Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Maryland authorities are offering cooperation to investigate if the victim files a claim now.
I don't know how they came to some sort of conclusion that something happened to this women (could have been made up in her own head), but they with no corelating evidence just bit it all hook line and sinker ?No, at least not according to the GOP. The position the GOP members take is that they believe "something happened" to Ford, just not Kavanaugh, or something like that. It's convoluted as hell, something I noted on Thursday when they were making the argument. Kavanaugh NEVER, not a single time during the hearing even hinted on that she was wasn't assaulted. The only thing he spoke to was that he didn't do it.Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible. Not one GOP member suggested she was not credible. The words used were compelling and credible if I'm not mistaken. Credible is another word for believable. Doesn't mean it's true, but simply believable.How does the word "credibly" get into this ?And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.Denying her allegations wasn't stating as much?Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible.
I'm curious as to why her and her husband,
are in couples counseling....
You'd be amazed at the lengths,
women will go to, to keep a man
This was the GOP's version of how they assessed what happened, just saying. If you listen to her testimony look at her body language there are only 2 possible conclusions. Either she is an actrice worthy of an Oscar, or she is telling the truth. These people recognized that I think.I don't know how they came to some sort of conclusion that something happened to this women (could have been made up in her own head), but they with no corelating evidence just bit it all hook line and sinker ?No, at least not according to the GOP. The position the GOP members take is that they believe "something happened" to Ford, just not Kavanaugh, or something like that. It's convoluted as hell, something I noted on Thursday when they were making the argument. Kavanaugh NEVER, not a single time during the hearing even hinted on that she was wasn't assaulted. The only thing he spoke to was that he didn't do it.Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible. Not one GOP member suggested she was not credible. The words used were compelling and credible if I'm not mistaken. Credible is another word for believable. Doesn't mean it's true, but simply believable.How does the word "credibly" get into this ?And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.Denying her allegations wasn't stating as much?Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible.
I'm curious as to why her and her husband,
are in couples counseling....
You'd be amazed at the lengths,
women will go to, to keep a man
She can't even get her friend Leland to vouch that the story was true, that it happened or any such important things as that, but she was to be believed ??
As all the scandals seem to be centred around sex, of one form or another; it leads me on to this:
5 American sex norms that Europeans will never understand
And with good reason. When it comes to physical intimacy, the U.S. is the land of the free, home of the crazed
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
Europeans tend to see a lot of American ideals and behaviors as bizarre. In particular, they aren’t wild about our politics and our food (though they love our television and our movies). And when it comes to sex? Well, Europeans tend to view us as the land of the free, home of the batshit crazy.
Below are some of the biggest sexual WTFs Europeans have about America.
5 American sex norms that Europeans will never understand
15 years ago he was...Because in sexual assault cases it often works like that. Look at it from the victims side. Someone assaults you when you are 15. You don't report him, like so many people don't. 30 Years later you see the president putting this guy on the shortlist for the Supreme Court as being particularly high qualified. I can imaging a now middle aged women being wronged in such a way being sufficiently angered by that development to speak up.Why now?
And not during the last 30 years?
That is the question.
assistant to the President (Bush)
White House Staff Secretary
and, nominated for the United States Court of Appeals.
His nomination was stalled in the Senate,
for nearly 3 fucking years
HE WAS THE PRINCIPAL AUTHOR OF THE STARR REPORT
HE WAS A KEY PLAYER DURING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST BILL CLINTON FOR HIS SEXUAL LIAISONS
WITH A WHITE HOUSE INTERN AND LYING ABOUT IT...
IF THERE WERE EVER A TIME TO SPEAK UP.....
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEN!
Please remove head from ass...please and thank you!
EXACTLY - WHERE WAS MRS.FORD AND HER CIVIC DUTY IN THE CASE OF MONICA LEWINSKY AND BILL CLINTON ?????? WHY DIDN'T SHE FEEL A NEED TO COME FOWARD IN THAT SITUATION ???? I MEAN IF KAVANAUGH WAS THIS SEX PREDATOR, AND HE WAS GOING AFTER MONICA AND BILL OVER THAT SITUATION WITH KEN STARR, YOU SURE AS HELL WOULD HAVE FIGURED THAT FORD WOULD HAVE DONE HER CIVIC DUTY BACK THEN.15 years ago he was...Because in sexual assault cases it often works like that. Look at it from the victims side. Someone assaults you when you are 15. You don't report him, like so many people don't. 30 Years later you see the president putting this guy on the shortlist for the Supreme Court as being particularly high qualified. I can imaging a now middle aged women being wronged in such a way being sufficiently angered by that development to speak up.Why now?
And not during the last 30 years?
That is the question.
assistant to the President (Bush)
White House Staff Secretary
and, nominated for the United States Court of Appeals.
His nomination was stalled in the Senate,
for nearly 3 fucking years
HE WAS THE PRINCIPAL AUTHOR OF THE STARR REPORT
HE WAS A KEY PLAYER DURING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST BILL CLINTON FOR HIS SEXUAL LIAISONS
WITH A WHITE HOUSE INTERN AND LYING ABOUT IT...
IF THERE WERE EVER A TIME TO SPEAK UP.....
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEN!
Please remove head from ass...please and thank you!
Maryland authorities are offering cooperation to investigate if the victim files a claim now.
Of course, and she will, to ensue it is delayed and never goes forward. Unless, the government decided to vote contingent on him being cleared of these allegations.
All politics folks, and you're nation is at risk. I only hope if he is cleared he can counter sue and demand she and her lawyers face prison time. They've made this all about politics, Rights be damned.
Lol please give me the name of 3 prosecutors in the Mueller probe, without looking it up on google? I can't. Name 4 people on the United States court of appeals without looking it up? Give me the name of the Deputy assistant press secretary in the Trump administration? Now give me the name of the people on the Supreme court? In terms of exposure and job importance the Supreme Court blows these other positions out of the water . Not only that but discounting that rage can and does usually builds up and it's hard to predict what is the straw that breaks the camels back for anyone seems a bit weird.15 years ago he was...Because in sexual assault cases it often works like that. Look at it from the victims side. Someone assaults you when you are 15. You don't report him, like so many people don't. 30 Years later you see the president putting this guy on the shortlist for the Supreme Court as being particularly high qualified. I can imaging a now middle aged women being wronged in such a way being sufficiently angered by that development to speak up.Why now?
And not during the last 30 years?
That is the question.
assistant to the President (Bush)
White House Staff Secretary
and, nominated for the United States Court of Appeals.
His nomination was stalled in the Senate,
for nearly 3 fucking years
HE WAS THE PRINCIPAL AUTHOR OF THE STARR REPORT
HE WAS A KEY PLAYER DURING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST BILL CLINTON FOR HIS SEXUAL LIAISONS
WITH A WHITE HOUSE INTERN AND LYING ABOUT IT...
IF THERE WERE EVER A TIME TO SPEAK UP.....
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEN!
Please remove head from ass...please and thank you!
You are suggesting that, she wasn't aware of,Lol please give me the name of 3 prosecutors in the Mueller probe, without looking it up on google? I can't. Name 4 people on the United States court of appeals without looking it up? Give me the name of the Deputy assistant press secretary in the Trump administration? Now give me the name of the people on the Supreme court?
Excuse me but...her reasoning for coming forward,Not only that but discounting that rage can and does usually builds up and it's hard to predict what is the straw that breaks the camels back for anyone seems a bit weird
Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible. Not one GOP member suggested she was not credible. The words used were compelling and credible if I'm not mistaken. Credible is another word for believable. Doesn't mean it's true, but simply believable.How does the word "credibly" get into this ?And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.Denying her allegations wasn't stating as much?Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible.
I'm curious as to why her and her husband,
are in couples counseling....
You'd be amazed at the lengths,
women will go to, to keep a man
i dont view the accusation as credible.And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.100% agree and good point.Ah so you like this political bare knuckle fighting better? At some point someone needs to take responsibility for stopping this cycle of," they do this, so we do that."im not about to reward their behavior.-First the Biden Rule. Biden made a speech 3 months later in the election year then when Scalia's seat was opened. There was NO opening at the time. It wasn't a self serving speech. It was in fact a reaction to the Clarence Thomas nomination. It's simply an excuse that Mcconell used to justify holding the seat. In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year. In fact you will not find a SINGLE instance were Democrats held up a SCOTUS nomination for even half as long as the GOP did.when have the liberals followed their own rules when the repubs did it "in return"?
the biden rule. lame duck cant nominate. when done to obama "this is different". right did bullshit in return following a left rule.
nuclear option.
and now all this.
-The nuclear option was the other example. I actually think it was a bad precedent. On the other hand the GOP made it clear in no uncertain terms that if Obama wanted judges in the courts he would have to do it over their dead bodies.
- This thing is an entirely different beast. Again Democrats did NOT make the accusation. Someone else did. Wether or not you believe her is one matter. But asserting that it is unfair seems again self serving.
- You know, I have been thinking about this and I have actually a pretty good idea.Pull Kavanaugh, Trump nominates Garland. Democrats if they win restore the filibuster for all judicial nominees and the balance will be restored.
but if this were done, to me, validates their behavior and they will do it again.
This was the GOP's version of how they assessed what happened, just saying. If you listen to her testimony look at her body language there are only 2 possible conclusions. Either she is an actrice worthy of an Oscar, or she is telling the truth. These people recognized that I think.I don't know how they came to some sort of conclusion that something happened to this women (could have been made up in her own head), but they with no corelating evidence just bit it all hook line and sinker ?No, at least not according to the GOP. The position the GOP members take is that they believe "something happened" to Ford, just not Kavanaugh, or something like that. It's convoluted as hell, something I noted on Thursday when they were making the argument. Kavanaugh NEVER, not a single time during the hearing even hinted on that she was wasn't assaulted. The only thing he spoke to was that he didn't do it.Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible. Not one GOP member suggested she was not credible. The words used were compelling and credible if I'm not mistaken. Credible is another word for believable. Doesn't mean it's true, but simply believable.How does the word "credibly" get into this ?Denying her allegations wasn't stating as much?Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible.
I'm curious as to why her and her husband,
are in couples counseling....
You'd be amazed at the lengths,
women will go to, to keep a man
She can't even get her friend Leland to vouch that the story was true, that it happened or any such important things as that, but she was to be believed ??
You have that backwards....If you listen to her testimony look at her body language there are only 2 possible conclusions. Either she is an actrice worthy of an Oscar, or she is telling the truth. These people recognized that I think.
See this is were you lose me. I can understand the assertion that her account is unsubstantiated, but incredible? What makes her account unbelievable?i dont view the accusation as credible.And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.100% agree and good point.Ah so you like this political bare knuckle fighting better? At some point someone needs to take responsibility for stopping this cycle of," they do this, so we do that."im not about to reward their behavior.-First the Biden Rule. Biden made a speech 3 months later in the election year then when Scalia's seat was opened. There was NO opening at the time. It wasn't a self serving speech. It was in fact a reaction to the Clarence Thomas nomination. It's simply an excuse that Mcconell used to justify holding the seat. In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year. In fact you will not find a SINGLE instance were Democrats held up a SCOTUS nomination for even half as long as the GOP did.
-The nuclear option was the other example. I actually think it was a bad precedent. On the other hand the GOP made it clear in no uncertain terms that if Obama wanted judges in the courts he would have to do it over their dead bodies.
- This thing is an entirely different beast. Again Democrats did NOT make the accusation. Someone else did. Wether or not you believe her is one matter. But asserting that it is unfair seems again self serving.
- You know, I have been thinking about this and I have actually a pretty good idea.Pull Kavanaugh, Trump nominates Garland. Democrats if they win restore the filibuster for all judicial nominees and the balance will be restored.
but if this were done, to me, validates their behavior and they will do it again.
Trumptard pouts cuz it is all so unfair.As long as necessaryagain? The FBI can be asked by the President to vet and investigate. You're throwing around talking pints meant to deflectSo you are saying the FBI can just up and investigate someone breaking a State law (which is what Kavenaugh is accused of) without the permission of the State law enforcement?
It's not a Red Herring, it's how things work.
The FBI investigates federal crimes, crimes across State lines (which usually become federal crimes), can be invited by Local law enforcement to assist. At most otherwise they can come in when local law enforcement is doing their jobs (watch Mississippi Burning for that) but even then that falls under the category of federal crimes.
question: What would be so wrong with asking the president to allow the FBI to look into this?
and if then find nothing, what them? How long to we give them to investigate something that is based on one person's claims and that there is no evidence or corroborating testimony?
so you admit that this was never about "finding the truth" it was always about delaying the vote in hopes that the dems could take the senate in novermber and block all further Trump nominees? At least you are honest about it, unlike the dems on the committee
See this is were you lose me. I can understand the assertion that her account is unsubstantiated, but incredible? What makes her account unbelievable?i dont view the accusation as credible.And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.100% agree and good point.Ah so you like this political bare knuckle fighting better? At some point someone needs to take responsibility for stopping this cycle of," they do this, so we do that."im not about to reward their behavior.
but if this were done, to me, validates their behavior and they will do it again.
Don't she have masters in sycology etc ??This was the GOP's version of how they assessed what happened, just saying. If you listen to her testimony look at her body language there are only 2 possible conclusions. Either she is an actrice worthy of an Oscar, or she is telling the truth. These people recognized that I think.I don't know how they came to some sort of conclusion that something happened to this women (could have been made up in her own head), but they with no corelating evidence just bit it all hook line and sinker ?No, at least not according to the GOP. The position the GOP members take is that they believe "something happened" to Ford, just not Kavanaugh, or something like that. It's convoluted as hell, something I noted on Thursday when they were making the argument. Kavanaugh NEVER, not a single time during the hearing even hinted on that she was wasn't assaulted. The only thing he spoke to was that he didn't do it.Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible. Not one GOP member suggested she was not credible. The words used were compelling and credible if I'm not mistaken. Credible is another word for believable. Doesn't mean it's true, but simply believable.How does the word "credibly" get into this ?Denying her allegations wasn't stating as much?Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible.
I'm curious as to why her and her husband,
are in couples counseling....
You'd be amazed at the lengths,
women will go to, to keep a man
She can't even get her friend Leland to vouch that the story was true, that it happened or any such important things as that, but she was to be believed ??
You should use your own adviceDr. Ford's testimony was infallable
Infallible? Seriously?
I don’t even know what to say to such blatant (wilfull?) idiocy!
You're not on a FOX NEWS facebook page here. This is a political board with big boys and girls, and talking in platitudes will get you nowhere. Be specific about what you are talking about.
