Stand With Brett Kavanaugh

[LordBrownTrout]

And the latest: He gang raped me. Lol .

 

[Defiant1]

No hearing for Garland because ? nomination 237 days before an election.
Now rushing to confirm Kavanaugh 49 days before an election?
And you dare to call that fair.

Different election. Do you think we are stupid?

 

[jc456]

And the latest: He gang raped me. Lol .

yeah cause that sounds believable right? gang rape and not reported. yeah, sure, I got a bridge over here for you! the 4chan punk!!! avanetti. I love it.

 

[blackhawk]

Let’s look at these allegations one woman can’t tell us exactly when or where her alleged assault took place the second admits she was drunk and has gaps on her memory she can’t fill in and the people they have said are witnesses either don’t recall the events being claimed or deny outright they happened. That’s about as thin as gets if there was any kind of actual evidence to support these claims this would be a very different story.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The larger issue with Kavanaugh is that he refusing to admit that the incident ever happened - despite some pretty convincing evidence that it did.

That means he's lying under oath - committing perjury. He should not only be denied the SCOTUS seat, but should be removed from the bench entirely and disbarred.

If he would have man'd up, admitted what he had done and apologized to Dr. Ford, it would have been somewhat reasonable for the Senate to put him on SCOTUS - and write off his actions from 36 years ago as a youthful mistake.

But perjury under oath in these confirmation hearings is UNFORGIVABLE!

there is no evidence Kavanaugh did anything at all. He's right. This is like a twilight zone of democrat lies.

 

[JWBooth]

And the latest: He gang raped me. Lol .

You too. Horny little bastard isn't he?

 

[Care4all]

Indeed. When the Chief Accuser provides no corroborating evidence and insists that she testify AFTER the accused, it smells like a political hit job.

FYI

in a criminal trial,

the 'accused/defendant', never goes last...

the 'accuser/prosecutor' always goes last, has the last spot in closing arguments of a trial.

Closing arguments order:
accuser/accused/accuser or prosecutor/defendant/prosecutor

mainly because it is the prosecutor's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt....and the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

So it is not unreasonable for the accuser to go last, but this is when there is 3 shots of arguments...

in this case there is only two shots... she should go first imo.

 

[chops_]

There is only one thing these women have in common:

They both have an agenda. To chastise Kavanaugh's character and nomination to be the next SCOTUS. They both have "told" stories that have many holes. They can't even remember the most important details of why they are trying to discredit Kavanaugh's ability to be a federal judge. And they are all part of this vile #MeToo movement. Not to mention, they are coming out (of the woodwork) thirty-five years later.

That has to tell you that these women know absolutely NOTHING.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Indeed. When the Chief Accuser provides no corroborating evidence and insists that she testify AFTER the accused, it smells like a political hit job.

/—-/ A woman attends 10 parties where women are drugged, boozed then train raped. And she does nothing to stop it, call the police - nothing then waits 37 years to say something. Yeah that’s credible

 

[Meister]

No hearing for Garland because ? nomination 237 days before an election.
Now rushing to confirm Kavanaugh 49 days before an election?
And you dare to call that fair.

Garland wasn't going to have the votes.

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. When the Chief Accuser provides no corroborating evidence and insists that she testify AFTER the accused, it smells like a political hit job.

FYI

in a criminal trial,

the 'accused/defendant', never goes last...

the 'accuser/prosecutor' always goes last, has the last spot in closing arguments of a trial.

Closing arguments order:
accuser/accused/accuser or prosecutor/defendant/prosecutor

mainly because it is the prosecutor's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt....and the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

So it is not unreasonable for the accuser to go last, but this is when there is 3 shots of arguments...

in this case there is only two shots... she should go first imo.

The case against the defendant is presented before the case for defense is presented. So, Ford should testify before Kavanaugh. This is a basic concept in due process.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And the latest: He gang raped me. Lol .

You too. Horny little bastard isn't he?

I can't recall any names, faces, time, year, where I was, but I can just feel that it was kavanaugh.

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. When the Chief Accuser provides no corroborating evidence and insists that she testify AFTER the accused, it smells like a political hit job.

/—-/ A woman attends 10 parties where women are drugged, boozed then train raped. And she does nothing to stop it, call the police - nothing then waits 37 years to say something. Yeah that’s credible

It's odious to think that an adult woman would stand around partying while she knew underage girls were being raped...and did absolutely nothing to stop it (i.e. call the frelling police).

 

[bodecea]

Juanita Broaddrick (alleged survivor of Bill Clinton rape) slams Brett Kavanaugh accusers. Juanita Broaddrick is one of many women who have accused Bill Clinton of rape (and didn't wait ~30 years to come forward with the accusation). She explains what happened on April 25, 1978, when Bill Clinton allegedly raped her. She then explains why the Kavanaugh accusers are not credible and have not produced a single shred of evidence.

I remember when Broderick, UNDER OATH, testified that Clinton did not rape her. Don't you remember?

 

[JWBooth]

And the latest: He gang raped me. Lol .

You too. Horny little bastard isn't he?

I can't recall any names, faces, time, year, where I was, but I can just feel that it was kavanaugh.

Well it was the 80's. This guy comes to mind:

He could be could be confused for the Judge and there is enough of a similarity in appearance to explain all these accusations.
Who knew that Trump was nominating Steve Dallas' alter ego?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Let’s look at these allegations one woman can’t tell us exactly when or where her alleged assault took place the second admits she was drunk and has gaps on her memory she can’t fill in and the people they have said are witnesses either don’t recall the events being claimed or deny outright they happened. That’s about as thin as gets if there was any kind of actual evidence to support these claims this would be a very different story.

Its comedy gold.

 

[boedicca]

Juanita Broaddrick (alleged survivor of Bill Clinton rape) slams Brett Kavanaugh accusers. Juanita Broaddrick is one of many women who have accused Bill Clinton of rape (and didn't wait ~30 years to come forward with the accusation). She explains what happened on April 25, 1978, when Bill Clinton allegedly raped her. She then explains why the Kavanaugh accusers are not credible and have not produced a single shred of evidence.

I remember when Broderick, UNDER OATH, testified that Clinton did not rape her. Don't you remember?

And she is on the record both before and after the affidavit (with a corroborating witness), that the rape did happen.

She didn't want to get involved with the Paula Jones litigation as she was afraid of the Clintons. She later recanted her affidavit.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And the latest: He gang raped me. Lol .

You too. Horny little bastard isn't he?

I can't recall any names, faces, time, year, where I was, but I can just feel that it was kavanaugh.

Well it was the 80's. This guy comes to mind:

He could be could be confused for the Judge and there is enough of a similarity in appearance to explain all these accusations.

Thats the missing piece.

 

[JBvM]

Stand With Brett Kavanaugh
And not with the lying POS

"Stand With Brett Kavanaugh!"

It's what I hear the line of young men were saying at a few of those parties

 

[Care4all]

Indeed. When the Chief Accuser provides no corroborating evidence and insists that she testify AFTER the accused, it smells like a political hit job.

FYI

in a criminal trial,

the 'accused/defendant', never goes last...

the 'accuser/prosecutor' always goes last, has the last spot in closing arguments of a trial.

Closing arguments order:
accuser/accused/accuser or prosecutor/defendant/prosecutor

mainly because it is the prosecutor's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt....and the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

So it is not unreasonable for the accuser to go last, but this is when there is 3 shots of arguments...

in this case there is only two shots... she should go first imo.

The case against the defendant is presented before the case for defense is presented. So, Ford should testify before Kavanaugh. This is a basic concept in due process.

i agree and agreed above... and this is not a criminal trial where the prosecutor gets the last shot....

if there was a third shot then she would go first, and last.

 

[Meister]

Indeed. When the Chief Accuser provides no corroborating evidence and insists that she testify AFTER the accused, it smells like a political hit job.

FYI

in a criminal trial,

the 'accused/defendant', never goes last...

the 'accuser/prosecutor' always goes last, has the last spot in closing arguments of a trial.

Closing arguments order:
accuser/accused/accuser or prosecutor/defendant/prosecutor

mainly because it is the prosecutor's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt....and the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

So it is not unreasonable for the accuser to go last, but this is when there is 3 shots of arguments...

in this case there is only two shots... she should go first imo.

Ummmm, The prosecution has to lay it's case against the defense, Care.