t1]

Where were the penalties when Bret lied under oath for his current position?

Or when Beauregard lied under oath to Congress during his confirmation?

I guess y'all don't care so much when repugs break the law

If she testifies, everyone should just laugh and then confirm him.

If she testifies, it will be under oath where she is facing a penalty of perjury if caught lying.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where were the penalties when Bret lied under oath for his current position?

Or when Beauregard lied under oath to Congress during his confirmation?

I guess y'all don't care so much when repugs break the law

If she testifies, everyone should just laugh and then confirm him.

If she testifies, it will be under oath where she is facing a penalty of perjury if caught lying.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Because they didn’t lie perhaps.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com